asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy whether it is intended to impose an embargo on the further export of zinc and lead ore from Tara mines until appropriate steps are taken for the provision of adequate smelting facilities in this country.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mining Operations.
29.
The answer to the Deputy's question is "No". Apart from other considerations an embargo on the export of ore by Tara Mines Limited would result in loss of employment for many hundreds of people who are employed at the mine and in associated activities.
I would inform the Deputy, however, that obligations have been imposed on Tara Mines Limited and on Bula Limited to supply the concentrate requirements of an Irish smelter.
30.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he will indicate his plans for the Navan ore body; and how he sees the working relationship between the two mining companies there, Tara Mines Limited and Bula Mines.
The two mining companies have legal rights to develop their respective portions of the Navan orebody and the manner in which they are doing, or plan to do, this is primarily a matter for them. These rights are, of course, subject to the terms of the lease and agreements to which I am a party and subject also to planning and other statutory requirements.
At the present time, and particularly in view of the fact that one of the companies has not yet obtained planning permission for its mining development, it is not feasible to suggest the kind of working relationship between the two operators which would be most appropriate. The fullest co-operation between them is clearly desirable in the national interest and I will do what I can to promote such co-operation.
Has the Minister been in contact with either or one of the two companies, or with both of them, about this matter? Have any communications been formally sent to the two companies about this matter?
My Department are constantly in communication with both companies. As I have explained in the reply, the question of their co-operating in their mining operations will not arise until both of them are actually mining, or in a position to mine. As the Deputy is aware, one of the companies, as I have already pointed out, has not yet got planning permission. Therefore, there is no way in which any scheme of co-operation could be implemented at this time.
Surely the Minister will agree that, because factors about such operations are important in the granting of permission, now is the time, before planning permission has been granted, for his Department to communicate whatever viewpoint the Government have on this matter rather than waiting until the permission has been granted?
As I am sure the Deputy will appreciate, the difficulty is that until planning permission is granted we do not know, first of all, whether one of the companies will ever get permission to mine and, secondly, we do not know under what conditions it will get permission to mine. As I understand it, the application is for opencast mining. If it gets permission to mine but not to carry on opencast mining the situation is radically different from what this company envisaged or appears to envisage in its earlier days. The question of co-operation would have to be looked at then in a very different light. It is only right to point out to the Deputy that there are conditions in relation to co-operation in the agreement with one of the companies and in the lease with the other company. Certainly the conditions in regard to co-operation in the agreement with the company which has not yet got planning permission are not very helpful from the point of view of enabling the State to insist on reasonable co-operation because there are a number of areas or headings where the right of the State to ask for co-operation is specifically excluded.
Has the Minister's Department got a definite point of view as to what form of co-operation should take place in the interests of this orebody as of now, and has that viewpoint been communicated to those companies?
The Department cannot form a final, definitive viewpoint on co-operation until they know what manner of mining will be permitted, if any at all, to one of the companies.
31.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy the steps, if any, that will be taken in respect of the public management and operation of the Bula Mines.
I do not at the present time contemplate any steps towards additional State involvement in the management and operation of the Bula project.
In view of what the Minister has just said, there may be very good reasons.
If I had the last four years all over again, many things that happened would not have happened and we would not have these problems today.
32.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if a company (name supplied) has applied for and been granted mineral exploration rights in Ireland.
The company in question does not hold prospecting licences in this country but subsidiary interests of the company hold 42 prospecting licences either in their own right or jointly with another company. Particulars of prospecting licences granted are set out in reports which are prepared by my Department and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
33.
andMr. Mitchell asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he has had any consulations with the ministerially appointed directors of Tara Mines Limited in relation to the winding down of mining operations at Tara Mines; and if he proposes to take any other action in the matter.
I have been kept informed of developments about the company's operations through the State directors on the board and by direct contacts with the company. At the present time I do not see that any specific action by me would contribute to a solution of the problems at the mine.
Is the Minister aware that the situation in Navan is very serious for the whole of County Meath and that the layoffs taking place are adding to an already serious unemployment problem in the town? Has the Minister had any personal consulations with the directors of Tara Mines Ltd and if not why not?
I have already made a telephone call to the secretary of the company concerned. We discussed aspects of this matter and yesterday I received a full letter from the chief executive setting out the background to their present problems. I feel the company have, therefore, kept me fully informed of the situation as they see it.
I realise that this is a delicate matter and I do not wish to press the Minister unduly but in view of the fact that the Minister is a shareholder in the company will he state if he has made any specific suggestions to either side as to how this difficulty could be resolved?
It is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with by the management of the company and the trade unions concerned. Because I am a shareholder I do not think I have any special right or obligation to intervene in a trade dispute. I do not think that is a right that accrues in general to shareholders of companies. I do not think I would be acting properly and fairly to both sides if I were to use my position as a shareholder to intervene in it.
Is the Minister suggesting that as a Minister of State holding equity on behalf of the Irish Government he is in the same position as an ordinary shareholder who invests in the company? There is a very obvious difference there.
I am not prepared to intervene in trade disputes between companies and trade unions simply because the State has a shareholding in the company. The management should be allowed to deal with the matter.
The Minister stated that he made a phone call to the secretary of the company involved and I should like to know if he made that phone call after Deputy Bruton tabled this question?
No.
Before?
Before.