The subject matter of the Bill is Bula and the payment of over £9 million. The subject matter of the Minister's speech to justify that was an attack on his predecessor. From the fact that in his speech yesterday the Minister gave a figure of 40 per cent in respect of minerals as against 80 per cent in 1974 we can judge the veracity of the rest of his statement. I say he has made a mess of this operation and is blaming somebody else for that mess.
Earlier in his speech the Minister said that the main event which led up to the introduction of this Bill was perhaps the compulsory acquisition order made by the Government in respect of the Wright farm in 1971. He went on to say that the involvement of the State in the private minerals at Navan would never have come about if that order had not been made. It is remarkable to hear this ultra-socialist apologising for State involvement in mining. I think I would not be doing him an injustice if I were to say he was associated before the last general election with a type of platform labour electioneering propaganda which alleged that the last Fianna Fáil Government, through its Minister for Industry and Commerce, had sold out our minerals to foreigners. He is now telling us that only for the change of Government and only for the arrival of Deputy Justin Keating as Minister for Industry and Commerce this is exactly what would have happened. We have made some progress. In Feb-ruary-March, 1973, we had sold out, and this was being highlighted in documents being circulated around this country with which members of the Labour Party were very much involved, former friends of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, still members of his party but not friends of his any longer, as far as I can see.
In the course of his speech the Minister told us that he got some stick about this. While I was Minister for Industry and Commerce this new and valuable discovery was made. University groups and others carried out a great deal of research and came up with their own conclusions as to the value of this mine. I could never understand the basis on which they arrived at the value of the mine and I do not know the basis on which the Minister worked out his value of the property. The Minister talked a lot about upcoming and on-going things in relation to gas and oil off the south coast during the last two years and told us that this matter was on-going and that we will have it this year.
The Minister told us yesterday that production will not commence until some time this year. Good times are always coming as far as this Minister is concerned. When I was alleged to have sold—not sold; in fact, to have given away—the mineral rights of this country in 1971 and 1972 there was a tremendous amount of criticism of the conservative approach of the Fianna Fáil Government. We were told that Fianna Fáil were working hand in hand with certain individuals who were subscribing sizeable amounts to the Taca fund. Those wild allegations were made and we were being undermined and underpinned by literature which flooded the country. In my view that literature was paid for by money that was poured in here in order to offset the stability of government. Sponsored organisations at university level protested against us and weekly parades invariably led to the gates of Leinster House. Thank God the present Opposition are responsible in this regard. We will not be associated with any efforts to undermine the capacity of this House to legislate for the country. We will conduct our opposition in a legitimate way; we will give our views about the weaknesses of the Government and their incapacity to deliver in spite of all the wonderful promises they made.
Deputy Barry Desmond joined with the "red herring Minister" by blaming the Constitution for the inability of the Minister for Industry and Commerce properly to resolve this problem. Shortly afterwards the Minister, with the co-operation of a very efficient Government information service—the only efficient part of the Government—got across another promise of more legislation that would put this thing right, something like the Mergers and Monopolies Bill. Something is always going to turn up as far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned but the only thing that turns up is increased prices. After four years the Minister has apologised to the House for the fact that because of the mess his predecessor left him in he had to pay £9½ million for a 24 per cent share of this mine. He told us that he had now discovered that the 1940 Minerals Act did not enable him—I presume he also means me—to make the proper order. He said something would be done about this. That is the message that has got through to the three Dublin newspapers this morning, with the aid, of course, of the GIS.
Why did the Minister not take this action before now if that is so? The biggest thing built into the Minister's speech yesterday from that point of view was the fact that he had been studying the British legislation as it relates to a similar situation in Northern Ireland and he was thinking along those lines for us. According to today's newspapers this legislation will be introduced in the course of the next few months. The Minister talked about the reactivating of Mianraí Teoranta and made this peculiar statement:
If it had been in active existence and competently staffed in the early seventies it is possible that the Navan situation would never have occurred.
