Minerals Development Bill 2015: Committee Stage
We have a quorum and will start the meeting in public session. I remind members and anyone else in attendance to turn off their mobile phones or switch them to flight mode as they can make it difficult for the reporters to cover the meeting and television coverage and web-streaming are also potentially adversely affected by them. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Apologies have been received from Deputy Dooley and other members will join us during the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to consider Committee Stage of the Minerals Development Bill 2015, which was referred to the select committee by order of the Dáil dated 22 February 2017. The Dáil passed the necessary motions giving the committee the power to proceed with the Bill and all amendments are in order. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Kyne, who has special responsibility for natural resources and inland fisheries, and his officials. Does the Minister of State wish to address the committee at this point?
No, other than to greet the Vice Chairman and the member who is here. I am sure we will have more members soon. I would like to move straight to the amendments, if possible.
I thank the Minister of State for his attendance and the member who is here. The grouping of the amendments has been circulated and I hope everyone has had a chance to review that. The groupings proposed are as follows. The first grouping is amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, 53 and 54. The second grouping is amendments Nos. 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 20 to 25, inclusive, 28, 31 to 37, inclusive, 40 to 43, inclusive, 45 and 51. The third grouping is amendments Nos. 7 and 10. The fourth grouping is amendments Nos. 11 and 19. The fifth grouping is amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, 27 and 29. The sixth grouping is amendments Nos. 38, 44 and 52. The last grouping is amendments Nos. 46 to 50, inclusive, and 55. Anything that is not grouped will be taken individually. Is that agreed? Agreed.
While it is hoped to get through all of the amendments today, it is proposed to split the session into two halves. First, we will take sections 1 to 131 before suspending for a 15-minute break and then resume with section 132. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, 53 and 54, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 14, line 29, after “petroleum,” to insert “or”.
The purpose of the amendments in this group is to delete "dolomitic limestone" from the list of substances regarded as minerals under the Bill. In the Schedule to the Minerals Development Act 1940, dolomite and dolomitic limestone were listed as substances to be regarded as minerals within the meaning of the Act. During the development of the general scheme of the Bill, this reference was considered to require clarification and an examination of how best to define "dolomitic limestone" took place. This was a difficult technical proposition. The formula appearing under the definition of "minerals" in section 2 was arrived at following discussion and consultation. During the Seanad debate on the Bill, however, Senators raised a number of concerns regarding the practical application of the definitions "dolomite" and "dolomitic limestone". In addition, a number of Deputies, including the Vice Chairman, Deputy Lawless, and Deputies Cahill, Stanley, Sherlock and Mattie McGrath, reiterated these concerns on Second Stage in the Dáil. My officials have advised me that the practical difficulty of establishing whether a deposit contains dolomitic limestone is such that it would be best to remove dolomitic limestone from the list of substances which are regarded as minerals for the purpose of the Bill. I am advised that the mineral dolomite does not present the same technical difficulties and that there is no reason this substance, which is of higher in-use value than ordinary limestone, should not continue to be regarded as a mineral under the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 14, line 31, to delete “mineral, or” and substitute “mineral;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 14, to delete lines 32 and 33.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 20 to 25, inclusive, 28, 31 to 37, inclusive, 40 to 43, inclusive, 45 and 51 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 15, line 1, to delete “Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
The grouped amendments are drafting amendments, which reflect the 2016 changes in ministerial and departmental titles from "Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" to "Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment", as reflected in amendments Nos. 4 and 51; from "Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government" to "Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government", as reflected in amendments Nos. 25 and 28, and from "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" to "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment" as reflected in the remaining amendments in the group.
