I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 8, to delete "such fees" and substitute "maximum fees of £50,000".
Minerals Development Bill, 1995: Report and Final Stages.
As amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are related I suggest we discuss them together.
I do not agree with the Minister's suggestion. Amendment No. 1 relates to a specific amount of money.
We will take the amendment per se.
Deputy Treacy tabled an amendment on Committee Stage suggesting that a limit of £25,000 should be placed on the fee in question, but I did not agree with that. The amendment he has tabled on Report Stage suggests that the fee should be increased to £50,000. Since Committee Stage the task force appointed by the Minister has published its report. On Committee Stage I asked him why he was proceeding with the Bill in advance of a report from a task force carrying out a comprehensive review of the minerals industry. I now concede that in its report the task force has welcomed the introduction of the Bill and, on that basis, I withdraw any criticism I made on earlier Stages of this Bill about the Minister introducing what I termed a "single issue" Bill. The task force confirmed there was a legal urgency to proceed with such a Bill.
The task force recommended that there should be a limit on the amount of application fees and the industry suggested it should be £25,000. My objections to this proposal on Committee Stage did not relate to the amount of the fee, but to the fact that the State could incur substantial expense in carrying out its legal obligations to study all aspects of a mining application, including the stringent environmental requirements applied by the State. Substantial expenditure could be incurred in the case of proposed complicated mining developments and placing a limit on the fee in legislation would not, in all cases, afford the State an opportunity to recoup expense it would not be obliged to incur were it not considering an application for a mining licence. I recognise the concern of the industry that in the absence of a limit in this regard, the Department and those whom it seeks to advice it could become involved in extremely extravagant, elaborate and, in the view of some people, unnecessary investigations, reports and studies involving major costs which it would then believe it had the automatic right to recoup by way of fees. The Minister must strike a balance between ensuring the industry is not ripped off by careless action on the part of the Department and the obligation on the State to recoup the expenditure it necessarily incurs in carrying out its investigations.
With the political events that have occurred since I received the voluminous report of the task force, unfortunately I have not had an opportunity to study it in detail. Will we have an opportunity in the near future either to discuss its content by way of special debate or will the Minister take immediate action to give effect to its principal recommendations? Will the Minister indicate his intentions in that regard? Also, will he indicate the reaction of the Department and Government to those recommendations?
There is no doubt that the mineral industry has great potential for wealth and job creation. It can prove to be of great benefit in the development of our economy and should require the maximum support of the State. I hope that is the Government's intention. Its commitment can best be judged by the policy it seeks to follow in this area. If there was a clear indication of an intention to implement the main recommendations of the task force on the minerals industry, one could reasonably hope that action will be taken in the short term rather than the long term.
I wish to apologise to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and to the House for not being here to move my amendment. I thank Deputy Molloy for supporting it.
I am not supporting it.
I thank him for speaking positively on the amendment. When I was leaving the House at 2.30 p.m. this afternoon, I was told that this Bill would be coming into the House at 4.20 p.m.
That is the case on Tues-days. This is Wednesday.
That is what I was told and I can only go by what I am told.
I want to reinforce the case I made for this amendment on Committee Stage. I concur with most of what Deputy Molloy said. I have had the experience, as he has had, of serving in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, which had responsibility for mineral matters. In my time at the Department, that was my responsibility. I realise there is frus-tration in the industry and in this regard I welcome the report of the National Minerals Policy Review Group. The group must be thanked for the contribution it has made. It scanned the report, which comprises 131 pages, and I am impressed with it. I would like to study it in more detail and, like Deputy Molloy, I hope we will have an opportunity in the coming months to have a detailed debate on the report here in the House.
From my political knowledge of the past 13 years, I know that when a Bill such as this is passed, it is unlikely that a new Bill will be brought forward dealing with the minerals development area. This is an opportunity for the Minister and the House to ensure that this Bill, which will be an incentive to the industry, is made available to it. We are a small nation but we have large mineral resources which can make a major contribution to our economy.
