Vol. 15 No. 2
I move amendment 1:—
Section 1, sub-section (1). After the word "Commerce" in line 22 to insert the words "the expression ‘mineral' means any material substance, not being animal or vegetable, which is a product of the bowels of the earth."
Amendment 2 deals with the words "and substances" and, perhaps, I will be allowed to speak upon both amendments at the same time. The second amendment has relation to sub-section (2).
The Senator may adopt that course.
I am not in any way opposing this section. I am only trying to get an explanation about certain words that are included in the Bill. I know quite well that the definition of the word "minerals" has caused great anxiety to very many scientific people. I am aware that it is a difficult job to invent an explanation. I adopted the expedient of going to the Oxford Dictionary, which is recognised as the best authority in connection with English words. I took this word for word from the Oxford Dictionary, and I do not think I could do better than that. I do not intend to try to do better than that.
I am glad to know the source of the Senator's inspiration.
The reason I want some definiteness in this matter is because there is a certain claim to interference with private rights and property. I think this matter should be explained very definitely and clearly. Speaking on this matter the other day, the Minister said that they adopted this wide expression because they did not wish anybody to make objection on any particular point. I am not sure if that was the exact reason or whether it was they found it too difficult to get a better explanation of the word. Later on I will come to the word "substance." I mentioned this matter in the House the other day, and I daresay there is no use in repeating the argument. I looked up the dictionary also on that point and I repeated some of the explanations given in relation to the word "substance." The explanations cover practically everything that could be imagined, not only materials in the bowels of the earth, but things above the earth such as trees, grass, oats, turbary and hundreds of other things. Everything is included that lies on or under the ground.
Surely the Minister does not want to claim all those things? It seems to be unreasonable. I am sure the President could not possibly have read this Bill. We all know how anxious he is to preserve property rights. He is very particular about that, and I am sure he would not countenance a communistic measure of this nature. I do not think the Soviet ever got quite so far as this Bill seeks to get. I would like to have a good explanation of what "minerals" or "substances" means. Water, for instance, could be described as a substance. The commonsense of Senators will suggest that any claim by the State to take over everything under and above the earth in the Free State area is a most unreasonable proposition. Such a proposal ought not to be permitted to go through, if it were only from the point of view of a defence of private property. I have taken the best method I could to make a change, and I submit it to the favourable consideration of the Seanad.
I think Senator Moore's definition of the word "minerals" goes as near to the truth as anything I have ever seen. I am sorry that the Senator's great rectitude compelled him to admit that it was taken from the Oxford Dictionary, because it was almost worthy of himself.
Very nearly.
What about coal?
I would like the Seanad to understand that the Minister does not attempt to define "minerals." Later on he says that minerals shall include such and such a thing. It is almost impossible of definition. Every substance in the bowels of the earth, with the exception of royal minerals, has been subject to decision at some time or other. If the Minister will now accept a definite decision with regard to the meaning of minerals, I think Senator Colonel Moore has offered him the best form of words that could possibly be suggested.
I am afraid that Senator Colonel Moore and his friend the Oxford Dictionary have gone too far, or perhaps I should say too deep, for the purposes of this Bill. The definition which Senator Colonel Moore proposes would include far more than the Minister intends to include in the Bill. It would include, for instance, granite boulders lying upon the surface of the earth. Nothing comes more directly from the bowels of the earth than granite boulders. They have been——
Irrupted.
Yes, irrupted by volcanic action, and they certainly are not minerals within the meaning of the Bill. We know they are on the surface of the earth and are used by the person in the occupation of the land where they lie for building his fences and so forth. They are used in a great many parts of the country for making granite setts and kerbstones. They are not minerals within the meaning of the Bill. I agree with Senator Comyn that it is quite impossible to give a definition of minerals which will suit every case. The meaning of the word "minerals" depends partly upon the instrument in which it is used, whether it is an Act of Parliament, a lease or an agreement. It may, too, depend upon the locality in relation to which it is used. It may even depend upon local customs. You cannot get any definition which will suit every instrument in every case. I submit that the Minister has here a definition which absolutely suits the purpose of the Bill: "the expression ‘minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working." I cannot imagine a definition more general and yet one which would exclude things not intended to be covered by the Bill.
Does the Senator mean to say that the word "substance" does not include "granite"?
There is something more stated.
It must be obtainable by underground or surface working. The word "substance" by itself would include almost anything.
The occupiers of land in Ireland are very much affected by the definition that is given to the term "minerals." In this Bill two classes of minerals are referred to. We have the minerals owned by the State and the minerals privately owned.
They are the same minerals.
In the case of minerals owned by the State and granted to them under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1923, the definition expressly excludes all stones, gravel, sand and clay. By defining minerals now to include every substance, you take away from the occupiers of land their right to these four things: stone, sand, gravel, and clay. If you take these things away what have you left?
Do we take them away?
No.
We do not take them away.
This proposes to give the minerals to the State, and if you say that minerals include everything do you not take away stone, gravel, sand, and clay?
No. You give yourself the right to dispose of these if they are declared by a court decision to be minerals.
I would be satisfied if it is made clear that these things are not interfered with, and that the occupiers of land still have the right, the same as they had before, to dispose of these four substances. I could not agree to Senator Colonel Moore's amendment unless those substances are excepted from it.
Senator Colonel Moore's amendment indicates that minerals mean any substance, not being animal or vegetable, which is the product of the bowels of the earth. Coal must be regarded as a substance. It is a mineral, and I think the Senator's definition would not be correct at all, because everybody understands that coal, while being regarded as a mineral, is a vegetable substance; it is the result of vegetation, and therefore the Senator's definition would be wrong.
I wish to support Senator Linehan's contention as regards those four minerals. I think it ought to be made very clear to the people in the country that these substances are simply and solely the property of the owner of the land.
I think it is necessary, in discussing any of these amendments by way of definition, to take a glance at the whole lot of them. I explained here on the Second Stage that the main purpose of the Bill was to provide the legislation which was looked to under Article 11 of the Constitution. Subsidiary to that we did bring forward certain matters which relate to mines and minerals in private ownership, but for specific purposes and nearly always for the purpose of allowing the owner of these mines and minerals better facilities for the working of the property which he owns. We do depart from that principle with regard to mines and minerals in private ownership in one sub-section of a particular section.
