Minerals Development Bill 2015 [Seanad]: Second Stage

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (Deputy Seán Kyne)

I am very pleased to present the Minerals Development Bill 2015 for the consideration of the House. The Bill was initiated in the Seanad and has passed all Stages in that House. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, my predecessor in this role, for his stewardship of the Bill through the Seanad.

Baineann cumas láidir le geolaíocht ilghnéitheach na hÉireann nuair a aimsítear fosaithe breise barainneacha mianraí. Tá córas rialacháin ann do gach céim ó thaiscéalaíocht go forbairt mianraí, san áireamh tá pleanáil le haghaidh dúnadh agus feabhsú mianach. Tá sé seo an-tábhachtach agus tugann sé muinín san earnáil dom. Déantar athchóiriú agus uasdátú ar an gcód sin sa reachtaíocht nua seo.

The Bill will provide a modem regulatory regime for exploration and development of minerals, whether in State or private ownership. In doing so, it will repeal a suite of Acts dating from the 1940s and replace them with fit-for-purpose, streamlined legislation.

Before providing Members with the specific objectives of the Bill and an overview of the various elements I will set out some background to the minerals sector in Ireland and the existing legislation regulating it. Minerals exploration and development is currently regulated through the Minerals Development Acts 1940 to 1999. The exploration for economic deposits of minerals is carried out under prospecting licences administered by my Department. The mining of any such deposit requires a State mining lease in the case of State minerals or a State mining licence for privately-owned minerals, which is also administered by my Department. Exploration and mining are undertaken by private companies, although the Bill empowers the State to undertake prospecting.

Ireland is one of the leading zinc and lead mining countries in the world and continues to attract high levels of exploration interest and investment. In 2013, a report was produced by independent economic consultants Indecon Limited. The consultants assessed the contribution of the minerals sector to the Irish economy. Focussing on the year 2012, when there were still three operating zinc and lead mines - there is one now - the consultants made a number of key findings. For zinc metal in concentrate, Ireland was ranked Europe's largest producer and the tenth largest in the world. For lead metal in concentrate in the same year, Ireland was ranked Europe's third largest producer and 12th in the world. In 2012, the direct output value of mining in Ireland amounted to €426 million. Exploration and mining companies contributed a total of €56 million in taxes to the Exchequer. The State also benefitted from payments made by mining and prospecting licence holders in the form of royalties, licence fees and payments - this amounted to €9 million - as well as from indirect taxes and revenues. Exploration and mining activity supported over 1,300 jobs directly during the same period, with a further 1,900 supported indirectly. Notably, the jobs are in different parts of the country, as mining is a regional activity. This demonstrates a broad contribution to the economy, estimated at over €800 million when the direct and indirect impacts of the wages and salaries of workers as well as the exploration expenditure of the companies are taken into account. Coupled with the support of over 3,000 jobs that are provided on a broad regional basis, this clearly shows the importance of the sector and its vital economic contribution.

Given the significance of the industry, it is important to have in place a legislative framework that continues to attract investment. Therefore, the development of a single national system for regulating mineral exploration and clarity on the ownership of mineral rights are vital.

Currently, the minerals industry is regulated by the Minerals Development Acts comprising five statutes: the Minerals Development Act 1940; Part III of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960; the Minerals Development Act 1979; the Minerals Development Act 1995; and the Minerals Development Act 1999. These Acts incorporated provision for regulating minerals prospecting and development, a statutory vesting of the exclusive right to work minerals in the Minister, subject to the payment of compensation; acquisition of other rights necessary for efficient development of minerals, subject to payment of compensation and payment to the State of rents and royalties from the extraction of minerals.

The Bill will replace that suite of legislation, which dates back as far as 1940, with modem streamlined statutory provisions. The existing legislation is extensive and hence we now have what I believe to be a comprehensive Bill, with a total of 251 sections.

I am keen to make some comments on the scope of the Bill to be clear on what it does and does not cover. First, the minerals referred to in the Bill do not include water, stone, sand, gravel, clay, turf, peat or topsoil. Second, the Bill does not cover oil and gas, as the exploration and development of petroleum are regulated under separate legislation. Therefore, issues such as hydraulic fracturing or fracking are outside the scope of this Bill. In fact, hydraulic fracturing is not a technique used either in prospecting or mining for minerals. Third, Deputies should be aware that in respect of environmental regulation of mining, the Environmental Protection Agency and local authorities play a key role. Nevertheless, the Bill does take appropriate account of environmental matters, in particular, the need to address obligations under the Aarhus Convention, which has been ratified by Ireland. The Aarhus Convention concerns access to information on the environment, public participation in environmental decision making and access to justice in that context. The implications of the convention for exploration and mining were carefully considered in close consultation with the Attorney General's office and the provisions have been drafted accordingly. Finally, the Bill covers the mining of minerals. This refers to the extraction, or the development, of mineral deposits. In the Bill this activity is also referred to as "working".

The proposed legislation is built around a number of key objectives. The first is to produce a modern regulatory regime for exploration and development of State minerals. The second is to provide for regulating, in accordance with the principles of social justice, the exercise of private rights over minerals and ancillary rights, while reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. The third is to provide for the continued vesting in the Minister the exclusive right of working, selling or otherwise disposing of private minerals that are not in the course of development, subject to payment of fair compensation. The fourth is to provide for preparation and implementation of rehabilitation plans for abandoned mine sites.

In modernising the legislative code applicable to the minerals sector, a number of key changes would be introduced. These include changes in respect of the procedures for compulsory acquisition of ancillary surface rights, the basis for calculation of rents and royalties and the basis for payment of compensation in respect of private minerals. The Bill will provide for greater transparency and predetermination of financial terms. It will streamline the permitting process and bring other aspects of the regulation of the minerals sector into line with best practice, having due regard to the constitutional protection of property.

The Long Title of the Bill is: "An Act to make further and better provision for the development of minerals in the State and for that purpose to repeal the Minerals Company Acts 1941 to 1950 and certain provisions of the Minerals Development Acts 1940 to 1999, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to provide for related matters."

I will outline a summary of the main provisions. The Bill is divided into eight Parts. I will provide an overview of each Part.

Part 1 provides standard provisions, including Short Title, commencement arrangements, scope and interpretation. It provides that the Bill will apply to all minerals within the State or within designated areas of the continental shelf and that, for the purposes of the Bill, as in previous legislation, minerals do not include stone, sand, gravel or clay, turf or peat or petroleum.

Part 2 relates to prospecting. This Part addresses the administrative practice for prospecting licences from application to surrender, including public notice and consultation prior to issuing of licences. It also covers payment of compensation for damage or nuisance arising from prospecting activity. It introduces a new type of licence, known as a retention licence. This is relevant where a prospecting licenceholder has discovered a mineral resource that cannot, for the time being, be worked due to a need to address access issues, environmental concerns or other matters. This part also provides for the Minister, in assessing the public interest of an application, to take into account the economic benefits to the region, as well as the environmental impact of the proposed exploration programme. It provides for making regulations setting out conditions for a prospecting or retention licence. A new requirement covers the manner in which prior written consent will be required for boreholes, trenching and bulk sampling. Airborne geophysical surveying is a matter for the civil aviation authorities but provision is made to require prior notice of such surveys and the submission of data.

Part 3 relates to working minerals. The Minerals Development Act 1979 vested in the Minister the exclusive right to work minerals, with the exception of a small number of existing mines in operation at the time. It also provided for granting of that right to third parties under licence, subject to the payment of compensation to the mineral owners. These arrangements will be continued under the Bill. It has long been stated policy that an application for a permit to mine will only be accepted from holders of a current valid prospecting licence over the relevant area. This will now have a statutory basis. The main thrust of the changes in this area relate to eliminating the difference between State and private minerals from the development perspective, providing greater predetermination and clarity of terms, financial and non-financial. Previously, the Statute Book provided for leases to extract State minerals and licences for private minerals. Now, there will be a single instrument, to be known as a mining licence.