From my knowledge, nationally and internationally, I would say that our handling of minerals affairs, and our management of mines and mine sites in particular, is equally good as in other parts of the world. That does not necessarily mean it is good enough and I hope that, as a result of the report of the review group, this Bill and the professionalism of the people involved in mining, will ensure in the future — as Arcon will show in Galmoy — that we have the highest professional standards. There is a unity of purpose in that regard and people are more environmentally conscious now.
The Department has a responsibility for the management of our national mineral resources and for the promotion of their development. It cannot expect the industry to carry the risks of that development and of exploiting those resources while being charged exorbitant fees which may be an impediment to the development of our mineral resources.
Many small exploration companies, professional geologists and others obtain licences to carry out research here. They undertake some development and eventually conclude that an opportunity exists for further development provided risks are taken, cash raised and planning permission obtained. If we were to put further impediments in the way of those companies and individuals, we might lose some of the opportunities for international investment in mining development in Ireland. These people act as honest brokers. They do not have the necessary resources and they must look to the international world. Ministers may be sensitive to pressure from organisations or from within their own parties. They may have a particular ethos to which they want to aspire. There may be changes in Government during a period where applications are before the Department for a decision. A new Minister, conscious of a particular situation, may decide to have additional consultants employed to re-examine an application that may already have been examined by other consultants.
If we allow this to happen, we will not make any progress in the development of minerals here. We must make it clear to those involved in the mining industry, the financial institutions and the people concerned with protecting our environment that this is the way forward. This report will be seen as a bible in this regard. People who intend to take risks should know exactly what they will be required to spend. The exploration and mining division of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications should be the one-stop-shop where people can go for information in regard to fees, etc.
While the Minister's colleague was very negative in her attitude on Committee Stage — and she was entitled to adopt that attitude — I have since changed my amendment by increasing the fees by 100 per cent. This amendment will be sustained into the future until another new Bill is published. We must send a positive signal to the industry in this regard and I ask the Minister to accept this amendment in the interests of mining development in Ireland.
I think I am procedurally correct in asking that I be allowed to discuss amendments Nos. 2 and 3 with amendment No. 1, which has been moved.
We are dealing with amendment No. 1.
I have no objection — and I am sure Deputy Molloy would agree to discussing the other amendments.
This matter was put to the House and there were no objections.
In the light of what Deputy Molloy said, it would facilitate me replying to the specific points made by Deputy Molloy if we were allowed to discuss these amendments together. Perhaps Deputy Molloy will withdraw his objections to allow me make points because we will simply be repeating ourselves otherwise.
The Minister may have anticipated getting agreement on this point and may have prepared his notes in a way which allowed him to deal with these three amendments together. However, I would prefer to deal with the specific question of the fees and then deal with the other two points. This is the one issue about which the industry felt quite strongly.
The Deputy's point is taken.
On the point made by Deputy Molloy concerning the report of the National Mineral Policy Review Group, I will quote briefly from the Minister's press release to demonstrate the Government's position:
The Minister is committed to giving urgent and careful attention to the 52 recommendations in the report and would therefore welcome comments as quickly as possible. The Minister's intention is to seek Government decisions on these recommendations as soon as that consultative process has been completed. These recommendations have not been considered in detail by the Government and, therefore, publication of the report is not an endorsement of these recommendations or acceptance of the cost of their implementation.
That statement was made two weeks ago. We want to know the position now. What date is on that press release?
Let us hear the Minister.
I did not interrupt Deputy Molloy when he was speaking. My understanding is that a person is entitled to speak once on an amendment——
That understanding is correct, Minister.
——and I ask that I be allowed to reply now to the points made by both Deputy Molloy and Deputy Treacy, who tabled the amendment. I see it as highly desirable that when that consultative process is completed — and I do not expect that to happen in a fortnight — there would be a debate in the House, to be agreed by the Whips, on the report.