One part of the Bill relates to mines and minerals governed by Article 11, gripped by the State, and the other part of the Bill refers to mines and minerals in private ownership. There is no definition in the definition clause which relates to minerals in Part III; that is to say, the Part which talks of mines and minerals in the possession of the State. The reason we do not define minerals is simply that we have to fill a certain gap. Article 11 says:
All the lands and waters, mines and minerals, within the territory of the Irish Free State ... shall, from and after the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, belong to the Irish Free State...
All mines and minerals, not defined, belong to the State excepting those in which there was a valid private right existing at the date of the passing of the Constitution.
We submit to the Oireachtas regulations to enable somebody under the Constitution to dispose of whatever is hereafter found by the Court to be included in the term "mines and minerals." Consequently we do not define the term because by definition you might cut down your power of disposing of certain things. It would not be an amendment of Article 11, because you cannot do that by a definition in an Act here, but you certainly might cut down the power I have referred to. Supposing we cut out coal. Supposing we put in a definition section relating to Part III of the Bill and indicated that minerals there shall not include coal. What would be the effect of that? You would not prevent Article 11 from gripping coal for the State, but you would prevent yourself from allowing anybody to work coal. You put it into the dead hand of the State and you do not allow anybody to work it.
You must not have any definition in regard to mines and minerals in so far as mines and minerals are brought into State control by Article 11. If Senators will look at Section 4 (1) (d) they will see: "If for the purposes of this Act any question arises as to whether any particular substance can be mined and taken under any particular such mining right...the Minister may refer such question to the Irish Land Commission, exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner, for their determination." That paragraph refers to whether or not mines and mineral rights have been reserved through any of the Land Purchase Acts. We leave that for judicial determination. If we delete any definition and simply use the same words as occur in Article 11, we leave it with whatever is given to us under Article 11. We have power to dispose of it under this Bill.
We define minerals in a very wide way over the other Parts of the Bill— IV, V and VIII. We set out that the expression "minerals" includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working. It would be impossible to do as Senator Colonel Moore did, take out the word "substances" and then give some lore as to what the meaning of substances is. It must be taken in relation to the words surrounding it: "Substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working." The question of oats is definitely excluded from this. We have a very wide definition of minerals for that section. I think it is necessary. If Senators will look at the Part of the Bill which deals with minerals in private possession—Part IV—I think they will see that the full effect of Part IV is to enable people who own mineral substances, but who are prevented from working them because there is somebody who should join in the working and who is reluctant to do so, to work them. We are coming to the aid of the owner of these minerals in pretty nearly every particular. We go against him in one case. Look at the restrictions that we have hedged around this. The owner is to be helped, but only if it has become clear to the Minister that there is no other way to get the minerals worked. Secondly, there has to be reference to the Board, and, thirdly, anybody who objects can make representations to the Board. The Board has to report, and the Minister has to consider the report and to decide whether in the public interest the thing is required. I think there is no necessity to be alarmed at that wide definition of the word "minerals" in Parts IV, V and VIII of the Bill, because it is mainly for the aid of a person who owns minerals.
And substances.
I am afraid I cannot get the bogey "substances" out of the Colonel's mind. "The expression ‘minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working." That is my definition.
"Substances" as given here has no definition.
It is limited by the words which follow, "in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working." I think most of the amendments that have been put down have been put down because there was no complete analysis made by those who put them down of the purposes of the measure. We must fill the gap that is left by Article 11. We fill it by allowing ourselves full power to dispose of any matter hereafter found to be a mineral, but we do not decide what are minerals for the purpose of this. We leave it for judicial determination hereafter. We adopt a very wide definition, because we want it to apply in the widest possible fashion, so as to come to the aid of the person who owns a mineral.
The Minister always assumes that nobody has looked at the Bill except himself. The reason I put in this definition of the word "mineral" was on account of the word "substances," which was used in the next paragraph. On account of that I made an attempt at a definition. I do not understand what Senator Brown means by saying it would narrow it. However, the word "substances" here includes "all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working.""In or under." If there was "under" only we might suppose it dealt only with things that were under the ground. If you said "in" only it might possibly be understood in the same way and not on the surface. When you add "in" and "under" together if "in" means anything it must mean "over."
And "under" would mean on.
If you say "in" is "under"——
It means on top of it.
Either "in" is useless in it or it means "over."
If "in" means on top what would "under" mean?
If you have "under the ground" there is some sense in it, but if you have "in" and "under" there is no sense. The word "substance" is the widest possible term that you can find. It is an absurd word to use here. The Minister says that will be for judicial interpretation. How is a judge or anybody else to decide a word that nobody can define? I maintain that the word "substance" is quite useless in that way. It either means something or nothing. He does not tell us what it is. Let him leave it out. Let him say only minerals and leave the judge to decide what is a mineral and what is not. The Minister gets out of his difficulty by saying the judge decides. Putting in these ridiculous words "in and under" and "substances" only embarrasses the whole situation.
Where does a judge come in on my definition?
A judge is no more a genius than anybody else. He can only take the word you give him, and if you give him a word that has no sense how is he to define it?
When will he be called on to define it?
You said to leave it to the courts.
We leave a particular thing but not that definition. It does not apply to this Part of the Bill.
A judge is not to decide this question at all?
No.
This is the first time you said that. Anyway, a judge eventually has to decide these things when they come before him. The fact is that these words were put in intentionally or unintentionally, and no one can understand them. I will withdraw my first amendment, but I will have to have the question in regard to "substances" put.
I want again to repeat that we do not define "minerals" for the purpose of Part III of this Bill. That is deliberate, and no judge will hereafter, so far as Part III is concerned and so far as the State representatives are concerned, ever have to decide on the phrase "and substances." If the Senator will only look he will see that there is no definition which applies to Part III in the definition clause. In the next amendment, the Senator intends to wipe out the words "and substances." That only applies to Parts IV, V and VIII. Let us say it applies mainly to Part IV, and that applies to mines in private ownership and the intention is to help the owner of mines, including substances of a particular type, to get better facilities for the working of mines and the substances which he owns. It is impossible, I think, to put in any definition in Part I. If you put in a definition in Part I it is a definition that is going to run right through the whole legislation.
I move amendment 2:—
Section 1, sub-section (2).
To delete in line 38 the words "and substances." I have said practically all I want to say about this matter. I maintain that the word "substances" there is perfectly useless and I would ask the Seanad to agree to have it taken out.
I move amendment 3:
Section 1, sub-section (2). After the word "substances" in line 38 to insert the words "except any stone, gravel, sand or clay.