Part 4 relates to ancillary rights. To extract minerals safely and efficiently, it is necessary to carry out a variety of other activities. These are referred to as ancillary rights. Existing legislation provides that the holder of a State mining lease or licence is entitled to enter on the land on or under where such minerals lie and use such land in such manner as may be reasonably necessary for the working of such minerals or for any purpose incidental thereto.

This gives too broad a scope by today's standards. Current legislation also provides for compulsory acquisition of land and rights over land necessary for efficient working of minerals. The Bill will clarify rights necessary for working minerals and divide them into ancillary underground rights and ancillary surface rights for licences issued. It will also bring the compulsory acquisition procedures into line with modern best practice. I consider it necessary to have these compulsory powers in place, even though they are rarely, if ever, used.

Part 5 deals with rehabilitation. It is based on Part 9 of the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 and deals only with orphan legacy sites. It is the responsibility of current mine operators to properly close and rehabilitate sites when activity ceases. Mine operations, through the planning process, are subject to environmental impact assessment which requires detailed closure plans with financial sureties to fund their implementation, aftercare, monitoring and maintenance. Part 5 provides that, in certain circumstances, the Minister, having consulted the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, may designate a former mine site or adjacent land as a rehabilitation area. The Minister may only designate such a site where a mine has been abandoned or where operations have permanently ceased and it is necessary for the safety of the public or animals or to address major environmental damage.

Once an area is designated as a rehabilitation area, the Minister may develop or adopt a rehabilitation plan and implement it or authorise a local authority or the Environmental Protection Agency to do so. This does not affect any obligation of former lessees or licensees who had been responsible for the mine site, owners or occupiers of sites, or any other person who may have obligations. The Minister may recover through the courts any expenditure incurred in the implementation of the plan. The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, acquire private land, either by agreement or compulsorily, for the purpose of implementing a rehabilitation plan. The Minister must undertake a public consultation process before making a rehabilitation acquisition order. If considered appropriate, the Minister may appoint a hearing officer to hold an oral hearing to evaluate objections.

Part 6 deals with the Mining Board. The Mining Board has been in existence since it was established under the Minerals Development Act 1940 and adjudicates on various issues arising under the Acts, including compensation for private mineral owners. This Part provides for the continuation of the board which consists of a chairperson and two ordinary members appointed by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister. The chairperson shall be a practising barrister or solicitor of at least ten years standing. Each ordinary member shall be a property arbitrator under the Property Values (Arbitrations and Appeals) Act 1960. The provisions relating to the board are being updated in line with current best practice. New provisions in the area of ethics are provided in line with current legislation regarding other statutory boards.

Part 7 deals with enforcement and miscellaneous matters. This Part mainly contains standard provisions, restated or updated where necessary. Penalties in respect of offences such as unlawful prospecting or working of minerals are brought up to date in line with current practice. Injunctive powers are being provided for continuing offences and in a case where the Minister might be prevented from undertaking rehabilitation work. Provision is being made for the appointment of inspectors to enforce the Bill. A requirement to notify the Minister of boreholes drilled for reasons other than prospecting or mining is a restatement of existing provisions in the 1940 Act. The vesting in respect of intellectual property rights in the Minister relating to the processing of data collected under the Minerals Development Acts and the Bill is also provided for. This Part also deals with the registration of minerals that were exempt from the statutory vesting under the 1979 Act and other miscellaneous matters.

Part 8 relates to transitional provisions, repeals and consequential amendments. It provides for various transitional arrangements, including the continuation of any licence granted under previous Acts on the terms under which it was granted until renewed under the revised legislation. Applications for prospecting licences or mining leases and licences made before enactment of the Bill will be deemed to be for licences under the Bill, unless the Minister has already given notice of his intention to grant a licence. Chapter 2 sets out the Acts which will be repealed by the Bill, while Chapter 3 lists amendments to other Acts as a consequence of the Bill.

The Schedule contains a list of substances which, for certainty, are included within the definition of minerals. The list is not exhaustive as the definition of minerals contained in section 2 describes the term as meaning all substances, including scheduled minerals. It may, therefore, allow other substances to be defined as minerals. There was a similar Schedule to the 1940 Act which has been reviewed with some additions and deletions. For example, flint and chert have been removed because experience has shown that their inclusion was not helpful. Mineral oils and natural gas have been removed because the 1960 Act provided for separate regulation of oil and gas exploration and production. Other substances added are industrial minerals that were not important in 1940 but have since gained significance such as andalusite, garnet and sepiolite.

Government approval for the publication and introduction of the Bill was given, subject to such technical or drafting amendments as may be agreed between the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment and the Attorney General. My Department has been liaising with the Attorney General's office in the interim and I propose to table a number of such amendments on Committee Stage. I also propose to table amendments to address concerns raised by Senators during the course of the debate in the Seanad, in particular in respect of the treatment in the Bill of dolomitic limestone and, separately, the sale of small tonnage or small value State minerals, as provided for in section 82 of the Bill. In addition, amendments will be proposed to give effect to certain obligations under the Minamata Convention on mercury which was signed by Ireland in 2013 and which will prohibit primary mining of mercury.

I look forward to engaging with Deputies in a positive and constructive debate on the Bill on Committee Stage. The Bill is important to improve and consolidate the legal framework underpinning the minerals sector which has been of great economic and social benefit in the past and will continue to be in the future. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy James Lawless

I thank the Minister of State for introducing the Bill which Fianna Fáil will support. The Bill has a long provenance. It will replace five Acts dating from 1940 to 1999. It was Fianna Fáil in government in 2006 that initiated work on the Bill; therefore, it has taken some time to get to the House. I hope we will get it through the remaining Stages in a shorter timeframe. The Bill is very important in consolidating, simplifying and modernising the existing legislation on exploration and the extraction of materials. It will make better provision for prospecting for and the development, management and control of the mineral resources of the State in the interests of better regulation and ensure that as many provisions as possible pertaining to minerals prospecting and mining will be consolidated. The Minister of State has confirmed that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a separate matter and not related to the provisions of the Bill. It is covered elsewhere. The exploration and mining sector is an important one and makes a significant economic contribution in Ireland, employing over 3,300 persons. The overall value from the sector amounted to €810 million, with €56 million in taxes to the Exchequer in 2012. Ireland is one of the leading zinc producing countries in the world, with output amounting to €426 million in 2012, the last year for which records are available.

The Bill consolidates five Acts, the Acts of 1940, 1960, 1979, 1995 and 1999. As is often the case when a measure consolidates and tidies up so many statutes, the resulting legislation is quite long and weighty, but it has improved and simplified the legislation that preceded it. It was a Fianna Fáil Government that commenced drafting of the Bill in 2006. At the time there were a number of discussions at the relevant Oireachtas committee in which many of the concerns that might have been raised were teased out. A number of departmental officials also appeared before the committee. Among the questions raised was one about property rights. The evidence given to the committee was that property rights would not be diminished in any way by the provisions of the Bill. There is a right to drill in search of materials, as there was in the 1940 Act, and this continues under a new prospecting licence, but it is regulated, controlled and limited. Property owners have the right to object and have the Minister consider their objections. Of course, as with all such matters, they have the right of access to the courts as a constitutional prerogative. That remains the position under the Bill. The processes are being brought up to date, but the fundamental rights contained in the Bill are no different from what have been in place since 1940. The departmental officials gave this evidence at a relevant committee hearing at the time the Bill was reintroduced post-2006.