I support the amendment but I use this opportunity to highlight the following. When we change Governments, Departments are changed all over the place. The current arrangement is very fractured. There are Ministers with several different pieces in their titles after the most recent change. Departments have been chopped and changed to such an extent that it is creating administrative difficulties. Last week, it created difficulties again during Question Time in the Dáil in respect of the hot potato of An Post. I ask the Minister of State to take that point back to his line Minister, the Cabinet and departmental officials. I can see how one might change "energy" to "climate action" from one Government to the next. I can see the sense in that because that is where things are at now. However, when one starts moving big sections of one Department to another, carving Departments up and appointing Ministers across several briefs, it is a headache from a Government, Opposition and, I am sure, Civil Service point of view. It does not help the functioning of Government or the Dáil. While I say that in a helpful way, I will support the amendment. The Minister of State might just take the point back.
I tend to agree. However, I took part in the discussions on the programme for Government through which the need for a Department to cover rural and regional affairs and a Department to cover housing was identified.
That necessitated some of the change that did happen. Climate action and climate change have come to the fore in recent years and it was considered that the previous Department with responsibility for local government and the environment was too large and had too many issues to deal with. That was part of the reason but I accept that it does not always make for good governance, certainly at the initial stages when Departments change. The functions within the Departments are reflected in the name changes that are part of the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 17, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“Existing development consents
7. Nothing in, or granted under, this Act affects—
(a) any requirement to obtain planning permission or an approval, or any planning permission or approval granted, under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2016, or
(b) any requirement to obtain a licence, or any licence granted, under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 or the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2011.”.
This amendment is a technical drafting amendment which provides legal clarity that any licence, consent or approval granted under this legislation will not in any way diminish any requirement to obtain permissions, approvals or licences under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2016, the Environmental Protection Act 1992 or the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2011.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 18, lines 1 and 2, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 18, line 27, to delete “of the surface” and substitute “, or where the owner cannot be ascertained of the occupier,”.
These are technical drafting amendments that are proposed in the interest of consistency and clarity. Acceptance of the amendments will result in the alignment of text in section 9(1)(b) and section 34(1)(b) relating to the extraction of drill cores from land, by the Minister in the case of section 9; and by the licensee in the case of section 34. In each case prior approval of the landowner must be obtained and where the landowner cannot be found, the permission of the occupier of the land must be sought.
We have some good and some bad examples of environmental protection and rehabilitation. In this legislation we must ensure that we tighten things up. Mines have to function and exploration must take place but the responsibility in that regard is greater now from environmental, agricultural and tourism points of view. We must provide a greater focus on the issue. As the Bill proceeds I will return to the matter on Report Stage but I support the amendment.
For clarification, is Deputy Stanley indicating that he will table an amendment on Report Stage?
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 22, lines 17 and 18, to delete “, for the minerals described in the current application”.
Section 17 allows a new applicant to apply for a prospecting licence over an area which is already the subject of a prospecting licence or retention licence, however, both the application and the existing licence must relate to different minerals. The existing licensee whose interest is in, let us say, minerals A, B and C, has, in effect, a standing statement of interest over other minerals in the area of his or her licence. In the event that a new and different applicant applies for let us say, minerals D, E and F, the sitting licensee is entitled to be notified of the new application and afforded the opportunity to submit a competing application within a specified period. However, for reasons of commercial sensitivity, it is not considered appropriate that the identity of the minerals applied for by the new applicant be revealed to the existing licensee. The amendment proposed corrects an error in the existing text which would have required the Minister to notify the existing licensee of the additional minerals applied for in the new application.
What is the specified period?
It is the period of the licence.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 18 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 27, lines 7 and 8, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 25 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 34
Amendment No. 10 has been taken with amendment No. 7. I ask the Minister of State to move that amendment.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 32, line 3, to delete “, the person in possession of the surface” and substitute “of the
land, the owner, or where the owner cannot be ascertained the occupier, of the land”.
In regard to section 34 and compensation in respect of the worth of minerals, it is important that the rights of the State and the public, who are the ultimate potential beneficiaries, are protected. I hope this legislation and further improvements that may be made to it will assist in that. I support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36
Amendment No. 11 is grouped with No. 19. We will now have discussion on both. I invite the Minister of State to move the amendment and to make any comment he wishes thereon.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 33, line 3, to delete “is convicted of” and substitute “commits”.