This section states:
(2) In Parts IV and V and VIII of this Act—the expression "minerals" includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working.
This section refers to privately-owned grounds. It would apply to the cases of land purchased before the Act of 1903, where generally the landlords reserved the mineral rights of their lands before selling to the tenants. In those cases, it is the landlord who owns the mineral rights, generally speaking. If by any definition in this Bill we decide that the term "minerals" includes other substances, there is a danger that the rights of the tenant and the occupiers would be in jeopardy and that they can legally be prevented from utilising the stone, sand, gravel and peat on their holdings. I might say that those words in my amendment are taken from the Land Acts of 1903 and 1923. I will quote for you Section 13 of the Land Act of 1903. The Act of 1923 contains a provision which is practically the same. The section reads:—
(3) On the sale under the Land Purchase Acts of any land by the Land Commission, or of any land comprised in an estate by the owner of the estate, there shall be reserved, in the prescribed manner, to the Commission the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals and digging and searching for minerals, on or under that land, and the said right shall be disposed of by the Commission in manner hereafter to be provided by Parliament:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply—
(a) to any demesne or other land resold in pursuance of Section 3 of this Act; or
(b) to any such right which constitutes a superior interest, or which is vested in the Crown; or
(c) to any stone, gravel, sand or clay.
A contract has been made between the State and the tenant purchasers whereby the purchasers agree to pay a certain sum as annuity every year on the basis that the stone, gravel, sand and clay in their holdings are their property. If the State by any means defines minerals to include all substances which of course would include these four substances I have mentioned, it will have the effect of putting the State in the position of breaking the contract with the tenants. I trust that the Seanad will make it clear, in any legislation that they pass as regards minerals, that the bargain made with the tenants in 1903 and 1923 will be kept and that there will be no danger of any interference with their right to deal with these four substances. I have quoted in my amendment the words exactly as they appear in the Land Acts. I might have put in turf or peat but I wanted to keep to the words that were already in the Acts to which I have referred.
I think it is much to be regretted that the Minister, in framing this very difficult measure, had not the assistance of Senator Linehan who knows so much about the question he is dealing with. I said this is a difficult measure. By Article 11 of the Constitution it is provided that all mines and minerals vested in any Public Department shall be the property of Saorstát Eireann and shall be administered as may be decided by Parliament. Every word of that Article 11 of the Constitution is pregnant with meaning. All mines and minerals vested in any Public Department! What are mines and minerals? It has been held that limestone is a mineral; it is carbonate of lime. It has been held that disjecta membra of mammoth animals are not minerals.
Yes.
It has been held that they are not. The point is what is a mineral? If coal is a mineral, and undoubtedly it is, why should not turf be a substance of a mineral character such as Senator Moore has indicated in his speech? That shows you the difficulty of the subject in relation to what a mineral is, and the Minister was quite right in omitting to give any definition of a mineral. He only says "in Parts IV, V and VIII of the Act the expression ‘minerals' includes all minerals and substances." He defines minerals by using the very word minerals. That shows the difficulty of the position.
I hope that Senators were able to give full attention to the speech which was made by Senator Linehan. It was so concentrated that it was hard to follow it, unless you knew beforehand almost everything he was referring to. What is the position in regard to minerals in the Free State? First of all, the owner-in-fee from the skin to the centre of the earth, is the tenant in capite, the head man— there were very few of these in Ireland. In Thomond there was only one, and all the smaller gentry and landlords in Clare, Limerick and parts of Tipperary were only tenants of the House of O'Brien, and all the mines and minerals are reserved in the leases. Therefore, when these landlords sold their estates the mines and minerals were reserved to the person who claimed to be the representative of the House of Thomond. They are not vested in the State and are in private ownership. Again, in the case of land sold under the Ashbourne Act the sale was carried out by means of a conveyance to the tenant and the tenant has now in his possession the mines and minerals as well as the grass. That state of things continued until the Act of 1903 was passed, the Act referred to by Senator Linehan. On a sale under the Act of 1903 by a landlord the mines and minerals became vested in the Land Commission. There were exceptions to that vesting. The exceptions are set out in the Act of 1903. One exception was that the minerals of any demesne did not go to the Land Commission, and the second exception is, that stone, gravel, sand or clay did not go to the Land Commission. Now stone includes limestone, which is a mineral, and gravel might be limestone. I have often considered that section, and I believe that clay there would not include china clay or potters' clay. Nearly all the tenants in Ireland own the stone, gravel, sand and clay on their land, and nearly all the great lords in Ireland, especially in the South, still own the minerals on their land and they are not caught by Article 11 of the Constitution at all. The Minister understood all that and of course he has to deal with that situation as it presents itself to him. What does he do? He is quite right in saying that he does not attempt a definition. He says the “expression ‘minerals’ includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working.” That would be all right, I think, if the Minister could see his way to accept the amendment of Senator Linehan.
That would kill all your argument.
Not at all.
Certainly.
I have not argued, so far as I know, up to the present. I have given a statement of the facts as a foundation for an argument. There is no use in making an interruption. This thing cannot be captured by a tour de force. You cannot take away the rights of the farmers of Ireland without full consideration. Here is what Senator Linehan suggests and I think very wisely: “Section 1, sub-section (2). After the word ‘substances’ in line 38 to insert the words ‘except any stone, gravel, sand or clay.’” It would read then and, as I think, rightly: “In Parts IV, V and VIII of this Act— the expression ‘minerals’ includes all minerals and substances except any stone, gravel, sand or clay in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working.”
In my opinion, and I say it with great deference to the experience of Senator Linehan in this matter, that is absolutely and entirely right and the Minister cannot meet that argument by simply saying it is a definition applicable to Part IV, because what does Part IV do? Parts IV, V and VIII of this Bill are the Parts that enable the State to come inside the boundary of a man's holding and dig up under his ground and allow another man to dig it up also.
Where is that?
I thought now that the Minister would be a little more patient. Part IV of the Bill is the Part that provides for the grant of rights in non-State mines and minerals.
Grant to whom?
To exploiters.
Look at it.
I have read it, and I have something to say about it. I hope that Senators will consider it a little further. It means if a man, in the opinion of the Minister or the opinion of his Board, acts the part of the dog in the manger they are going on to the land. If you have a little bit of property and if some exploiter or prospector—mind you I have great respect for exploiters and for prospectors and I think we ought to have more of them, but at the same time I am conservative enough and I have experience enough to know that the last thing in the world to do is to go inside a man's boundary, especially if you have not good reason for doing it. This allows the Minister to authorise his Board to go inside a man's boundary for the sake of taking stone, gravel, sand or clay. That is what it means. I hope I have stated it as clearly as I could possibly state it. I want to state it clearly for the purpose of Part IV, that is, for the purpose of going in on a man's land. Minerals include stone, gravel, sand or clay.