Only for his little brother wetting the bed, again. The Minister told us that because the existing legislation was defective a proper order of acquisition could not be made. He told us that he obtained legal advice from three leading senior counsels on this matter. In spite of all that, and in spite of what Deputy Barry Desmond described as the constitutional difficulties, the Minister told us that the simple solution to the whole thing was the reactivating in 1970 or 1971 of Mianraí Teoranta. Can the Minister not make up his own mind? Which of the statements I have referred to is correct? I presume there are prospecting licences in existence at present but if another valuable orebody is discovered tomorrow will the same problem which I had to face in 1970 not arise, as did then when the present Minister said I was caught with my trousers down. What has he done over the past four years to prevent himself being caught in this way? He said he has been studying legislation and he believes there is a formula for the proper type of legislation. Let him bring it in and I will certainly give him full backing.
Deputy Desmond says the Minister cannot do this. Following the Minister's speech yesterday his own backbencher who, apparently is better informed than we are because he was able to tell us something about the agreement, said that the Minister's hands are tied and that the present unfortunate, brilliant Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot do the proper thing at present because the Constitution prevents him from so doing. The Minister in his speech made reference to a constitutional difficulty in this regard. He was asked—this is rather significant—by me in May, 1973, if he would not make this amended order to which reference was made yesterday and he said that he had the advice of three senior counsel against making the order following the decisions of the High and Supreme Courts.
By way of supplementary question on 8th May, 1973, I asked about this following the High Court decision before the case was taken to the Supreme Court. The Minister yesterday conveyed the impression that he inherited from me the High Court and Supreme Court decisions. This was not so; this is another glossing over of the truth. If a Minister who has all the facts and figures before him makes a positive statement here which is not in accordance with the facts I find it very difficult to know how to describe such statements without being unparliamentary. As reported in the Official Report at column 563 of volume 265, I asked the Minister:
Might I ask the Minister would it not be wiser for him to make an amended order?
The Minister's reply was:
I have indicated that, on the balance of the advice available to me, I consider the direct course to be an appeal to the Supreme Court.
When I left office as Minister for Industry and Commerce all the information available to me—the decision as far as I recall was not to hand—was that the High Court decision would go against the Minister. I am not a legal man but I do not know, in view of that, how the Minister could have got legal advice or how any legal men could justify advising him to appeal the case to the Supreme Court because my understanding was that it could not succeed on appeal and the obvious decision would have been to make a fresh order on the morning when the High Court decision was made against him. Instead of that he delayed for almost another 12 months on appeal to the Supreme Court and when asked later about it he made the reply that was conveyed in his speech yesterday, that his advice was that it would not work.
We are backed in this by Deputy Desmond, the only Deputy so far to speak on the Government side. He agrees fully that a copy of the agreement should be made available to Deputies—he did not quite go that far; I think he suggested that a small subcommittee of the House should be set up to which papers of this nature would be presented in a confidential way. We do not look for this in a confidential way; if there is an agreement of the kind referred to so many times in the Bill, we do not accept what the Minister says regarding the confidentiality of that agreement. Deputy Desmond said that, as a result of his protesting and demanding, a copy of the Marathon agreement was laid in the Library of the Dáil. From the reaction of the Minister to our demands in regard to this agreement I can see that it is fruitless for us to endeavour to re-echo the appeal so successfully made by Deputy Desmond in this regard according to himself, but I feel I am justified in asking that the Minister should place in the Dáil Library copies of the senior counsels advice to him in regard to whether he should or should not make an amended order in 1973.
Doctors differ and patients die, but the Minister went out of his way to say that he had the advice of three senior counsel and, apparently, all their advice was that he should not make an amended order. That is his justification for landing us in the mess we are in now on top of his claim that it was his predecessor's, Deputy Lalor's, responsibility. In fairness to me, I should be given an opportunity —indeed everybody should be given the opportunity—of seeing this advice which the Minister received and copies of it should be placed in the Library. I presume that he sought advice as to whether he should appeal to the Supreme Court the High Court decision given early in 1973.
I hope the Minister will accede to my request and will put copies of the advice recommending appeal before the House. I cannot see that any responsible senior counsel or any responsible person whatsoever, unless as a delaying tactic at the time, would have recommended that the Minister should appeal that case to the Supreme Court.
The Minister referred to the progress that was made due to their withdrawing the tax concessions. This is the only thing he has to go on now as justifying the handing out of this bonus of £7.5 million to Bula Limited. He claims that 75 per cent of this will come back in tax.