Amendment Nos. 11 and 19 are technical drafting amendments which replace the words "is convicted of an offence" with "commits an offence" in sections 36 and 81. These amendments will have the result that a person renders themselves liable to a fine as a result of committing an offence and not on being convicted of an offence.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 37 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 41
I ask the Minister of State to move amendment No. 12.
I move amendment No.12:
In page 35, lines 21 and 22, to delete all words from and including “provide” in line 21 down to
and including line 22 and substitute the following:
“not enter into a joint venture agreement unless—
(a) at least 10 days before entering into the agreement, the licensee notifies the
Minister and provides the Minister with a copy of the draft agreement, and
(b) on entering into the agreement, the licensee notifies the Minister and provides the
Minister with a copy of the agreement within 10 days after it comes into effect.”.
This is a technical amendment which requires that the licensee notify the Minister of a proposed joint venture agreement at least ten days before it is entered into by the licensee. Joint venture agreements are commercial arrangements between licensees and other potential investors to allow access to further funds for exploration. Typically, the incoming joint venture partner earns by funding or undertaking further exploration and if the project continues, they will be assigned a portion of the licensee's rights and obligations. It has always been Government policy to encourage joint venture agreements in order to maximise potential further discoveries. However, nothing in any such agreement can supersede or supplant the Minister's right to reduce the liabilities of the licensee. Nevertheless, it is considered appropriate that the Minister is aware of the agreement in advance and that officials will be able to advise the licensee on provisions in the agreement that may present difficulties in the future. As originally drafted, the section did not allow for advance scrutiny of joint venture agreements. Unless the joint venture results in an assignment, which can only take place with the written consent of the Minister under seal, the licensee will continue to be responsible for all obligations under the licence, notwithstanding any other agreement entered into by the licensee with third parties.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 42 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 47
Question proposed: "That section 47 stand part of the Bill."
There must be protection of the public interest and the economic benefit of the region in terms of the benefits that would accrue under the section. That has not always happened in the past. I hope that when this Bill is enacted, the issue of protection of the public interest can be copper-fastened to ensure that there are real benefits to other local sources of employment and people in the area affected.
The aim is to be able to exploit natural resources for the benefit of the State and also of local communities. Large mines such as those we have had and continue to have employ a considerable number of people and that is hugely important to rural communities. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Stanley.
The issue of royalties needs to be considered. In 2012, €56 million revenue from the mining industry accrued to the State. There may be other benefits which need to be considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 48 agreed to.
SECTION 49
Question proposed: "That section 49 stand part of the Bill."
What protection is currently in place in respect of damage caused to the environment or local infrastructure by previous prospecting activities?
Any mining application has to go through a rigorous planning process. Damage to infrastructure would be an issue for the local authority. It would be able to pursue the applicant in regard to any damage. In regard to liabilities-----
To pursue the applicant or to have a condition that if damage is caused-----
That would be a matter for the local authority. If damage was caused to local infrastructure by a quarry or other large development, that would have to be dealt with. Those receiving prospecting licences must have insurance and must indemnify the Minister. Under new rules for new mines, a remediation fund will be built into the application so that any remediation costs will be provided for. That was not always the case. Section 49 provides that the licensee is not liable for damage caused by a former licence-holder unless the subsequent licence is a renewal.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 50 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 68
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 have already been discussed.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 46, lines 8 and 9, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 46, lines 22 and 23, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 68, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 69 to 74, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 75
Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. After the Minister of State moves the first amendment, we can take comments on the three amendments as a block.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 49, lines 20 and 21, to delete all words from and including “over” in line 20 down to and including line 21 and substitute “in respect of a mining licence over its term.”.
Amendments No. 15 to 18, inclusive, are technical amendments that are proposed in the interest of consistency and clarity.