And turf.
Senator Keane has mentioned turf. That is in my own amendment, which comes on later. I am now dealing with Senator Linehan's amendment, which does not include turf. This empowers them to enter upon a man's land and to deprive him of the sacred right of property and the sacred feeling of property. Stone, gravel, sand and clay are minerals. I hope I have made that clear. That being so, I wish that Senators would recall another thing that Senator Linehan said. Senator Linehan says that if you pass this Act and if you authorise any man for any purpose to go inside a man's farm to get a mineral which for this purpose includes "stone, gravel, sand or clay," you tear up the agreement you made with him, because under his agreement of purchase and under his vesting order "stone, gravel, sand or clay" are his and you cannot touch them. The Minister says "I am not touching him, I am giving him compensation." You have no right to touch him. This Bill, by indirect means, is an invasion of the private rights of the small farmers of this country. I do not want to say more on that. I think it is a matter deserving of very mature consideration. I do not think it has received the consideration that it deserves. Senator Linehan has great experience in matters of this kind.
Now, I would not like that the Bill should in any way be injured by any of the amendments that I support, because I think this is a useful Bill and will be more useful after it escapes from the Seanad. I use the word "escape" advisedly. I do not want to be very critical, but I do think that the amendment of Senator Linehan, preserving the rights of farmers and the feeling of security in what they have bought, ought to be respected. I have an amendment down myself, including "peat." I support Senator Linehan's amendment for the reasons I have given.
We have heard some surprising doctrines from the Senator who has just sat down, coming from the Senator particularly so. Is the Seanad to understand that it is his considered view when dealing with mines and minerals and the rights of the occupying owner of any property that he has an absolute right over and above any superior right of the State? Are we to take it that the Senator is throwing over the doctrines that have been preached by those whom, I think, he would consider to be his leaders; that, ultimately, if an individual's right contravenes the superior rights of the State, then the individual's rights have to give place to the superior rights of the State? Apparently the Senator says the individual's rights are absolute and incontrovertible in any circumstances, and yet——
On a point of explanation.
You can speak later, Senator.
——the Senator says this is a useful Bill. He hopes that it will not be injured. The Bill clearly sets out to provide machinery which, in certain circumstances, will affirm and make practicable the superior rights of the State where the State's greater interest is made manifest. Now I test this amendment and the Senator's support of it by a reference to what he himself says. The Senator says that stone includes limestone. It might include china clay, but he is doubtful. It would certainly include marble. Let us read sub-section (4) of Section 18 in the light of the amendment which the Senator supports:—
(4) Where, in the opinion of the Minister, minerals except any stone, gravel, sand or clay are not being worked or are not being worked efficiently and no satisfactory reason is shown by the person having an interest therein to the Minister for not working such minerals or for not working such minerals efficiently, the Minister may, subject to and in accordance with this Part of the Act, grant to any person who desires, either by himself or through his lessees, to work such minerals a right (in this Part of this Act referred to as a mining (unworked minerals) right) to work such minerals.
Further on in the same Part of the Bill—Part IV—there are very close precautions to ensure that there is going to be a very sound reason before any right will be granted over and above the right of the owner of the property, who may not be an occupying farmer—he may be a landlord. Now if it appears essential to the State that minerals sunk in the earth should be worked, that there must be some interference with some individual's rights to procure their working, the Senator would support that. But if it appears that the working of china clay or limestone was essential for the wellbeing of the State, and that some individual possesses ownership rights and prevents their working, I ask the Senator would he say that the individual's rights must prevail? If that is the case then the Senator has no right to support this Bill at all. The Bill goes by the board if the Senator's contentions are right or justifiable.
I do not like to interrupt, but I think the Senator is not speaking to the amendment at all.
Perhaps the Senator is thinking of the amendments that have already been discussed. I am speaking to Senator Linehan's amendment, which desires to "except any stone, gravel, sand or clay" in any reference to minerals in Part IV of the Bill. If we "except stone, gravel, sand or clay" then sub-section (4) will have no effect in respect to these substances. I ask Senators if that is their desire: that this sub-section should have no effect in respect to these minerals if it were found desirable that they should be worked, and if an individual owner was impeding their working. So long as the reasonable rights of the owner are considered and protected as provided for in the later sections of that Part of the Bill, I think the Senator's own statement of facts makes it essential that the Seanad should oppose this amendment.
I want to get a distinction drawn between the determination of the rights of ownership over certain property and a certain interference which I hold is nine-tenths in aid of the owner and only a small fraction against him. Senator Linehan talked about jeopardising the rights of the tenant owner in the case of the materials that he mentions: stone, sand, gravel, or clay. Would the Senator point out to me any place in the Bill where, by a definition, we make a determination prejudicially to the tenant owner in his rights of ownership in these things? I suggest it will not be found in any part of the Bill.
It will be found in Part IV.
A determination of rights of ownership? They are not interfered with. His rights of ownership are already determined. The Senator talked about jeopardising the rights of ownership. He either means affecting adversely the tenant in the matter of working without taking away his rights of ownership and prejudicially affecting these rights because we allow somebody to work with him, or he may mean alternatively that you simply deny him his title of ownership. I say you do not do the second thing at any rate. If anybody thinks that this Bill does that I want to have the section pointed out to me. Section 4 provides: "if for the purposes of this Act any question arises (a) as to whether an exclusive mining right has before the passing of this Act been reserved to the Irish Land Commission under Section 13 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and, if so reserved, as to whether such right has been purchased or disposed of by the Irish Land Commission in accordance with law, and, if so disposed of, the nature and extent of such disposition."
That brings in everything, the Land Commission rights versus the tenant's. If any question arises on these points the Minister may refer such question to the Irish Land Commission, exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner, for their determination. Later there is the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, and later still there is the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. So far as rights are concerned in these four things, if any question arises with regard to any of the substances in Section 4, then they are going to be referred for judicial determination.