The objectives of the Bill are, in accordance with the principles of social justice, to exercise private rights in respect of minerals and ancillary rights and reconcile their exercise with the exigencies of the common good; to provide for the vesting in the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment of the exclusive right of working, selling or otherwise disposing of private minerals not in the course of development, subject to compensation; and provide for the preparation and implementation of rehabilitation plans for abandoned mine sites.

The latter is important because there is some degree of abandoned mine sites around the country. Their remediation, preparation and rehabilitation is key. It is, of course, a national issue but no less than my constituency of Kildare has them also. I would suggest that pre-1964, pre-planning permission and prior to the regulatory and environmental regimes that we now enjoy, standards were not at the same level they might be at today. That sort of rehabilitation and remediation exercise is much needed and is a very important measure to take. I look forward to its implementation, I hope when the Bill proceeds into law and is actioned.

There is greater transparency of terms, rents and royalties to streamline the permitting process and other acts of regulation of the mineral sector into best practice, while again having recourse to the constitutional protection of property. Environmental matters are, of course, more appropriate to the EPA and other such environmental authorities. The legislation establishing the EPA, as I understand it, actually precludes the Minister from attaching conditions to mining permits, which may have been designed to limit or control emissions to the environment. It might seem laudable, but according to the legislation setting up the EPA, the Minister is actually prohibiting from doing so.

Of course, it must take account of the obligations under the Aarhus Convention, which was ratified by Ireland and which governs the right of the public to participate in environmental decision making, their right to get access to justice and information and the exercise of those constitutional rights and protections as they are enshrined in the Aarhus Convention and in our Constitution. The Bill will take account of those in its enforcement when it is passed into law.

I will not go through the specific sections of the Bill, as the Minister has done that already in his opening statement, but I will note one point of interest. I believe my colleague, Deputy Jackie Cahill, will speak about dolomitic limestone, and the Minister alluded to it. It is a special case and the Minister has suggested he is going to look at it, perhaps on Committee Stage. As I believe Deputy Jackie Cahill is going to speak on that issue also, I will not overlap.

There are possibilities. As we have said, many of these mines were felt to be reasonably well understood in terms of what deposits were contained within. It was zinc primarily, but other substances and ores as well. It is of interest to the House, the Minister and the Department that technology in this area, as always, advances. Some of the mines, including ones I have spoken about, which may be in abeyance, abandoned or disused, may actually become, through technology, sites for re-exploration and reinvestigation. This is because some rare earth minerals have recently been discovered in many of these sites. I am talking about the type of minerals we find in the likes of an iPhone, some rare earth minerals that are quite precious. Things like platinum can be found. Often, I am told, these are found in what are called slag heaps, which are effectively the waste outputs of existing mining locations. These may actually have within them a rich, untapped seam because it was perhaps not understood at the time of the original exploration what lay within. It may be an apt opportunity to revisit some of those sites and to examine what is known within the industry as the slag heaps, which may contain quite valuable precious earth minerals, again within the confines of the Bill. I think that would be possible. I have studied the Bill and do not see anything in it to preclude that, although we may look at some amendments when it goes to Committee Stage if they are necessary to advance that. I welcome the Minister's and other parties' views on that possibility also.

The other aspect of that is it could be an opportunity to remediate such sites. If, for example, the slag heap of a disused mine was to be revisited, with the goal of re-excavation and extraction of those type of materials, it could lend itself to a parallel rehabilitation and remediation of the site. There are environmental benefits of cleaning up the sites accruing in parallel with excavation of potentially very valuable materials. That is perhaps an unexpected side effect of it, or an unexpected opportunity that arises. I want to credit Science Foundation Ireland and, in particular, the iCRAG research centre which recently discovered the technique that allows the further extraction of these minerals, which once were not understood and which it was not realised were there.

As I say, I welcome the Bill and we certainly will be supporting it. I look forward to further investigation on Committee Stage of the various issues I mentioned above. I will yield to my colleague, Deputy Jackie Cahill.

Deputy Jackie Cahill

As Deputy James Lawless said, Fianna Fáil will be supporting this Bill. The economic value of the mining industry to Ireland is very important. In 2012 the value of mining to this country was €810 million and we had more than 1,300 people employed full-time in the industry. All those were employed outside Dublin which adds greatly to the importance of the industry. My own constituency, Tipperary, has had the pluses and the minuses of the way mining has been regulated. Lisheen mine, which was the largest zinc mine in operation in Europe for a number of years and is just a couple of miles outside my own town of Thurles, closed in the last two years. The way the closure was carried out and the way the mine was left was absolutely exemplary. They invested greatly in the local community and in local infrastructure, and are still endeavouring to get other potential investors onto the site to create employment. There are plans in place to create alternative industry on the site that Lisheen has vacated.

We had the opposite with Silvermines. As Deputy James Lawless indicated, planning regulations were not as stringent. We have a tailings pond in Silvermines, which still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of residents in the area. It has caused enormous difficulties for years with dust being blown off the tailings pond causing human health problems and also problems for agricultural practices in the area. Private individuals were allowed to buy the tailings pond. The State has spent enormous amounts of money on remedial work on that tailings pond site in Silvermines and it still does not have ownership of the site. This is something that I have brought up with the Minister's Department. While the State has spent up to €8 million on that tailings pond, we still do not own it. Damage is now being done to the tailings pond again by the farming practices being carried out. The State spent money on it and much of the good will be undone. I tabled a few parliamentary questions on this and I was told that the purchase of that site is under negotiation by the Department. I just cannot understand why a compulsory purchase order is not put in place so that all the money that was spent there will not be wasted. This issue needs to be resolved. It is has been a thorn in the side of people in that locality for many years and I hope it will be resolved. It goes to show why a Bill like this is so important to ensure that in the future, it will be like Lisheen, that there will be a good taste left in the mouth when a mine closes and that the community and the environment can return to normal.

As Deputy Jams Lawless said, I would like to raise the issue of dolomite limestone. I would like this to be taken up on Committee Stage. I have a presentation that I will raise on Committee Stage. I think there is a very good argument being made that it should be outside the provisions of the Bill. As it stands, it has been discriminated against. To describe it as a mineral is probably stretching the definition. This needs to be looked at. I think it would be common sense to leave it outside the realms of this legislation. It would be of benefit for the people who are quarrying that limestone and it would make them competitive with those in other jurisdictions. To have it under this regulation would add significant cost to the production of dolomite limestone. I would appreciate if the Minister would give consideration to leaving it outside the regulation of this Bill. It would be a welcome development.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I welcome this Bill. It is very important that we have legislation and regulations surrounding mining that are brought up to modern standards. Sinn Féin supports the progression of this Bill to enact necessary changes that reflect the modern mining industry and licensing needs.

This Bill, however, must first and foremost reflect the needs of the State and wider society. For too long it has been the modus operandi of the State to sell off the valuable natural resources of the country at bargain basement prices. Were these resources to be correctly managed and safely exploited they could be of great economic value to the State and benefit to society.

Every day we hear that the health service is struggling and that we need money to build houses to house people and to update our infrastructure. We must be mindful that the decisions we make on issues such as mining licences and royalty can have a great impact on how successful we are as a society.

We welcome the Bill overall but will be seeking to make some amendments. We have a concern over section 82, which allows the Minister to sell State-owned minerals without imposing substantial royalties to guarantee a return for the public purse. We do not want a repeat of what happened in the case of other extractions which are not covered under the Bill such as our offshore oil and gas whereby we have transferred almost all profits to private companies. We have experienced far too much privatisation in Ireland and do not want to suffer a repeat of what we have witnessed in other sectors.