The proposed amendment to section 75(1) makes it clear that the mining licence fee payable per annum through the life of the licence will also include an element that is payable on grant of the licence. Payment of this portion of the fee is a condition of granting the licence under section 64.
The amendment to section 80(1) clarifies that the obligation on the licensee to provide information, such as production figures, is not only necessary to calculate royalties payable, but also to calculate mining licence fees.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 49, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, provide for—
(a) a minimum licence fee payable in respect of the grant of a licence,
(b) minimum annual fees payable over the term of a licence,
(c) increases or decreases in licence fees over the term of the licence.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 49, lines 27 and 28, to delete “and regulations made under this section may provide for a minimum licence fee payable per annum”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 75, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 76
Question proposed: "That section 76 stand part of the Bill."
Section 76 is probably one of the most important parts of the Bill in terms of the protection of the environment. I welcome that the legislation on this aspect has been updated. I hope that we can further improve and strengthen the provision as it passes through these Houses. I support the section.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 77 to 79, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 80
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 53, line 3, after “royalties” to insert “and the mining licence fees”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 80, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 81
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 53, line 31, to delete “is convicted of” and substitute “commits”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 81, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 82
Question proposed: "That section 82 be deleted."
Section 82 provides that where the tonnage or value of State owned minerals in a location is small and where it is more efficient to do so, rather than granting a mining licence, the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, may sell such minerals with these minerals becoming excepted minerals. In other words, the Minister would not have the exclusive right to work them. The provision was originally intended as enabling the efficient development of small-scale State owned mineral deposits.
On Committee and Report Stages in the Seanad, Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh of Sinn Féin opposed section 82 on the grounds that he did not wish to see privatisation of State mineral assets, no matter how small. He considered it would be better for such minerals to be vested in the Minister and for a mining licence to be required for their development.
On Report Stage in the Seanad, the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, accepted an Opposition amendment to delete section 82. However, for procedural reasons in the Seanad, the amendment fell. The proposed Government amendment now effects the deletion of section 82.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 83 to 87, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 88
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 55, lines 29 and 30, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 88, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 89 to 104, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 105
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 62, lines 7 and 8, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 105, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 106 to 109, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 110
Question proposed: "That section 110 stand part of the Bill."
There are a number of technical drafting issues with the Bill which, subject to advice from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, may require a Government amendment on Report Stage. The first of these is in section 110, while there are others in related sections in Part 4. It concerns the complex interaction between compulsory acquisition of ancillary rights for the purpose of developing minerals and planning law.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 111 to 115, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 116
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 were discussed with amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 66, lines 27 and 28, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 67, lines 3 and 4, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 116, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 117 to 122, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 123
Amendment No. 24 was also discussed with amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 69, lines 30 and 31, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 123, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 124 to 131, inclusive, agreed to.
I thank members for their attention. As indicated at the outset, we will now suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
Sitting suspended at 2.25 p.m. and resumed at 2.40 p.m.
Deputy Hildegarde Naughton took the Chair.
SECTION 132
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 73, lines 14 and 15, to delete “Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government” and substitute “Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 73, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(3) To facilitate the rehabilitation of mine sites, the Minister shall mandate the Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with local authorities, to identify historic mining sites and associated waste sites that were closed before 1977.”.