I want to know if the position as set out in the Bill is accepted. Having either determined the rights of ownership, or, if they are not determined, having made provision for their future determination under Section 4 of the Bill, we then go on in Part IV of the Bill to say that where there is an owner of minerals—Sub-section (1) of Section 18: "Where minerals are comprised in or lying under land subject to a lease, exception, reservation, restriction, covenant or condition, or are otherwise incapable of being worked without the concurrence of two or more persons," then the Minister may, in accordance with this Part of the Act, "grant to any person who has an interest in such minerals and who, either by himself or through his lessees, desires to work such minerals, a right ... to work such minerals." Senator Comyn said that was the section which granted mining rights. I asked him to whom, and he carefully avoided giving an answer. It is easy to conceive an area in which there are certain mineral substances and where for their proper working the concurrence of two or more persons is required, where one is recalcitrant and where the other is willing. Power is given to grant to the willing man the right to work such minerals, but that right is subject to a considerable number of restrictions.
I want to get this point clear. Section 4 is the section which allows for determination by a judicial authority as to whether or not the tenant owns these things. We make provision for the judicial determination of these things. We do not refer to the rights of ownership in Part IV, but we do go on to say that once the rights have been determined, that where minerals are not being worked and where the concurrence of two or more persons is required, we may grant to one of the owners the right to work over the whole of the property. In sub-section (4) of Section 18 we go outside of that and we say with regard to property of a mineral type that where the minerals "are not being worked, or are not being worked efficiently, and no satisfactory reason is shown by the person having an interest therein to the Minister for not working such minerals, or for not working such minerals efficiently, the Minister may, subject to and in accordance with this Part of the Act, grant to any person who desires, either by himself or through his lessees, to work such minerals a right (in this Part of this Act referred to as a mining (unworked minerals) right) to work such minerals." What is that section enveloped by? By this, that the Minister may not even proceed to think of granting this right unless certain things that are referred to in Section 20 are evidenced to him: unless it is shown that it is not reasonably practical to obtain such right by private arrangement for any of the following reasons, and then the reasons are set out. The reasons are evidenced when he receives an application. That application goes before the Mining Board. Even if the report from the Mining Board on the application is in the affirmative, the Minister must, under Section 23, become satisfied that a case has been established entitling him to grant the right applied for, and that it is in the public interest that such right should be granted to the applicant. It is only then that this right may be granted.
I want to come back, for a moment, to sub-section (4) of section 18. It is the only section which affects the granting away of a right to work a mineral. It does not affect ownership at all. If Senators want to except "stone, gravel, sand or clay," then I suggest that they ought to go the whole way and cut out the whole section. If they do I want them to remember this, that they are going counter to representations that have been made to me from a considerable number of places in which there are valuable minerals not being worked because there is somebody who owns the surface and will not allow the working to take place. If we are going to allow interference with private property why not allow it in the rare cases of possible interference with "stone, gravel, sand or clay"?
Senator Comyn wondered whether china clay would or would not come within the reservation. Supposing you have at any rate clay surrounded by some silica and it has to be determined which predominates, then, under paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section 4, which speaks of "whether any particular substance can be mined and taken under any particular mining right," that again goes forward for judicial determination. In Part IV. of the Bill we do say, occasionally, in order to help owners that we will not grant them extra facilities for working their own minerals where these minerals are enclosed in an area that requires the whole area to be worked before there can be efficient working of them. The whole of Part IV, with the exception of sub-section (4) of section 18, is in aid of the owners of minerals. It is nowhere adverse to them. It may become adverse to them under sub-section (4) of section 18 in the case of these sacred substances, "stone, gravel, sand or clay" if you find cases where they are not being worked efficiently. There ought to be power to grant a right to work these as there is to grant the right to work more valuable substances. That is the only part of the clause that is adverse to the owner. I think that there has been complete confusion on two points. With the determination of the rights of the owner we do not interfere. We do not even pretend to define it for ourselves. We leave it for judicial determination. The other matter is in relation to the granting to an owner of an ancillary right to help him to get the minerals that he owns properly and efficiently worked. In both cases there has to be a judicial determination.
This debate has ranged over a rather wide field. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference in the points of view expressed by Senator Linehan and myself and the points of view expressed by Senator Johnson and the Minister. There is a fundamental difference between us. I would like to know whether the Minister has any particular case in mind in which he requires power to work "any stone, gravel, sand or clay." Can he imagine a case in which——
I can imagine lots of cases.
Senator Brown says that he can imagine lots of cases. The Senator has acquired the little habit of interrupting me. It is disconcerting, but I will not be upset. Does the Minister want to cover limestone? There are hundreds of miles of limestone in Galway Bay which could be got without interfering with the private rights of anybody. Does he want to cover gravel? There is no particular public service for which he wants "stone, gravel, sand or clay," and yet he has, without any reason whatever, interfered, or rather asserted the claim to interfere, with property rights. That is the claim that he has put forward.
After the payment of compensation.
I can see from the Labour Benches that what I am saying is not accepted. The Minister wants to familiarise you with the invasion of the private property of farmers. That is what he wants to do. I think the members of the House have taken my meaning and that I need not elaborate it further. What I will say to Senator Johnson and to the Minister —I have not mentioned it before and have not thought it necessary until now —is that this invasion of the private rights of farmers must stop, and stop quickly, when you come to a certain point. In regard to what Senator Johnson said, certainly the State has the right to all the resources of the State, but the farmers of Ireland have a right to their holdings. You must reconcile both rights, and you must not invade the right of the farmer without good and sufficient reason.
That is provided for.
There is no reason for a demonstration on the part of Senator Farren.
With all respect, I was not demonstrating.
The Senator was looking in a most provocative way. I think the Minister ought to be careful. I do not wish to be too severe, but in a matter of this kind I think there is no reason whatever why he should have interfered in the case of "stone, gravel, sand or clay." I think that wisdom lies in accepting the amendment proposed by Senator Linehan.
Is it not the case that at the present time the county councils can, without any authority, go into a quarry that a farmer owns and take away material out of it whether the farmer likes it or not?
There is a necessity for that, and there are quarrels about it.
If that happened in my case I should resent it very much, while feeling at the same time that the rights of the greater number of people were greater than my private rights.
I just want to refer to what Senator Comyn said last. The Senator either objects to interference with the rights of private property or else he only objects when there is interference with certain named substances. I do not know which point he takes.
Threatened interference without showing the necessity for it.
The Senator's last words, "without showing the necessity for it," are important. Suppose that a farmer was working and, therefore, was in possession of coal beneath his land?
Coal is not one of the things referred to in the amendment.