The amendment tabled by Deputy Treacy calls for a doubling of his original proposal of £25,000 to a £50,000 cap on fees. The higher cap proposed goes some way towards recognising that mine development projects vary considerably in nature, size and complexity and that large complex mine development projects would require considerably more examination by the Minister than small projects. The amendment proposes an arbitary cap on application fees and, therefore, is not acceptable. It is desirable to have a system of fees — and I will deal with that when we come to the other amendments — which would be more transparent. People are entitled to know exactly the amount of fee payable. I do not accept — I am sure the two Deputies with their experience in the Department would agree with me — that officials dealing with mining matters have an irresponsible attitude and look for costly reports that are not required. In the Department they do a good, well trimmed job on behalf of the industry and will continue to do so. That point should be made on their behalf.
As I think the Deputy will find my proposals acceptable I ask him to withdraw his amendment. I am sorry the Deputy cannot get the details until we have dealt with his proposal.
What are the Deputy's intentions in regard to this amendment?
I am pressing my amendment. We have debated it at some length but there has been no flexibility or positive response.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 40.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John. Costello, Joe.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, fim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl. Deputies Dempsey and Killeen.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 2 and it is suggested that both amendments be discussed together. Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 9, to delete "with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, determine" and substitute "with the consent of the Minister for Finance, prescribe by regulations".
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are closely related. Their purpose is to reform the arrangements which applied heretofore on an ad hoc basis by requiring that, when the Bill is enacted, application fees for certain mining facilities must be prescribed by ministerial regulations which regulations could be annulled by the Dáil or Seanad if either House so decided. Thus the new statutory arrangements would meet the minerals industry demands for certainty and transparency as regards such fees for the future.
There was considerable discussion on Second Stage and Committee Stage about section 5 of the Bill, particularly regarding the level of application fees. Members of the House and the minerals industry accept the principle of charging application fees for State mining facilities. It is proper that developers should be required to pay a fee towards the cost of the examination by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications of mine development proposals so as to clear the way to permitting project to proceed on a sound basis as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications reiterated on Second Stage his commitment to keep such application fees as low as possible consistent with carrying out a thorough examination of each application as the Minerals Development Acts require him to do. The proposed regulations provide a transparent mechanism for keeping application fees under review and revising them quickly if required. As both the Minister and Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, explained, a standard application fee cannot be applied to all mining projects. Mining projects vary considerably in nature, size, financial commitment, environmental effects and planning implications. The necessary examination of mine development proposals by the Minister must reflect these differences. For example, major base metal projects present far more complex issues for consideration than small industrial mineral projects.
For that reason I cannot accept Deputy Treacy's latest suggestion that a limit of £50,000 should apply in every case. However, following the debate in the House and in the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy the Minister has given detailed consideration, in consultation with the Minister for Finance to the level of fees. He proposes in regulations to be made under section 5 of the Bill after it becomes law to specify application fees for State mining leases or licences as follows: matalliferous minerals such as zinc and lead £15,000 plus 10p per annual tonne of the design capacity of the mine; the greater of the £15,000 or 50 per cent of the total fee will be payable on application and the balance within six months of application. Other minerals such as gypsum, calcite, dolomitic limestone and so on the fee will be payable on application — £5,000 if the design capacity is less than 100,000 tonnes per annum and £10,000 in other cases. The Minister believes that these proposals meet the concerns expressed in the House.
I regret that we did not have that information before the vote was taken on my amendment as it would have facilitated the debate. The Minister is proposing a fee of £15,000 for metalliferous minerals and 10p per annual tonne of mine capacity over a period of time. While there is merit in setting the fees, the Minister needs to clarify whether the consultancy fees incurred by the Department in having an application evaluated or re-evaluated will be chargeable to the applicants. The fees seem reasonable but I would like the Minister to give an assurance that we will have an opportunity to debate the regulations when they come before the House. Given the volume of legislation with which we have to deal and the demands on Members, particularly those in Opposition, we may not have an opportunity to debate the regulations. A general and detailed debate on the regulations would help to clarify matters.