I will outline the rationale behind this amendment. There are a number of legacy sites around the country from before the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the introduction of the 1964 planning permission system. I have come across this in my capacity both as a Member of the Oireachtas and previously as a local authority member. These historic sites tend to cause difficulties for environmental protection primarily, waste management, roads planning and proper planning and sustainable development of local authority areas throughout the country. There is always the environmental risk and hazard of having a site lying unidentified, whether near to a road, area of natural beauty or anywhere else in proximity to major residential areas. The intention behind this amendment is to produce a register. I am aware the EPA has a register of 1977 to 1997 sites, and I welcome the Minister of State's opinion on it. I believe there may already be a similar register in existence. The intention behind it is to compile such a register in order that these may be identified and work may begin on a remediation process at a later stage. The first step is to identify what sites exist and begin that register. That is the idea behind the amendment. I welcome any comments on it before we proceed.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. In 2006, following incidents at active mine sites in Spain and Romania, the European Union introduced Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries. Article 20 of the directive requires member states to produce an inventory of closed mine waste facilities. The directive was transposed into Irish law by SI 566 of 2009, also known as the Waste Management (Management of Waste From the Extractive Industries) Regulations 2009. Section 20 of the 2009 regulations provides that the EPA “shall ensure that an inventory of closed waste facilities, including abandoned waste facilities, which cause serious negative environmental impacts or have the potential of becoming in the medium or short term a serious threat to human health or the environment is drawn up and periodically updated. Such an inventory, to be made available to the public, shall be carried out by 1 May 2012”.
In response to this requirement, a comprehensive historic mine site inventory was undertaken by the EPA, the Geological Survey of Ireland, GSI, and the exploration and mining division of my Department, which carried out surveys and analyses of mine sites. The work completed was published and includes drawings, maps and diagrams of each of the closed mine sites. The report of the study, entitled Historic Mine Sites - Inventory and Risk Classification, was produced in 2009 and has resulted in the most comprehensive inventory of closed mine sites in Ireland. Geochemical site investigations were carried out at each mine site, consisting of analyses of solid waste, surface water, groundwater, stream sediments and soil. There is a detailed review of the geochemistry of each mine site studied for this project. The report classifies the sites that present the greatest threat to human and animal health and the environment.
The project initially located 220 mine sites located throughout the country from which there has been extraction of minerals using the GSI databases. Of these, 128 sites were screened and 110 individual mines sites were identified for inclusion in the historic mine sites study. In the Historic Mine Sites - Inventory and Risk Classification study, 27 historic mine sites and districts were assessed using a source-pathway-receptor conceptual model and were then scored and assigned to one of five classes. Three mine sites - Silvermines, Tynagh and Avoca - were scored as the highest risk, class 1. This report is available on the EPA website, specifically www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/land/mines/. Given the existing requirement in Irish law for the EPA to maintain a list of mine waste sites and the implementation and publication of the Historic Mine Sites - Inventory and Risk Classification study, the Deputy's objectives have, in essence, already been achieved. As such, it is not proposed to accept the current amendment.
I note in the amendment that the Deputy specifies 1977. I think the EPA report goes back further than 1977, so in effect what the Deputy has asked for has already been done. I am not sure if he has had a chance to look at that copy of the report, but it is quite comprehensive and very informative. It is a historical source of information as well.
I thank the Minister of State. His officials hosted a very useful session yesterday evening where we had a chance to discuss and understand this. The reason I mentioned 1977 on the amendment was because I am aware of a lacuna between 1977 and 1997, where certain sites were not recorded properly for whatever historical reasons. It is an anomaly in the system. The year 1964 is a key date, with the advent of planning permission. This is something I have come across where sites, especially pre-1964 sites, are often unidentified or local knowledge may suggest their existence but there is not an accurate register. It is very welcome that such a register has been compiled. I believe it goes back to time immemorial. I had a chance to review the report overnight, and it certainly seems to make sense.
I wish to clarify a point on the register that exists under EU legislation. The Minister of State says that there is no cut-off time for how far back it can go. It can be pre-1977, or it can be pre-1964, even before planning permission was required. Will the Minister of State clarify that?
Yes. That work is complete. There was no time specification in the directive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 132, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 133 and 134 agreed to.
SECTION 135
Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 74, lines 30 and 31, to delete “or the Environmental Protection Agency”.