Coal is dealt with in Part IV of the Bill.
It is not "stone, gravel, sand or clay."
A farmer owns land which has coal beneath it. He is working the coal. It is in his possession. The Senator will allow me to interfere with a man's private rights if it is a valuable substance such as coal, but he will not allow me to interfere with the farmer in respect to the four named substances without, as he says, good and sufficient reason. There have to be very good and sufficient reasons before there is any interference. The number of cases in which there will be interference in these matters will be very rare indeed. The Senator asked me if I had any cases. In about thirty cases representations have been made to my Department. Cases have come before me where the substance looked for is clay. In some of these cases the mineral is in different ownership. I cannot understand the discrimination that is made. Certainly in some cases interference is going to strengthen the hands of farmers in dealing with these four substances. Is the position this: that there is a reluctance to interfere with farmers in their rights only in so far as these four named substances are concerned, and not in regard to anything else?
Clay belongs to the farmer; minerals do not.
A mineral may belong to a farmer. If minerals do belong to the farmer, then the Senator is going to allow me to interfere, but he will not allow me to interfere in the case of the four named substances. If you are not going to allow interference with private property, then the proper course to follow is to obliterate Part IV of the Bill altogether.
Part IV is all right so far as it relates to minerals.
And it is not all right if it allows me to grant a person having an interest in "sand, stone, gravel, or clay" better working facilities for these four things. I am not to be allowed to strengthen the hands of an owner so far as these four substances are concerned. If I am not to be allowed to do that, then it would be better obliterate the section altogether. If you are going to leave the section in for one thing, then I think you are bound to leave it in for everything.
I beg to move amendment 4:—
Section 1, sub-section (2). After the word "substances" in line 38 to insert the words "other than peat, stone, gravel, sand or clay used for fuel, building or agricultural purposes."
My object in moving this amendment is to see what attitude the Minister will adopt in regard to it. I do not propose again to go over the ground which we travelled on the last occasion.
It is practically the same thing.
If the Minister will accept the amendment I need not say anything more about it. I think that peat will be regarded as a mineral substance under the definitions contained in the Bill. It seems to me turbary and peat are altogether outside the scope of a Bill of this character.
I have exactly the same objection to this amendment as to the last.
With regard to Section 2, so far as I understand it, it preserves certain rights and, in view of what Senator Comyn said some time ago about preserving certain rights of landlords who have sold their property, it appears to me that this section proposes to continue that system.
It does.
Section 2 (2) says: "shall continue to apply to any letting, lease, sale or demise of any such exclusive right." That means that the old regulations made with regard to preserving the existing rights of landlords shall continue in force. I ask the Minister to consider the deletion of these lines, because it is merely continuing a system about which there has been a lot of complaint. The complaint centres round a man owning land, selling it to a tenant, but continuing to have in that land an interest in minerals and other rights. I think that is wrong, and I ask the Minister to consider the question of deleting these words on the Report Stage.
Perhaps the Minister will explain what is the nature of the rights that the last five or six lines of Section 2 preserve. There was an old provision that the ex-landlord, although he had sold his interest in the estate, had a right to 25 per cent. of all royalties in respect of minerals. Does this section propose to perpetuate that right for the future?
That is precisely what is intended. I am not pretending in this to speak with any special accuracy at the moment, and I do not intend to go into details. Generally the situation was that where land passed and the mineral rights were reserved to the Land Commission, if, afterwards, the Land Commission made a letting of the minerals, a certain percentage, 25 per cent., of the royalties received by the Land Commission were reserved to the original landlord, whether or not he had worked the minerals. That was the position up to the 1923 Act. Under the 1923 Act, following out the provisions of the old Acts, a clause was inserted to say that where land passed under the 1923 Act and where, afterwards, a letting was made of mines or minerals, then the percentage to be retained for the benefit of the original landlord would be such as would be hereafter determined.
In the first draft of this Bill I included 25 per cent. in order to put the land passing under the 1923 Act on the same basis as under previous Land Purchase Acts. The point was made in the Dáil that as these landlords had done nothing with regard to the development of the minerals, as they were old-time rights and as no provision reserving them had been made under the Act of 1923, it was inequitable to continue the provision. I agreed with that, and I moved to leave it out. This clause has been put in reserving the 25 per cent. in the very rare cases in which lettings of mines or minerals have been made by the Land Commission and where, in fact, some old landlords are in possession of 25 per cent. of the rents and royalties. We went the length of cutting it out where a rent or royalty was not, in fact, being derived. We decided to keep it in where there is some interest passing to somebody. The cases are rare; I do not suppose there will be half a dozen. If the Seanad likes we can have that matter reconsidered.
Are those rights to be determined, or are they to be in perpetuity? Can the landlords hand them on for ever?
They will be in their possession, and they can be demised and all the rest of it.
I think the Minister has given a fair explanation of this rather complicated position. In the case of a landlord whose interest has not been disposed of through the Land Commission, whatever that interest may be, his rights to mines and minerals, if he has any, are not interfered with by this Bill. If a landlord sold his land under the 1903 Act and was at the date of the sale possessed of mines and minerals, then the percentage of the royalty to which he was entitled under the 1903 Act, or the indefinite proportion of the royalty to which he would be entitled under the 1923 Act, is gone now under the amendment moved in the Dáil unless there has been an actual lease of the mines and minerals and a working under that lease. That position is perfectly plain.
I would like to bring another matter to the knowledge of the Minister. It is suggested that the landlords have not worked the minerals satisfactorily. I know one man, Lord Inchiquin, who during the last two or three years has spent £500 or £600 boring and searching for minerals. If his rights are to be taken away he is, I think, entitled to some compensation. I think that is a matter which the Minister ought to consider. We must be fair to everybody.
Are these residential or absentee English landlords? If a royalty is to be enjoyed by absentees it is nearly as equitable as the allocation of the annuities to the English people without considering the Irish holders at all. If you do not intend to pay annuities, why pay royalties?
I am glad to see my friend is supporting our policy.
They are all coming round, one after the other.
Perhaps Senator Farren will put down an amendment dealing with this matter and we can discuss it on the Report Stage.
I will do so.
I beg to move amendment 5:—
Section 5, sub-section (1). After the word "Eireann" in line 58 to insert the words "including mines royal and minerals on or under the foreshores and seas surrounding Saorstát Eireann."