While TTIP is probably dead and buried with the arrival of President Trump in the White House, CETA is still there. Such agreements could have the potential to obstruct our ability to use these natural resources for the overall common good. Canada for instance, is home to one of the world's biggest mining industries. These large-scale mining companies operating in Ireland would not necessarily provide any boost to either the local or national economy, would not necessarily provide much local employment nor provide significant royalty revenue to the State. The Bill should ensure that any mining operation undertaken in Ireland provides the maximum positive impact for local communities and wider society while also seeking to protect the environment.

The safety of mines is also a source of concern. The State has a responsibility to ensure all mines operate to the highest safety standards. There is a need to ensure shafts, site heaps, slag heaps, etc. are kept safe for workers and the public. It is important, where a private company or owner is involved in mining, that it also be compelled to ensure the site is safe and that the Minister have the necessary powers to enforce that.

Section 132 on the designation of rehabilitation areas refers to a consultative process with the now defunct Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government. It is very important that that matter is dealt with in the Bill. However, is it the intention that a consultative process will remain between the now Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment and the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government or will responsibility fall entirely to one or the other?

Pollution of ground water and soil contamination are a serious threat from neglectful mining practices. We heard Deputy Cahill outline the situation at Silvermines where there is a huge problem. That occurs as a result of mines falling into an unmaintained state of disrepair. As a small nation where agriculture represents 10% of the economy and with a huge tourism sector we depend heavily on our natural environment and it is important to protect our ecosystems. We must be extra vigilant in protecting our most important natural resources which are our clean water and air. The State's influence and control over mining practices in Ireland have helped us to avoid any serious environmental damage from mining thus far.

I agree with the Minister of State that the Bill seeks to update the legislation. It is a big Bill running to 120 pages. It is the largest Bill I have dealt with since I was first elected to the Dáil six years ago. It is clear that years of work have gone into it and we need to get it right. However, the harmonisation of international standards could put this record in jeopardy with agreements such as CETA. For example, International Lithium Corp. is a Canadian mining company that has carried out extensive explorations in this country. Canada is geographically a very different country from Ireland with a population density that is 20 times lower than ours. It is natural in countries such as Canada and Argentina, where ILC also conducts mining operations, with vast uninhabited areas that regulations on mining would be different and that there is less concern among local communities.

However, Ireland's population is spread out more evenly across the country with a dispersed rural population, meaning that the impact on local communities of such projects is likely to be greater. Therefore, we cannot expect companies like ILC to operate by the same standards here as they do in Canada. However, certain Members of this House are creating this risk by supporting CETA and not dealing with these issues that will arise if not in our time in our children's time. This Bill should have a provision to protect against any future changes to environmental or regulatory standards as a result of any such trade deals.

This is an important Bill and we welcome that it has finally come before this House. Some specific issues remain to be addressed which we hope to amend on Committee Stage. We also have concern that limestone is included and I ask the Minister of State to review that. I note the list of what is not included. My understanding is that smokeless anthracite is included.

I have an issue in my constituency regarding the colliery in Rossmore on which I have contacted the Department on many occasions and I have had a number of exchanges with Ministers on it. I am informed that it contains significant deposits of smokeless fuel. The area has a long mining tradition. There are also significant deposits of fireclay. Lagan Brick Limited needs large supplies of fireclay. The national unemployment figures are improving, which is welcome, but in Carlow town and south-east Laois including areas such as Graiguecullen, the Swan, Graigueard and Ballylinan there are no jobs. One can drive from Portlaoise to Carlow town and across that huge swathe of countryside and find that jobs are few and far between.

There is an opportunity to tap into supplies of smokeless fuel. Some mining is going on. I know that there are issues, but I do not want to go into them. I ask that the departmental officials make a determined effort once and for all to sort out the issues in Rossmore with the interested parties and come back to me on it.

I do not want the environment damaged either, but I believe with modern mining practices, the fact that it is smokeless fuel, the fact that the fireclay is being used locally and is being processed locally, means we would not have a big carbon footprint. It only has to go a couple of miles up the road which is of great benefit. A lot of material is being used in this country. Some companies are importing stone that is being brought on ships from China with a huge carbon footprint. The Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne, and all of us here are very concerned about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Here is an opportunity to ensure that locally sourced material can be processed locally very close to where it is being extracted.

There is a need for jobs. All the pieces come together. We talk a lot about joined-up thinking. The Rossmore colliery provides an opportunity to do that. I ask the Minister of State to have his senior officials look at the case of Rossmore again and see if we can come to a permanent solution with it so that things are regularised, jobs can be provided, smokeless fuel can be provided and we can continue to extract fireclay from that site in Rossmore and create those badly needed jobs in south County Laois.

Overall, we welcome the Bill. It is a comprehensive piece of work but, inevitably, when we go through it, there are pieces we want to tweak.

My other concern is about the royalties. Our party is very concerned about this. We have a situation where in 2012, there was €9 million, which is a drop in the ocean. The 1,300 direct jobs in mining and the 1,900 jobs which are supported indirectly are good and we welcome them. The fact is that with royalties, we are getting €9 million. There are tiny companies around the country in which there are only a couple of people working. They are paying that in revenue to the State by way of PRSI and tax. It is absolutely minuscule. If we divide that out between the 42 companies operating, we are talking about a very small figure. We ask the Minister of State to address that issue. I do not want to harp on about this but if we look at what happened with our oil and gas, we know how it happened. I am not blaming the Minister of State for that because he was not here at the time. We gave it away. Other countries have sovereign funds from what is being extracted. Norway is an example. We might not have the island gas that Norway has but we have some. It is a separate issue. We are dealing with mining here, not oil and gas. Let us use this as an opportunity to ensure we get royalties from extraction. Let us ensure the State and its citizens get what they are entitled to and let us use the badly-needed money from royalties and revenues that come in from this type of industry for the common good. I appeal to the Minister of State to examine that issue again.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na daoine a scríobh an Bille. We should acknowledge the work of the officials in consolidating this legislation. It is legislation that goes back to the 1940s. We have to acknowledge it was no easy task to do such a thing. It is important that we acknowledge the work the officials have done on this. I will be very brief. We are supporting the Bill. I will add my name to the list of people who wish to raise the issue of dolomite and dolomitic limestone. I have a submission and I am sure other Members have the same submission on the interpretation of minerals. The Minister of State dealt with this in the Seanad. There is a definition of minerals which attempts to provide clarity on where limestone ends and where dolomitic limestone starts. The Minister of State has given some indication that he will deal with this on Committee Stage. I will read an extract from correspondence I received:

Section 2 Interpretation "Minerals" attempts to provide clarity on the definition of where limestone ends and dolomitic limestone starts.

"Section 2 Interpretation “Minerals” (f) dolomitic limestone that occurs in association with dolomite in a deposit where dolomite is less than 85 per cent of the deposit;”

My correspondent states there is a difficulty with this implementation:

The implementation of what is Dolomitic Limestone and what is limestone is subjective. Inconsistent implementation under the current Minerals Act has been very subjective where large scale Multi National Companies have exploited deposits of dolomitic limestone ... This section had the potential for distortion of the market where one deposit is considered limestone and another Dolomitic Limestone.

He goes on to say:

Examples of where dolomite products compete with limestone products in the same market place is in refractory production, (one company uses limestone and salt water in the production of high end refractory for furnaces without contributing any royalty, yet to produce similar refractory with a Dolomitic Limestone a royalty payment would be compulsory).