In broad terms, Part 5 of the Bill is intended to address issues arising in respect of legacy mine sites. It empowers the Minister to designate an area as a rehabilitation area and allows for the adoption of a rehabilitation plan and for persons other than the Minister to exercise the functions of a rehabilitation authority. Section 135 permits the Minister to delegate the functions of the rehabilitation authority to a person, a local authority or the EPA under such terms as the Minister considers appropriate. Since the Bill was published, responsibility for the EPA has transferred to the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment; therefore, the requirement under subsection (2) for the Minister to seek the written agreement of the now Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government before authorising the EPA to act as a rehabilitation authority is no longer appropriate. Amendment No. 27 reflects this transfer of functions.
Section 135(3) requires the rehabilitation authority to indemnify the Minister and the State in the exercise of its functions as a rehabilitation authority. Amendment No. 29 amends subsection (3) to exclude local authorities and the EPA from the obligation to indemnify the Minister and the State as they are emanations of the State.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 74, lines 32 and 33, to delete “Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government” and substitute “Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 74, line 35, after “subsection (1)” to insert “granted to any person other than a local authority or the Environmental Protection Agency”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 135, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 136
Question proposed: "That section 136 stand part of the Bill."
Section 136(2)(a) refers to the need, in preparing the rehabilitation plan, to consult "the occupiers of dwellings and business premises in the area, and of any land over which access to the area may be required, and if there is registered land within the area, or land over which access is required, the registered owners of that land". Does this include public land or land owned by a public body or State authority, or does it just refer to private lands?
It refers to any land over which access may be required. It includes State lands.
Does it include local authority lands?
Yes. Section 136(2)(c) refers to "the local authorities within whose boundaries the rehabilitation area lies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of State with direct responsibility for national parks and wildlife and for national monuments and any statutory body that the rehabilitation authority considers appropriate in the circumstances".
That covers damage in such cases.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 75, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“Revitalisation
137. (1) In the two years following the commencement of this section, the Minister shall initiate an open investigative process on the potential reuse of abandoned mines and associated waste.
(2) This process shall be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, and consider the following factors:
(a) the potential economic value of rare earth mineral deposits present in the aforementioned mines and associated waste,
(b) the possible utility of said mines for research.
(3) Following its completion, the findings of this investigative process should be published in an open and public manner, following which a 6 month-long period of public consultation shall ensue. During this period of consultation, members of the public and other interested parties shall be free to submit their views on this report.”.
This amendment seeks to achieve a degree of
This amendment seeks to achieve a degree of reuse of abandoned mines. I have had conversations with SFI research centres and iCRAG and read various research reports on the issue. It seems that many abandoned sites may contain slag heaps or unnecessary or unwanted materials which formerly would have been considered as waste. Many of these materials have potential economic value, especially rare earth minerals which are extremely valuable and used in electronic devices such as the iPhone. There are other opportunities also. In France old mines have become vineyards because the soil and the detritus have advantages in producing wine. The older the terril the more likely it is to encourage fermentation and growth. That might not be ideal in the Irish climate, but other options could be pursued or at least investigated. What was thrown to one side in the past may have the opportunity to become useful again.
The intention of the amendment is not to pass judgment on whether it is possible but to invite the EPA to perform a study to investigate the potential and report back in two years. There may be opportunities to remediate some mines along the way. We could take a mine that was abandoned and not tidied up in the most environmentally efficient fashion and repurpose it to extract new value or close it properly. Any reactivity on abandoned mine sites should be subject to community consultation. To this end, the amendment would allow for a six-month consultation process before any such action would be taken. I hope the Minister of State and members will support the amendment as it potentially offers a new lease of life, as well as supporting the circular economy. Rather than taking, using and disposing, we would reduce, reuse and recycle, which is at the heart of what the committee is trying to do.
I thank the Deputy for his amendment. I very much concur with the general intent behind it. As I understand it, it is to encourage industry and the Government to focus on whatever opportunities there may be to extract minerals from existing mine waste at abandoned mine sites, thus supporting the concept of the circular economy. Under existing minerals legislation, State mining leases require the lessee to fully work minerals under the lease terms. The modern mines at Navan, Lisheen and Galmoy are and were better equipped to extract the full mineral potential of the mine material than older mine sites.
