Vol. 265 No. 11
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state in respect of the Minerals Development Act, 1940 (a) the number of licences issued three years ago or more to foreign controlled companies where as yet no economic mineral discovery has been disclosed and (b) the number of such licences not surrendered.
59.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state in respect of the Minerals Development Act, 1940 (a) the total number of prospecting licences currently in force, (b) the number held by companies which are foreign controlled and (c) the number held by companies which are Irish controlled.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 58 and 59 together.
Up to 30th April, 1970, a total of 1,078 prospecting licences were granted to foreign controlled companies where as yet no economic discovery has been disclosed; 465 such licences are still currently valid.
The number of prospecting licences currently in force is 829; 807 are held by companies which are foreign controlled: the remaining 22 are held by companies which are Irish controlled.
Particulars of these licences other than those issued since 1st January, 1973, are set out in the half-yearly reports laid before the Oireachtas in accordance with the provisions of the Minerals Development Acts, 1940 and 1960. Fifty-eight licences were granted since 1st January, 1973, of which 53 are held by foreign controlled companies.
Would the Minister say whether or not he is happy with the situation in which so many foreign controlled companies are holding so many licences at the moment and, indeed, for extended periods, and if he would think that there may be a danger that here one could get foreign companies gathering in these licences, adopting a dog-in-the-manager attitude and precluding Irish companies—I hope the Government will interest themselves in mining—from exploiting or exploring these potential minerals?
I share the Deputy's concern in this area, but I would point out to him the time scale over which these licences have been issued: for example, I instanced the total number up to 30th April, 1970. This is something long in the past and, unless one is to undermine one's credibility very much with the international mining community, one cannot make lighthearted alterations to commitments already entered into. That applies to the vast majority of licences. But I share the Deputy's interest. This is an area that has to be examined carefully. It is also an area in which one has to be able to call on the expertise, both technical and financial, of some of the international companies. It is a question of getting the balance right, getting expertise and capital and outlets, on the one hand, and protecting the national interest on the other hand. It is an area we are examining. As I said, I share the concern the Deputy expressed.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, I would not be expecting at all that the Government should in any way dishonour commitments already existing, but I would be hoping that they would, having regard to the knowledge we have now and the fact that capital seems to be available at home, amend legislation so that we would not get a continuation of what occurred in the past.
We have had a statement from the Deputy instead of a question.
With all due respect to you, Sir, I do not think I have on many occasions abused the Chair and I did preface my statement by asking the Minister if he was so aware. That, to me, is indicative of a question, not a statement.
The Chair will determine such matters.
With all due respect——
I would not wish to detract in any way from the position of the Chair.
This is completely disorderly.
I would say that dealing with 60 questions an hour in this House has nothing special to recommend it.
Perhaps I could reply to the remarks of the Deputy by saying that I share his disapproval of the mining policy which I inherited?
If that is the case why does the Minister not jettison it? I would ask the Minister whether he is indicating that I am asking him to continue it? I am suggesting to the Minister that in view of his knowledge of and interest in mining he should jettison that policy which he inherited and now do the correct thing.
I would like to ask the Minister if it is not the normal procedure in regard to mining licences that they are issued on a yearly basis, renewable yearly at the instance of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and that he can decide to renew them or otherwise depending on the performance of the licence-holders during the previous year? Does the Minister have available to him in his brief anything to indicate the amount of money spent by the different categories of licence-holders to which he has referred in his reply? May I also ask the Minister if one can assume from the fact that a number of the licences have been renewed from year to year over a fairly long period that the licence-holders in question have, in fact, performed reasonably to the satisfaction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
There are matters of detail in the Deputy's question, the replies to which are not in my brief. The Deputy is factually correct in regard to the one-year renewal. Some licences are renewed for a year at a time but not all of them. There are other sorts of licences also. It might be better if another question was put down.
Is the Minister aware that when the mining policy was evolving there was no Irish money available to carry out the exploration work and that it was only with difficulty that foreign concerns came in here? It was in that situation that the mining programme was built up. Is the Minister aware that it is only because of the success of foreign enterprise that Irish investors are now taking an interest in mining?
I will leave the Deputy to discuss this matter with his colleague.