These are issues that are familiar to the officials. They are familiar to the Minister. I want to state them for the public record. If there is a mechanism to deal with this by way of Government amendment on Committee Stage, we would welcome such a clarification. I see no need to delay proceedings tonight. We are in favour of the Bill. I acknowledge the work of the officials and if the issue of dolomite and dolomitic extraction is dealt with, we will be very satisfied.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Connolly)

I will call on Deputy Eamon Ryan because I am next in the slot but I am not taking my time until later.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I will not take long. If the Deputy wants to follow me, it should not be a long delay. I join the other Deputies in commending the officials for getting this Bill into the Dáil, hopefully to be enacted in a reasonably short period of time. It has been over ten years in preparation. In my time as Minister in the former Department, I remember having a series of meeting with officials. It was very interesting. It was not deeply contentious but at the same time it was important that we got it right. This legislation is extensive. It will not necessarily affect most citizens but it is important that we order the development of mining in this country in a sustainable and proper fashion. The importance of that was drawn out.

I was interested to hear the update on the Lisheen mine today. I hope it was closed in an orderly fashion. We compared that with other instances, in particular the Silvermines site, which I am familiar with, where companies left behind a scar on the landscape. There were huge tailings ponds that were unstable and I was concerned to hear today in the debate that some of the restorative measures that have been put in place may again be threatened due to land use practices and other issues in the area. If the deposits there are exposed again and we start getting run-off into the water system of arsenic, cadmium and all sorts of pollutants, it will be of huge concern to people in that part of the country, in Tipperary and beyond.

The issue is the extent and duration of the pollution that can be caused. I will take the example of the Avoca River and the waters in Glendalough. Many people are very familiar with the stunning Spinc walk around the mountains in our beautiful valley of Glendalough. When one looks down, one sees that the tailponds are still there 50 years after the closure of the mines. The Avoca River is highly polluted. What should be a stunning and pristine river suffers from very severe pollution which is not easy to remediate because of the legacy issue of how mining was left unregulated.

It is important we get this right. It is important we make sure that mining companies are responsible and that we have the proper guarantees in the State that any work being done will be done with due care. There are particular examples where we face difficult choices. A famous example down through the years is the seam of potential gold deposits on the southern and western sides of Croagh Patrick in County Mayo. We had to make strategic decisions to say it was not an area we would mine because it is too sensitive and too important an area for historical, tourism and cultural reasons. It might be an inappropriate mining analogy to say that one often takes these things with a pinch of salt. When people say they have discovered gold again, for example in County Monaghan, one has two feelings about it. One might think it is a good economic opportunity but when one realises what a lot of gold processing requires there are significant instances where we will not exploit those mineral resources because the environmental costs are too high.

I have an interest in the way we will develop our mining resources because I hope the world will move towards a system of a more circular economy where resources are tapped and that we are not just developing a throw-away society. Particularly with the increased demand for many rare earth metals, we cannot afford to continue the form of mining that has been historic, which is exploitative and reflects a throw-away culture that does not care about the environment, the life cycle, recycling and the precious nature of some of the resources.

I would like to see in the Bill - whether there will be any encouragement for this as we delve into it on Committee Stage - a move towards going back on some of those old tailing ponds and looking at our entire system to see if we can start recovering materials, reducing the wasteful use of materials and promote the recycling of materials in order that we do not have to be so reliant on a constant trail of exploitative mining resources. I do not know if we will have access to some of the expertise of the geologists in the Department in terms of what the possibilities might be in that regard. It would be interesting to see if we could stitch such circular economy thinking into the Bill as it moves through Committee and Report Stages, even at this late stage 11 years on since its inception. The world is changing. The understanding of the value particularly of some of those rarer metals is changing and perhaps we could return to our significant zinc deposits and other resources that we have not historically considered as valuable resources for use in our modern economy.

I note the comments of other Deputies. Our activity is not huge. We have very large mines, including some of the zinc mines in Navan, but when we look at the volume of the turnover at approximately €400 million a year in those valuable resources the share accruing to the State in terms of royalties seems disproportionately small. That is another question we might have time to consider on Report Stage in terms of teasing out whether we are getting best value for money or providing too much incentive for development companies, despite the fact that the level of recovery seems to be low. Historically, we have had significant mining industries here, including in Roscommon, Sligo and a range of locations in west Cork, the copper mines and so on. It is not as if we do not have a geology that has provided rich mining deposits in the past. When we look at some of the figures I have a slight concern that the State could be looking to get a greater return from our resources.

Those are the details. We agree with the broad thrust of the Bill and we will be supporting it. I hope we might be able to tease out points I mentioned on Committee Stage but I very much welcome the arrival of the Bill in the Dáil. I commend the officials for getting it here and look forward to discussions with the Minister as we put it through its various Stages.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Connolly)

I understand the members of the Rural Independent Group are sharing time.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Yes. I was watching the debate on the screen when the Acting Chairman was speaking and thought I had better brostaigh isteach.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Connolly)

Go raibh míle maith agat.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Ná habair é.

I welcome this Bill. It is a very long time since we had such legislation before the House. It is important legislation but, like everything, we should make haste slowly and not rush it. The background to this Bill is that the previous Acts date from 1940 to 1999 and include the provisions for regulating mineral prospecting and development and a statutory vesting of the exclusive right to work minerals in the Minister for Communications, Climate Change and Environment, subject to the payment of compensation.

We have to develop our natural resources and with Brexit it is important that we ensure that whatever resources we have underground must be extracted for the benefit of the people. We have lost so much of our fishing resources since our accession to the European Union and autonomy over so much of our indigenous areas of existence and survival. It is very important that we examine this, that we have fair play and that we are careful that we will not have unintended consequences. The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong but I do not see any section in the Bill that provides for a review of the legislation and an impact assessment not too far down the road after it is enacted. One would have that fear because previous Acts, namely, the Minerals Development Act 1940, Part II of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960, enacted two years after I was born, the Minerals Development Act 1979, the Minerals Development Act 1995 and the Minerals Development Act 1999 are so old. These Acts incorporate a provision for regulating mineral prospecting and development; the statutory vesting of the exclusive right to work minerals in the Minister, subject to payment of compensation; the acquisition of other rights necessary for the efficient development of minerals, subject to payment and compensation; and payment to the State of rents and royalties from the extraction of minerals, with which I have some issues.

The Bill will replace a suite of legislation which dates back to 1940 with modern, streamlined statutory provisions. The existing legislation is obviously quite extensive and hence we now have what the Minister believes is a comprehensive Bill with a total of 251 sections. Part 2 addresses the administrative practice for prospecting licences from application to surrender, including public notice, consultation prior to issuing of licences and payment of compensation for damage or nuisance arising from prospecting activity. This is a very wide-ranging area and like other issues such as wind farms, wind energy development, major roads projects or whatever, a compulsory purchase order, CPO, can be invoked. These are massive projects and while they are meant to be for the benefit of the people they can have major impacts on ordinary citizens. This legislation introduces a new type of licence known as a retention licence where a prospecting licence holder has discovered a mineral resource that cannot for the time being be worked due to a need to address access issues, environmental concerns or other matters. This Part also provides that the Minister in assessing the public interest of an application takes into account the economic benefits for the region as well as the environmental impact on the proposed exploration programme. It provides for making regulations setting out conditions attaching to a prospecting or a retention licence. A new requirement is that prior written consent will be required for boreholes, trenching and bulk sampling.

The legislation does not say much in terms of providing for a community where the members have come together in the case of a quarry or in some development activity where explosives might be used, which creates dust and noise. I have a plant hire business and know all about dust and noise. One cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. I have been involved with local communities during the period I was a member of a county council and prior to and subsequent to that. There is an issue currently with EirGrid where it is riding roughshod over a community stretching from Cork right down across Tipperary, parts of Waterford, Tipperary and into Kilkenny. We have had sham consultations and engagement. This legislation is not sufficiently robust to provide for a proper, honest and full consultation with communities from the start of the project - from the cradle to the grave. Often the first a community hears of a development is when a site notice is erected, no consultation has taken place, then there is a row, all types of issues arise, and there is mistrust and distrust and that is not good for anyone.