The object of this amendment is to elicit from the Minister whether, in point of fact, he or the State is possessed of the mines royal and the minerals on or under the foreshores and seas surrounding the Free State. The amendment might be regarded as somewhat meticulous, but I think it is an amendment of very great substance. Mines royal, as Senators know, are gold, silver and quicksilver. There is gold in this country. If gold is blended with another minerals such as copper it is not a royal mine; it is an ordinary mine. If gold or silver is found alone, then it is a royal mine and it is vested in the King as such.
I want to make special reference to foreshores. It seems to me that in the development of our mineral resources the foreshores of the country will be more important in the immediate future than the dry land. I was over recently in that part of Ireland which has the honour of being the birthplace of the ancestors of Senator Gogarty— the shores of Galway Bay. I took up a fistful of top sand—it is a fad of mine to do these things—and, having made an analysis of the sand as best I could, I sent it to the School of Mines in Cornwall. Here is the reply I got: "I am in receipt of your letter enclosing a cheque"—that is for the cost of assay —"We have completed the assay of the sample of sand you sent us and we beg to report that it contains 6lbs. of tin metal per long ton of 2,240lbs."
My grandfather's clock!
Observe how surprised my friend gets. This is a most important matter because the top sand, being the lightest sand, would, of course, contain the smallest percentage of the metal. In my opinion the foreshore in that area could be made a most valuable asset for this country. I would like to say that similar samples of sand can be got 20 miles away from where I picked up that sand. The foreshores of this country, especially on the Western seaboard, are, from the mining point of view, of great importance.
I put down the amendment for the purpose of eliciting from the Minister whether he has control over foreshores and royal mines. The foreshores hitherto have been a subject in regard to which lawyers differed as to ownership—whether the ownership was in the Crown itself or in any Department of the Crown. The same doubt existed in regard to mines royal. I know that for two or three years after the Free State came into existence it was a matter that engaged the attention of lawyers and, perhaps, the Ministry. I would like to know from the Minister whether this question has been finally determined.
This amendment affects nothing in the part of the Bill where it is proposed to insert it. I think the Senator will agree with that. The section is merely a definition section, and it simply says: "the expression ‘State mines and minerals' means in relation to any mines and minerals which at the date of the passing of this Act belong, by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution or otherwise, to Saorstát Eireann, such mines and minerals." There is not much use in putting in extra words if they are not covered by Article 11 of the Constitution.
Has the Minister decided the question whether or not the foreshores belong to this country?
We hold that mines royal belong to the State. We also hold in the main that the foreshores belong to the State, but we recognise there have been private rights acquired in the foreshores in particular ways. A definition, however, does not affect that question. It would be a matter for judicial settlement afterwards.
I beg to move amendment 6:—
Section 5, sub-section (3). After the word "substances" in line 6 to insert the words "except any stone, gravel, sand or clay."
This section is in Part I. of the Bill, and relates, I presume, to State-owned mines. The particular sub-section with which I am concerned says: "the word ‘minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working." The Minister mentioned that the question as to what constitutes minerals will be referred to the Judicial Commissioner for decision. No judge, however, can decide anything unless he refers to the law upon the subject. If we pass legislation which enacts that every substance would be included under the term "minerals," it is quite evident that the decision of the Judicial Commissioner in such a case would be to include everything.
I would like to point out that under the Constitution the minerals that passed to this country were the minerals already in the possession of a Department of the State, either the Land Commission or some other Department. The Act which vested the minerals in the State expressly excluded the four substances I referred to to-day. Unless it is intended to deprive land occupiers of the rights they acquired under different Land Acts I do not see why the Minister should object to making it clear that stone, sand, gravel and clay will be excluded under this Bill.
This does not determine any rights. The definition here indicates that when you see the phrase "State mines and minerals" in relation to Article 11 of the Constitution such mines and minerals will mean only such mines and minerals as Article 11 embraces. It does not determine what these are. The amendment would have this effect. It would exclude anybody from having any dealings with these substances if they were found to be rightly in the possession of the State. The Minister for Finance could not dispose of them under the State Lands Acts and I could not dispose of them as minerals. They would be lying there, not in the possession of the tenant and indisposable by the State.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister is perfectly bona fide in what he says, but it seems to me he has really misconstrued his own Bill. If he has not done so he would not have treated Senator Linehan's amendment in the way he has treated it. I would like the Minister carefully to consider the arguments in support of this particular amendment. Senators have not been inclined, I think to examine this Bill as carefully as they examine other Bills and I think the reason possibly is that we have very few mines or minerals in this country. We may, however, in the future have them in the country and for that reason I believe it is desirable to have the foundations properly laid.
I will make no apology for going into this section rather fully in support of Senator Linehan's amendment. You see what is said in Section 5 "In this Act"—that is in the whole Act—"the expression ‘State mines and minerals' means "(a) in relation to any mines and minerals which at the date of the passing of this Act belong, by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution or otherwise, to Saorstát Eireann, such mines and minerals." You see in Article 11 of the Constitution "or otherwise." They belong to Saorstát Eireann under the words "or otherwise." Perhaps by an indirect method the farmers of Ireland are deprived of the control of these four essential substances. In sub-section (1) the word "minerals" includes "all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable by underground or surface working." These are State minerals. That section, as it stands, is capable of this construction and I say, without any hesitation whatever, that it deprives the farmers who purchased under the Act of 1903 of the substances which they bought.
It does not.
That is the position which has been put forward by Senator Linehan, a gentleman who is thoroughly acquainted with the land code, and I certainly, with all the force at my disposal, beg to support that amendment. I think that the Minister between now and the time when this comes to Report Stage will really reconsider that section.
I wonder would it be possible to let this amendment stand over for the presence of the Minister, because the object of the amendment is to ascertain what kind of a board the Minister is going to set up. Is it to be a permanent board or is it to be a board appointed ad hoc for each different occasion?
Amendment ordered to stand over for Report.
I move amendment 8:—
Section 18, sub-section (1). After the word "may" in line 47 to insert the words "subject to the payment by the grantee of such yearly or other compensation as may be fixed by the Minister and".