During my time as Minister for Industry and Commerce we set up an inter-Departmental committee to report on the question of mining taxation. Listening to the Minister yesterday, one would think that the decisions about leasing, the terms of the leasing and all of the arrangements with regard to Tara Mines and been made and that a deal had positively been done with regard to royalties, et cetera, with Tara Mines. The fact that before I left office as Minister for Industry and Commerce, I was awaiting a report from the inter-Departmental committee to which I have referred, is clear indication that all the options were open to me as Minister.
The Minister got this report. He was asked on 12th July, 1973, if he would make the recommendations in this report available to the House. It was Deputy Tunney from this side who asked to have the report made available, if you like, laid on the Table of the House. The Minister objected to this. Because of my understanding of the situation, I intervened and said— column 911, Volume 267 of the Official Report:
I can see certain reasoning behind the Minister's argument. Would he make available to Members of the Oireachtas the straightforward recommendations made by this committee without giving details of what led up to the recommendations?
The Minister replied that he would not undertake to give a definite answer at that moment. This is understandable. I fully appreciate that a report of that nature is prepared for the Minister or Ministers concerned. It was inter-Departmental. Finance, Industry and Commerce and others would be involved. However, the recommendations of that committee should have contributed to the Minister's thinking and the Minister's and the Government's planning in relation to taxation of mining.
I was interested yesterday to hear Deputy Desmond criticising the Constitution and saying that but for this nuisance of a Constitution that we have the Government could and would own all of the minerals in the country. I was interested in that statement in so far as we want the Constitution changed so that this is so. I linked that statement immediately with a statement made by the Minister on 13th December. Following his statement about 80 per cent of the minerals in the country being State owned and that there was no problem about these—which is in direct contradiction of what he said yesterday—he went on to say—column 1924, Volume 276 of the Official Report:
Speaking as a farmer as well as Minister for Industry and Commerce we should, I believe, be careful not to be stampeded into a situation where farmers who own the minerals under their land are subjected to any compulsory procedures which have as their object the transfer of ownership to other private interests, whether the latter be foreign or Irish controlled.
I hope the Minister, when replying to the debate, will make observations on the intentions outlined by Deputy Desmond in this regard and indicate what his reactions would be as a farmer as well as Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I have already referred to the inter-Departmental committee that had been set up and whose report I was awaiting at the time I left office early in 1973. I draw attention to that in the context of the statement made by the Minister yesterday that the former Government, under the mining policies they had adopted, would not have been entitled to any return whatsoever out of the Bula mine. This is based on the assumption, convenient assumption from the Minister's point of view, that we would not have been able to establish the State's claim to the minerals in the Wright farm. I cannot accept that assumption from the Minister any more than I can accept his categorical statement about how much minerals the State owns, whether it is 80 per cent or 40 per cent at the present time. Legal advice is one thing. Application of it is another thing. If the Minister says and can prove that three reputable senior counsel gave him this advice, I will accept it.
This is where I am in fundamental disagreement with the Minister. He says that the right of the Bula people to these minerals as private minerals had been clearly established by the High Court and the Supreme Court. That is on the basis of an order which was found to be ineffective but the Minister makes it as a statement of fact. This is where I am in profound disagreement with him.
In that same speech he went on to say:
The former Government endeavoured to acquire Mr. Wright's minerals compulsorily with the intention of transferring them to certain foreign mining interests presumably in return for royalties only. These royalties would then again presumably, after the hearing of claims by the mining board, have been in effect transferred to Mr. Wright and his associates leaving the Government with nothing out of the transaction.
Is this the Minister's interpretation of compensation? Under the old Minerals Act the State could acquire, and this is what I set out to do, subject to compensation. A board, of which an official of the Department of Industry and Commerce would be chairman, had to determine the compensation. Even if the order made in 1971 had been effective, compensation would still have to be paid. We are projecting a potential figure out of the mines at present. I accept that there could be a sizeable legal wrangle in relation to the amount of compensation.