Sections of the Bill provide that the State must benefit from such activity, as I said in my opening remarks, but there must be gain for small communities where they have to put up with all that is involved in a mine. I accept that it will generate employment and many people will travel to work to it. My son-in-law worked in Lisheen Mine for many years and it was a great place but now it is empty. That is a pity and it is a big loss. It is an example of where there was good consultation, engagement and involvement with the communities. When they moved out of that mine, they tried to set up a different industry. I was involved in that and they have a fine clean situation.

This is a good example, but there are many horrific examples of rushed planning, strange planning decisions, numerous appeals to An Bord Pleanála, court cases, constant aggravation and improper rehabilitation works when the work is finished. Therefore, we need to update the legislation but we also need to have it copper-fastened and draft it in such a way that there is a community gain as well. If the community is paying, it is entitled to some gain. This way, a good example can be created and can lead the ship in other ways.

The specific sections of the Minerals Development Bill I have raised in the past concern dolomite and dolomitic limestone, its inclusion in the Schedule of minerals and its definition under "minerals" in section 2, headed "Interpretation": "(f) dolomitic limestone that occurs in association with dolomite in a deposit where dolomite is less than 85 per cent of the deposit". I do not understand what this means and I think very few people do. It is mangle jangle. I see my colleague beside me, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, wondering whether I have gone a bit dotty.

The four following points illustrate why dolomite and dolomitic limestone should be excluded from the Schedule attached to the Bill. This applies to ordinary quarry people. I call them the backbone of our society. They might employ ten, 20 or up to 100 people. It is not all about CRH. We know how powerful CRH is and how it has got away with setting exemptions and sometimes possibly infringing on the planning laws because it is big and powerful. We see so much of this now with companies such as Tesco and EirGrid, all the big media companies and - if I may go there - the vulture funds. I know where I would like to have them: in a disused quarry ready to be filled in. I would make sure many of them would be inside before flooding it and covering it over.

First, is the definition subjective? Can it be interpreted to include one deposit and exclude another? Can the Minister of State honestly put his hand on his heart and say as much? How can he? I assert that this has been the case in the past.

My second point concerns all-island consistency in the treatment of dolomite and dolomitic limestone. If a royalty is applied to dolomitic limestone in the jurisdiction of the South and the Northern Ireland Act does not include dolomite, there is potential to distort the market by effectively subsidising Northern Ireland producers. We have seen this so many times, even with coal. Deputy Eamon Ryan's - tá sé imithe now - introduced the famous levy on coal for the anti-pollution - I cannot think of the phraseology. We saw how the suppliers in the shops, the people who were bringing it in here and the wholesalers lobbied. Now what has happened? They have all gone out of business because it is all coming in with no levies from the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. This is very important. As I said earlier, this would stop the market by subsidising the Northern Ireland producers up the road who will now be more aggressive competitors than ever with the onset of Brexit.

Uimhir a trí concerns unintended consequences, to which I referred earlier. Dolomite and dolomitic limestone is the host rock for virtually all the lead and zinc deposits in Ireland. Will implementation of the Bill into law place the existing mines in a position where they have illegally extracted another scheduled mineral not included in their state mining facility? Has the Government copper-fastened this?

Uimhir a ceathair concerns a cost-benefit analysis. In 2003 - a long time ago - the then Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was asked in a parliamentary question "the amount which has been paid in royalties over the past ten years". The Minister's response was that €140,539 had been paid, averaging €14,050 per year, which was buttons. One would not give that to children going to mass in one diocese, not to mind the whole country. I question the cost of administering the State mining facilities that facilitated the collection of this royalty. It is farcical. I pay that amount in PRSI for two of my employees. It is a joke.

The Bill has a number fundamental flaws, particularly in respect of the treatment of dolomite and dolomitic limestone. Dolomitic limestone is a limestone rock with raised levels of magnesium with commercial values similar to limestone aggregate, and we all know what that is. The interpretation of "minerals" in section 2 attempts to provide definitional clarity as to where limestone ends and dolomitic limestone starts. It is a very thin line. Again, the definition reads, "dolomitic limestone that occurs in association with dolomite in a deposit where dolomite is less than 85 per cent of the deposit". How does one assess this? It is not really possible to make an assessment to such a fine degree as 85% versus 15% by drilling a test hole or bore hole. This provides the lower demarcation levels between dolomitic limestone and limestone. However, clarification is needed as to what "dolomite is less than 85 per cent of the deposit" actually means and how it is assessed and arrived at.

The sentiment in the section is noble, that is, to claim and recover to the State royalty from any limestone deposit which has a raised magnesium level, irrespective of the sector in which the dolomite limestone is used. The difficulty with this is implementation. Is it worth the candle going after this for €14,000 per year? What is the cost of the administration? The implementation of law regarding what is dolomitic limestone and what is limestone is subjective. Inconsistent implementation under the current minerals Act has been very subjective. On the one hand, large-scale multinational companies have exploited deposits of dolomitic limestone without State mining facilities and, on the other, owner-operator deposits have had to attempt to obtain State mining facilities. This section has the potential for distortion of the market where one deposit is considered limestone and another dolomitic limestone. An example of a case in which dolomite products compete with limestone products in the same marketplace is refractory production. Premier Periclase uses limestone and salt water in the production of high-end refractory for furnaces without contributing any royalty, yet to produce similar refractory with dolomitic limestone, a royalty payment would be compulsory. This is very confusing.

Another anomaly concerns active lead and zinc deposits. The host rock in the deposits at Tara, Lisheen, Galmoy and the potential site at Caherconlish is in all cases dolomitic limestone. The base metals are extracted from the host rock, which is returned to refill the mine void space as a concrete, yet the current State mining facilities issued only levies royalty on the base metal. It is like a merry-go-round. It is very technical.

It is important that implementation is consistently applied. Under the current Act, the implementation track record does not inspire confidence. The Schedule of the 1940 Act also includes dolomite and dolomitic limestone. However, the first issued State mining facility for dolomite and dolomitic limestone was not until 1969 - 29 years later - to Quigley Magnesite, with a second issued for a deposit at Stonyford, County Kilkenny, to the Irish Sugar Company. The Geological Survey of Ireland published a directory of quarries, mines and pits in which the first three entries were dolomitic limestone, yet none of these deposits had or has a State mining facility.

A further inconsistency concerns the Department's exploration and mining division's six-monthly section 70 reports to the Oireachtas under the Minerals Development Act 1940 whereby up until 2013, the list of State mining facilities, SMFs, published had two dolomite entries which had expired in 2009. CRH's deposit was and is still in operation without such a facility.

I rest my case because I am out of time. One of the most fascinating aspects of the Bill is the length of time it has taken to be published. Initial requests for expressions of interest were published in The Irish Times in July 2005. One could write the Bible in the intervening time, but the Bible is a document on which we can depend, quote from, act on and live up to. I feel the Bill is not a document from which we can quote, or of which we can be sure. We should make hay slowly. Why did it take so long for the Bill to come before the House? Why is preferential treatment shown to CRH, while many small businesspeople have been forced out of business, demanding royalties and turning a blind eye to the big brothers? The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has been, as I said before, toothless, useless and fruitless in tackling this. I hand over to my colleague, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The Bill, in consolidating and modernising legislation on the exploration and development of minerals, is to be welcomed. Deputy Mattie McGrath is right that it has been a long time in the making, but it is better it comes before us now rather than later. We must have regularisation and the ground rules set out for future years.