It is not clear whether the Minister intends to apply these fees on the enactment of the legislation.
Yes.
The proposed new subsection (4) states:
Where under regulations made under this section a fee is payable in respect of any application, the application shall not be considered or decided, as the case may be, by the Minister unless the Minister is in receipt of the fee or the appropriate part thereof, as the case may be.
This seems to indicate that the fees will have to be paid before the Department considers an application. This means that the fee would have to be lodged in the Department before any work commenced on the application. The Bill refers to an application for a licence, a lease, an undertaking or the carrying out of an undertaking. The activities for which a licence may be approved are covered under this legislation and earlier minerals legislation. The Minister seems to be adopting a new approach by requiring the applicant to put the money up front before the Department considers the application. In many cases applications can be under consideration for a long time. For example, an application for a lease or mining licence could be under consideration for many years.
On the fees outlined by the Minister, I feel there is something missing. I understood from our earlier discussions that the Department was seeking to ensure that the costs it incurred in dealing with an expensive application for a mining licence could be recouped. If it becomes involved in an expensive environmental impact study and has to have assessments carried out then the costs could amount to much more than £15,000. It is a pity that we are dealing with this matter on Report Stage where members are allowed to speak only once. However, if the Minister can give me a reasonable explanation that will be satisfactory.
There is a precedent under the Environmental Protection Agency Act for charging the fee at the beginning of the procedure. All we are doing is putting into law what is existing practice.
How will one know what the expenses will be?
We have calculated that 10p per annual tonne of mine capacity which, of course, will increase depending on the size of the mine and will give us an income to cover the costs involved.
It could be more.
We have calculated the amount and the costs will level out. For example, the fee for a mine with an annual capacity of one million tonnes will be £100,000 plus £15,000. I hope I have dealt with the point made by Deputy Molloy. It is transparent that a company will immediately know the exact fee it has to pay — it will know the capacity of the mine and that there is a fixed fee of £15,000 plus 10p per annual tonne. There was merit in Deputy Treacy's amendment but there was a lack of transparency, something we are required to have. This matter was debated earlier today and I do not intend to go into details now.
Is it still as important as it was?
Matters were opaque this morning, not transparent.
I am making them transparent now——
Did the Minister discuss this issue with the industry?
——so that companies will know the exact fee required. The problem with Deputy Treacy's amendment is that there was no set amount between zero and £50,000 which would have meant applicants would not know the level of the fee until the Minister made a determination on the application.
We are debarred from making any further comment on the matter.
I will facilitate the Deputy on a point of clarification.
Did the Minister put this proposal to the mining industry and has he had a response from them? When did he put this proposal to it?
I do not have the specifics with me but there have been discussions with the mining industry over a period of time. It was aware of this proposal before the amendment was moved.
I will allow Deputy Treacy to raise a point of clarification.
Will licence application fees, consultants' fees and royalties be included under the amendment?
Application fees only are involved.
What about consultants' fees?
The costs of consultants will be covered under the licence fee charged.
It will not be extra?
No.
The Minister is introducing a new principle here. Previously the fee per tonne related to the royalties paid and it went into the Exchequer.
That is correct.
In future there will be an additional charge per tonne on top of the royalties. It is not satisfactory to introduce a major amendment of this kind on Report Stage.
I allowed the Deputy to raise a point of clarification.
This is an unsatisfactory way to deal with legislation and I do not accept the Minister's amendments.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(3) Regulations made under this section may provide for different provisions in respect of different classes of cases and different circumstances.
(4) Where under regulations made under this section a fee is payable in respect of any application, the application shall not be considered or decided, as the case may be, by the Minister unless the Minister is in receipt of the fee or the appropriate part thereof, as the case may be.
(5) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder".
I do not agree with this amendment.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.