The Minister made the point that he got legal advice from the senior counsel that if the order made by the Minister was a successful order, Mr. Wright could, by way of compensation, seek the full value of the minerals under the ground. That is why I fully accept that the legislation, from that point of view, needs to be updated. I disagree with the Minister on this point: I cannot understand why he sat back in the Department for four years knowing that the legislation needed to be updated but did not do anything about it apart from conveying in his speech and at his Press conference last night that "I am going to do something about it now". Let us hope it will not get the same treatment as was given to monopolies and mergers. The Minister reminded me of the Monopolies and Mergers Bill in yesterday's speech. That legislation is to try from the State's point of view to prevent unwanted mergers. It is obvious from his speech that his ideal way of operating the orebody at Navan would be to arrange a merger but apparently it is not working out.
I know enough about this business to be annoyed when I listened to Deputy B. Desmond trying to score points by having a go at my colleague Deputy O'Malley when he accused him of being spokesman on behalf of Tara Mines. If someone is trying to make a practical contribution to this debate this kind of remark is out of order. The Minister stated, and it is fully accepted, that the most economic way from the State's point of view to have the Navan orebody worked is by a single unit if it can be arranged.
The Minister also said:
Whatever may have been the motives of those who made the order, the end result was to create a terrible mess.
That is the most generous part of his speech. He is condescending. He does not question the sincerity of the previous Minister: "He meant well, the poor old wretch, but he left me with a terrible mess to clear up." That kind of excuse is just not good enough. May I return the compliment and ask the Minister to spell out— taking into consideration the difficulties he has outlined in connection with minerals, and instead of wasting time blaming the man who left the job four years ago—what he would have done. I hope he will say that he would have changed the legislation. If I suggested that today, I would be criticised for wasting time and told that the orebody could have been worked for the last four years if the Minister of the day had done something about it.
When outlining the way the £9.54 million was to be paid for he said:
Let me point out by the way, that this money is payable in instalments, 50 per cent within 90 days, 25 per cent within one year and the remaining 25 per cent within two years.
Fifty per cent within 90 days of what? My colleague Deputy O'Malley, asked the Minister a number of questions yesterday. In his official reply the Minister said, at 3.25 p.m., that as Bula Mines would be dealt with in the next business, all his questions were covered in his speech and there was no point in answering the questions at that time. There was a confrontation between the Minister and the Deputy. The Minister then gave what he felt was the correct reply but, from Deputy O'Malley's reaction, he was not too satisfied with it. I did not take a note of the Minister's reply to these matters but it was obvious that he did not give the information sought by Deputy O'Malley. However, as the Deputy indicated, we did not expect the Minister to be in a position to reply.
I am wondering what is meant by the statement that 50 per cent of £9.54 million must be paid within 90 days. The agreement was reached in December, 1975. Last week I, as Whip, rereived a message to the effect that the Bill must be through by February 9th but I can see nothing either in the Bill or in the Minister's Second Reading statement to indicate any deadline in regard to the payment of this amount. I trust the Minister will tell us what is the meaning of this phrase "within 90 days". It must refer to a period within 90 days of something. That is approximately three months but it cannot mean three months from December, 1975 because such date has long since passed. Perhaps we have a three-month period from the date on which the agreement is to come into effect but it is unfortunate that we have not been told specifically when this money is to be paid. In these circumstances I must assume that we have three months from the time of the Minister making his statement, that is, three months from yesterday in which to pay this 50 per cent, but that is a part of the agreement of which we have not been apprised.
I am not prepared to accept the Minister's criticism of me as Minister in regard to this issue. We recall the vicious arguments put forward four years ago, principally by spokesmen for the Labour Party but generally by anybody who was in opposition to the then Government, to the effect that we had sold out the country's mineral rights. This is the type of evocative criticism we get during election campaigns. Yet, the Minister comes in now with a Bill which does not please us and which obviously does not please him because he introduces it with the apology that it is the best he can do as a result of the mess Lalor left behind. However, allowing for the Minister's predecessor being a bogman, might we not have expected something better than this feeble excuse from a man who is supposed to be one of the leading academics who replaced us? The Minister went on to explain how this socalled mess arose. It was due, he said, to ineffective legislation but he knows that the remainder of the lifetime of this Dáil will not be long enough to have enacted the amending legislation he promises.