One deep concern I have is with regard to the mines that have closed. I have always said that one of the most valuable and important things any small community can have is a quarry, be it a stone quarry or a gravel quarry. This is not just because of the jobs and spin-off it creates. If there is a mine or quarry in an area that produces materials that are needed locally, whether for the local authority, young people building houses or our farming community, it is an invaluable resource.

It upsets me very much that through planning regulations we have lost so many quarries in small communities in the past six or seven years. It is a tragedy.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I agree.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

One of the most unusual aspects is that the planning authorities which, in many instances, were involved in closing quarries are paying the highest price for the fact that the competition is gone and they might be looking for material in south Kerry but may have to travel to north Kerry for it. That does not make sense. Long ago when county councils were building roads, they dug out clay from the sides of roads which became lay-bys. That was common sense in action. Now there is no sense. It is all gobbledygook and regulation. It is frightening to see how many quarries have closed because of planning issues. In many cases the local authorities that closed them are paying the biggest price because they were major beneficiaries from having a quarry. We have lost many mines over the years. It is like losing the rural rail network and the odds of it ever being reopened are slim. In England and Scotland great industries were brought to their knees. The coalmines were closed. It is a shame to think of generations of families who worked in the mines and how unemployment was rife after the mines closed. There was no replacement industry in many cases. That was a tragedy of the past 20 years.

Deputy Mattie McGrath, rightly, spoke about the spin-offs for communities. I have studied the Indecon report which states:

In addition to creating and supporting jobs and expenditures at local level in Ireland, exploration and mining companies also contribute to local communities in the form of financial supports to community sporting and other organisations. According to the findings of Indecon's research, mining and prospecting companies contributed a total of almost €460,000 to local community activities and organisations during 2012.

It is a small sum of money compared to what the industry is worth and the money it has made, although any money spent and contributed at local level is welcome.

The issue of fracking was debated here and many politicians, me included, were very concerned about it. We did not want to see the country allowing it to happen ever because of its consequences for communities. I would be very fearful for the mining industry in Border counties post-Brexit. There will be major implications and transitional changes because of it. It will affect employment and the operations of quarries. I hope, however, that it will not be to the detriment of any mine or cause them to close. I welcome the Bill.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Like other speakers, I welcome the Bill in the sense that it updates, consolidates and modernises legislation on exploration and the extraction of minerals. It is welcome that it provides for the continuing vesting in the Minister of the exclusive right to work minerals, subject to certain exceptions. It also provides for the remediation of abandoned mines, which I welcome, and for the prosecution of summary offences. It also deals with compensation and its calculation and so on.

The Bill provides that royalty rates will be set by the Minister, as one or two other speakers mentioned. It provides that a licence is granted for eight years, about which I have some questions. It is welcome that the Bill aims to implement international environmental legal obligations by providing for public participation and access to justice provisions for members of the public, taking account of the Aarhus Convention. People have fought for years for the convention to be implemented in domestic legislation. I welcome that and the procedural steps taken, although I wonder if it is strong enough. I will come back to this issue through amendments on Committee Stage to ensure it will be fully implemented to have the maximum rights to allow people participate.

While we are no experts in the Dáil, I wonder if we should rewrite our geography classes and tell teachers the same. The Minister of State is younger than me, but as most of us grew up we were told constantly that we had no resources in this country. I have taken great trouble to read the Bill digest. I thank those who prepared it and put a great deal of work into it. It is heart-inspiring to see the amount of our natural resources, yet we have proceeded as a country that has none. The ones we thought we had in County Mayo we sold and we learned no lessons from it. The best part of the Bill is to come on Committee Stage in the form of an acknowledgement that the country is rich in resources. That message has to go out and we have to begin to act like a country that is rich in natural resources.

Ireland is the biggest producer of zinc in Europe and the tenth largest in the world. I did not learn that at school and neither did my children who are aged 19 and 20 years. We are also high producers of lead, but there are many other minerals. As I said, Ireland is a leading producer of zinc and lead; it supplies 28% of Europe's zinc and 10% of its lead, meaning that it is ranked 12th. Ireland is ranked No. 1 for the amount of zinc extracted per square kilometre. In addition, other commodities currently sought in Ireland include gold, silver, copper, iron, platinum, tungsten which is very important in the production of saws and tools, lithium, calcium and so on. Fifteen mines have been discovered since 1960 and five or six are still in use.

The Fraser Institute gave Ireland top rating for policy jurisdiction factors. Is that because we have an easy policy on the payment of royalties and tax? That is the reason I understand, but I will put my hands up if I am wrong. That is my learned experience from watching what happened in County Mayo.

I know that oil and gas are not covered under this legislation. As part of its policy, the Government will be obliged to lay a report before the Oireachtas every six months on the operation of the legislation. I welcome the continuance of that provision as part of the legislation. However, such a report has never been discussed in my time in this House and I will have been elected one year ago, like the Minister of State, at the end of this month. It gives up-to-date figures in terms of who is involved in the industry.

The most recent report reveals that "as of 31 December 2016, there were 10 extant State Mining Leases [and] 6 extant State Mining Licences". I know this legislation will change the duplication there. The report also states that on the same date, "567 extant Prospecting Licences" were held by 46 companies. Towards the end of the report, we learn that "the total amount of moneys collected by the Minister under or by virtue of any lease, permission, or licence under [the Minerals Development] Acts was €5,477,575.49". That is the total money taken in. I know that there are separate moneys collected as tax. It is estimated that this comes to approximately €60 million. This report has not come the House for discussion. If such a debate were held, Deputies would educate themselves about these matters and work with the Government to ensure the best return is secured on behalf of the citizens of this country, which is rich in natural resources.

Page 2 of the most recent biannual report lists all those who were involved in mining at the end of December 2016. It refers to once-off payments made "in lieu of Royalties". In other words, no royalties were paid in these cases. It happens that Tara Mines Limited is mentioned on more than one occasion on this page, which states that the company has a licence to engage in mining from "3 July 1998 to 30 November 2023". Among the various "considerations" referred to on page 2 - no royalties are being paid - are amounts of €190,460, or just under €200,000, and of €1,050,000. Each "once off payment [made] in lieu of Royalties" relates to a different area near Navan, County Meath, in which Tara Mines is engaged in mining activity. The royalties vary enormously. I think it would be very helpful to have a discussion on this report, which was theoretically laid before the Houses at Christmas but has never been discussed here, in the Dáil in order that we can see where we are going with the new-found information we have about Ireland as a mineral-rich country.

The Indecon report mentioned by the Minister of State was published some years ago. It seems to have had positive things to say about the moneys returned to the economy from this activity. How do we judge that? In what context can it be judged? What country should we look at so that we can make a reasoned judgment on how best to use our resources to bring in money that can be spent on the provision of proper public services? I think this real debate needs to take place very soon. It seems to me that the Government is constantly left with messes to clean up without any money coming back. Even though the Shell to Sea protestors were demonised year after year, the fact is that every single safety issue resulted from their work on the ground in forcing change and improvements. All the safety improvements resulted from the work of people on the ground.