Section 18 is the section the Minister has already referred to. It is in Part IV of the Bill, and provides for the case of a recalcitrant holder of land who will not agree with an adjoining owner in respect of the working of minerals. What I want to put in is that the Minister "may, subject to the payment by the grantee of such yearly or other compensation as may be fixed by the Minister and subject to and in accordance with this Part of this Act, grant to any person who has an interest in such minerals, and who either by himself or through his lessees, desires to work such minerals, a right (in this Part of this Act referred to as a mining (proprietor's) right) to work such minerals." The Minister, by that section, can give to a grantee the right to work minerals in the holding of a person who does not wish to have them worked. I think this amendment of mine would bring this Bill into line with all the other Acts of Parliament which authorise interference with a man's property or land. I think it would be an improvement in the Bill as drafted. The Minister may say that in a certain part of this Act he is providing for the payment of compensation. That may be so, but in this section the Minister does not make the payment of compensation by the grantee a condition of entering upon the man's land. I think the draftsman of this Bill must have been familiar with the clauses of the Treaty, because undoubtedly compensation is not given in the vital sections of this Bill. Compensation is given by inference, by reason of the fact that there is machinery for assessing compensation in a later Part.
There is in this Part.
In a later Part of the Bill there is machinery for assessing compensation, but in the section that invades the private right there is not the statement that the invasion shall be subject to the payment of compensation. It is only by inference that you can arrive at a conclusion that compensation is payable, just the same as in the Treaty it is only by inference that some people have convinced themselves that the Oath is binding, because it only says "the Oath to be taken shall be." I do not wish now to introduce burning political questions into a Bill of this kind which is really a business matter. I do submit to the House that this amendment of mine ought to be accepted and for the reasons I have set out. My amendment has another advantage, I think, over the Bill as drafted, because the Bill as drafted does not provide for the payment of compensation in periodical sums. The Bill as drafted, so far as I can gather, provides for the payment of compensation wherever it has to be paid as a bulk sum. My amendment would enable the Minister to settle an annual sum, subject to the payment by the grantee of such yearly or other compensation as may be fixed by the Minister. That is not my own idea. I got that from an old statute, a very well drawn statute, dealing with minerals. The reason is this: it is better to have the compensation periodic because people will start to work mines and they may not have a large sum of money to pay compensation for all time. The statute ought allow them to pay as they get the minerals and as they do damage. I want to give the Minister and his advisers a suggestion as to how to fix the compensation—in a lump sum if it is thought proper, an annual sum if it is proper, or a month to month sum if it is thought right. That would be an aid to the person who is working the mine. He may not have very much money. It would also be an aid to the person whose property was interfered with. I think the Minister ought to follow the precedent that was set in the old Acts dealing with subjects of this kind. I am sure the Minister does intend—if his own statute allows him—to act in that way. I do not think that Part of his own Bill dealing with compensation allows him to give compensation in the manner that I have suggested.
The Senator has apparently skipped part of this legislation. Because he does not find compensation mentioned here he assumes that there is no provision for it.
I know it is in Part VII.
If the Senator would look at section 23, sub-section (5) he would see:
"Whenever the Minister grants to a person a right under this section, compensation (in this Act referred to as compensation under Part IV of this Act) in respect of such grant shall be paid in accordance with this Act by such person."
Surely that is definite and clear?
Does the Minister say that that authorises a periodical payment?
That is a minor point. The Senator thinks it is only by inference that you can discover that compensation is payable. His analogy of the Treaty in that respect I am afraid was very unwise. If the Senator's legal opinion on the Treaty is as weak as it is on this——
I will leave that to a junior——
The Senator might get a junior to advise him whether there is a compensation provision here. You cannot put everything into one section. There is economy of effort in all these things. You talk of the grant of mineral rights, the grant of ancillary rights, the restriction on grants of rights, the method by which they may be applied for, and when you get to the section which allows the grant you talk of compensation. I think it is a most logical division. Is there anything in Part VII which forbids a yearly payment? I see nothing. A yearly payment could be made, but may I say frankly that I hope the Board when assessing will assess by way of a lump sum?
I move amendment 7:
"Section 6, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section."
Here we have the establishment of a mining board. So far as I can see that board has got power to do nothing more than a clerk in the office of the Land Commission formerly did. There is this little matter about interfering with the private rights of a recalcitrant owner but except for that I do not see that this Board has any other power or authority. Then I ask myself what are the leases that were granted by the Land Commission before the passing of the Treaty. Very few. Of course, as the Minister has pointed out to you, they have granted no leases since the passing of the Treaty. Is the volume of business sufficient to justify the establishment of a Board?
The amendment does not deal with the establishment of the Board. It refers to a sub-section that makes provision for the payment of the Board after it has been established.
If the Board are going to discharge their work without remuneration my amendment is of no consequence. The meaning of my amendment is that there shall be no money paid for this public service in relation to a Board to look after the matter of mines and minerals. I do not suppose the amendment will be carried. I do not intend to press it to a division because if the amendment were carried the result would be that the whole Bill would go by the board. We would like to know from the Minister really whether we are going to have another Board. This evening we have legislated for an additional Commission.
We would like to know really if the Minister intends to go on with the mines in a vigorous way or is this whole Bill simply to legalise the rights which the Land Commission formerly had to grant leases where they were applied for? That is what we would like to know. We would like to know why we are to establish this Board.
The Senator's amendment does not deal with the establishment of the Board; it deals with the payment of the Board.
The Board will have nothing to do with my granting of a State lease for mines and minerals except on the small point of assessing compensation for the right to enter. The lease will be granted on whatever advice I get from the experts. The Board do not come into that. The main function of the Board is the assessment of compensation and the giving of advice when interference is sought with the right of private property. I think that with the great defence we had from the Senator to-night with regard to private property, he should be the last to object to the right of private property passing to these people. The Board will be appointed for such period as the Minister thinks fit. Payment may be by fees or by remuneration for a period. If there is a big volume of business it might be more economical to appoint for a period. Otherwise it may be more economical to pay fees for whatever work is done.
One member of the Board has to be a lawyer.
Senator Johnson reminds me that one member of the Board has to be a lawyer, and therefore Senators will see that there has to be some question of fees.
We have not got out of the Minister yet whether he is going on with his scheme of developing the minerals of the country.
I do not develop minerals under this Bill. I await applications and I grant leases. I am not going to have a Board which is to make borings, to prospect, to furnish data to would-be prospectors, and afterwards to grant them leases to carry on work on the information they derived from us. We can get certain information put before people through the Geological Survey, which is open to all and sundry. The development, whether vigorous or not, will not depend on my Department. It will depend on people with enterprise and courage to get certain information and then to develop themselves. We might hamper development. I hope we are not going to do so, and certainly not through this Board. The development the Senator looks for will be mainly the development of State mines and minerals. The Board has nothing to do except with the small point to which I referred.