We need to have a debate in this context on how we can encourage companies to engage in mining in Ireland, while at the same time ensuring we get a return on that activity. How do we judge that? What countries have we looked at to learn lessons from them? While I welcome this legislation, as I have said, I would not be happy that we are learning from the debacles of previous years. Are we going to continue to be left with the mess? I welcome the section of this Bill on cleaning up abandoned mines. As I have said, the Government collected just over €5 million under the Minerals Development Acts last year. That is a tiny amount of money in the context of what it costs the Government to clean up abandoned mines. The non-payment of royalties, to which I have also referred, must also be considered in this context. Who is making the decisions to reach these agreements, and on the basis of what criteria? As I mentioned earlier, the most recent biannual report contained successive references to once-off payments being made "in lieu of Royalties". How is that judged? We need to reflect on what have we learned from that before we give out any more long licences. As I mentioned earlier, some of the current licences take us up to 2023. In one case, the licence will not expire until 2034. I suggest the question of why such long-term licences are necessary should be considered on Committee Stage.

According to a section of the digest that quotes from research, "Ireland is described as being "richly endowed with a diversity of mineral deposits, with a mining heritage extending for over 4,000 years"." The increase in the number of licences being given out is a reflection of that. Deputy Lawless of Fianna Fáil referred to the huge possibilities associated with what Science Foundation Ireland has told us about the reuse of mines. Are we going to learn from that? I think the best way to facilitate that would be to ensure the biannual reports are brought before the Dáil for open discussion. This legislation can be considered separately on Committee Stage. We need to share in the decision-making process on the basis that we have learned from previous messes.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (Deputy Seán Kyne)

I thank all the Deputies who participated in this debate and, in general, expressed their support for this Bill to be advanced to Committee Stage. I appreciate that a number of items will have to be discussed at that point. As Minister of State with responsibility for the minerals sector which makes a significant contribution to the economy, I wish to maintain and promote a minerals industry that is sustainable and contributes to jobs and economic growth. Importantly, the jobs in this sector are based in the regions. The mining sector makes a significant contribution to many rural areas and local economies. To that end, it is important to have in place a modern statutory code that is suitable for the effective stewardship and development of the sector and fosters the discovery of new deposits. Ireland has a good record in the discovery and development of mineral deposits, especially zinc. It is one of the world's leading zinc-mining countries and continues to attract significant levels of exploration expenditure. However, the minerals industry is global in nature. As a consequence, we know that a clear set of rules is needed to attract international investment. That is what this Bill aims to achieve. It marks a major advance for this sector and will ensure the model is fit for purpose for the years ahead. As I said earlier, I look forward to engaging with Deputies on Committee Stage.

I will go through a few of the comments that were made. I thank Deputy James Lawless for expressing Fianna Fáil's support for this Bill. Like Deputy Jackie Cahill, he gave the House an overview of the contribution of mining to the economy. He mentioned some mining sites. We can explore those matters further on Committee Stage. I remind him that the rehabilitation fund for newer developments supports the rehabilitation cost to the State. Clearly, there are also older abandoned mines.

A number of Deputies, including Deputies James Lawless and Eamon Ryan, referred to the possibility of looking at old mines, mining sites and slag heaps to see whether there are other precious resources at those locations. We might examine best practice in other countries in this regard in advance of Committee Stage.

As I said at the outset, fracking is outside the scope of this Bill because hydraulic fracturing is not a technique used in prospecting or mining for minerals. The definition of "minerals" in section 2 of the Bill encompasses "extractive waste".

Deputy Jackie Cahill spoke about the contribution of mining to the economy with specific reference to Lisheen Mine, which was an exemplary operation. The mine ceased to operate, after 15 years in operation, in 2015 when all the ore had been mined. The Department is working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency, Tipperary County Council and other regulatory authorities to ensure the fulfilment of all statutory and planning obligations in relation to closure and aftercare at Lisheen. The mine will be closed in accordance with global best practice in mine closure. The mine is currently in the active phase of its closure plan. The mine is being deactivated and rehabilitated over a five-year period. The closure plan is well advanced with the mine sealed and the area rewatered. The majority of the tailings management facility has been capped and vegetated. Mine buildings have been removed and the land rehabilitated.

Deputy Jackie Cahill also spoke about the extensive former mining site at Silvermines, which includes some areas covered by a mining lease which expired in 1998. The former lessee, Mogul of Ireland Limited, was responsible for the rehabilitation of the areas covered by the lease. Despite working continuously with the company, the Department eventually concluded that the company did not have the finance or expertise to carry out a remediation programme.

An extensive programme of remediation works at five of the six identified former mining sites at Silvermines, County Tipperary, was undertaken from 2007 and by the end of 2013, expenditure amounted to €11.19 million. The Gortmore TMF facility was the largest site remediated at a cost of €6 million, with this work including drawing up proposals for future maintenance, having regard to the nature of the site, and a decision was taken to take the site into public ownership.

A number of Deputies mentioned dolomite, with Deputy Jackie Cahill the first to do so. It was also mentioned by Deputies Brian Stanley, Sean Sherlock, Michael Healy-Rae and Mattie McGrath. It is proposed to introduce a Government amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil to delete reference to dolomitic limestone entirely in the definition of minerals in section 2 and the Schedule to the Bill. Dolomitic limestone will therefore be treated in a similar manner to limestone and will no longer be a scheduled mineral under the Minerals Development Act.

Deputy Brian Stanley also raised the issue of section 82 in speaking about privatisation. On Report Stage in the Seanad, the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, accepted the Opposition amendment to delete section 82 but for procedural reasons, the amendment fell. It is proposed to introduce a Government amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil to effect the deletion of section 82. I also agree with Deputy Stanley that mineral development offers opportunities for employment in rural areas. Large companies are subject to royalties, as Deputy Cahill and others noted. Lisheen, which is operated by a large company, contributed to the local economy as well as to the State. A number of Deputies mentioned royalties and section 76(5) of the Bill requires the Minister to review royalty regulations every eight years. I do not want to comment on the issues with Rossmore as there is an investigation of offences under the Minerals Development Act, with a file sent to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

We will address Deputy Sean Sherlock's concerns and amendment on Committee Stage. He also thanked the officials, which I do also, for their work in framing the Bill. I acknowledge the role of Deputy Eamon Ryan as a former Minister. The definition of minerals includes extractive waste and we share the Deputy's concerns about exploiting minerals in a sustainable manner. The Deputy also spoke about the old tailings ponds, recycling of materials and royalties.

To respond to Deputy Mattie McGrath, section 76(5) of the Bill requires the Minister to review royalty regulations every eight years. Planning for a mine goes through the full local authority planning process, as well as Environmental Protection Agency processes. The Deputy mentioned air and water. Both Lisheen and Galmoy mines had community gain with the development aspects and companies did that voluntarily. The Deputy also raised the issue of dolomite, which has been addressed, with the relevant portion to be deleted on Committee Stage.

As I indicated in my opening statement, the minerals referred to in this Bill do not include water, stone, sand, gravel, clay, turf, peat or topsoil. Deputies mentioned issues relating to quarries that do not come under the scope of this legislation but fall under planning regulations in local authorities.

To respond to Deputy Catherine Connolly, royalties were previously set on a case-by-case basis, with some set decades ago. This Bill sets uniform royalty rates for future developments. Under new mining licences, there are remediation funds for the remediation of old mines, although I accept there are significant historical problems that must be remediated. Again, we can explore those issues on Committee Stage, although I am not sure we will have scope to pursue the report suggested by the Deputy. She could contact the Chairman of the committee to explore it at another stage in advance.

With regard to the Aarhus Convention, there has been close consultation with the Attorney General's office and the provisions of the Bill in this regard have been drafted accordingly. We can explore that on Committee Stage. The Fraser Institute rankings focused on clarity and transparency of the regulatory system rather than fiscal return and infrastructure, although I know where the Deputy is coming from with regard to royalties. We can explore that issue on Committee Stage also.

I thank all Deputies for their contributions and look forward to further debate and engagement on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 22 Feb 2017

Minerals Development Bill 2015 [Seanad]: Second Stage

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 2017