There is some industry interest in the reworking of mine waste on legacy mine sites, but it is at an early stage and will be driven by the economic potential. In 2015 the Geological Survey of Ireland commissioned a short-call project entitled, An Economic Assessment of Irish Mining Waste, which was undertaken by Aurum Exploration Services. The project aimed to analyse samples from mine waste sites across Ireland, with the emphasis on their economic potential. A total of nine districts from the historical mine sites project were selected, namely, Abbeytown, Avoca, Caim, Clare, Donegal, Glendalough, Gortdrum, Silvermines and Tynagh. Avoca returned the most positive results, particularly the spoil heaps in which elevated gold, silver, copper and rare earth elements were detected. The study recommended further analysis of waste dumps at Avoca. Unfortunately, the majority of historical mine sites sampled were reported to have no economic value.
The provisions of the Bill facilitate the potential reuse of abandoned mines and associated waste. The definition of minerals in section 2 includes "all substances, including scheduled minerals, that occur naturally in or on land, or that occur in extractive waste". The primary responsibility for mineral resources development lies with my Department rather than the EPA per se. While I cannot accept the amendment, as drafted, perhaps further engagement on this issue in advance of Report Stage might be merited.
I thank the Minister of State. If I understood him correctly, the amendment might benefit from some consultation before Report Stage, at which point I may submit a slightly modified amendment. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
One concern I have is that the message might go out that all historical mine sites would suddenly be reopened. There is a long list and some of them are to be found in scenic and beautiful areas. I do not wish to give the impression that we might encourage their reopening.
I would be somewhat concerned about that but we can explore it further.
I apologise for being late but I was putting a question to the Minister of State at the Department of Defence in the Dáil. I remember after Hurricane Charlie in the early 1980s that a number of friends of ours went to pan for gold in Avoca on the basis that it would have churned up older sediments. I must declare that we did not find anything but it was good fun. On that river there has also been an historic issue of pollution coming from the old mine sites. There was a certain amount of investment in recent years in remediation but could the Minister of State provide any update? Is the river still particularly polluted from the old mine tailings or have many of the issues been addressed?
I am not familiar with the Avoca, to be honest. I know it is one of the major sites at Avoca, Tynagh and Silvermines where there has been extensive remediation in the past, and there is still some work that many people would wish us to do. We are carrying out work at the Avoca site now relating to tailings and the work is ongoing.
I will withdraw amendment No. 30 for now but I may resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 137
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 75, lines 40 and 41, to delete "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 137, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Subject to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel advice, an amendment on Report Stage may be required to ensure compliance with the Aarhus Convention. This relates to sections 137 to 139, inclusive.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 138
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 76, lines 12 and 13, to delete "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 76, lines 17 and 18, to delete "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 138, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 139
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 78, lines 10 and 11, to delete "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 139, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 140 to 146, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 147
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 80, lines 7 and 8, to delete "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 80, lines 19 and 20, to delete "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 147, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 148 to 172, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 173
Question proposed: "That section 173 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister for Justice and Equality is currently drafting the disability (miscellaneous provisions) Bill to amend a number of pieces of legislation so Ireland is in a position to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Section 173 of the Minerals Development Bill makes reference to persons of "unsound" mind, which is considered an inappropriate concept and language. Subject to discussions with the Department Justice and Equality and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, it may be necessary to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to correct the text of section 173.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 174 to 185, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 186
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 93, line 3, to delete "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and substitute "Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 186, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 187 to 197, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 198
Amendments Nos. 38, 44 and 52 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 96, line 35, after "mining" to insert "licence".
This is a correction of a minor error in the wording of section 198 on page 96, line 35, where the word "licence", which should follow the word "mining" has been inadvertently omitted. Amendments Nos. 44 and 52 correct references to other legislation, such as the Harbours Acts and the planning and development (amendment) regulations arising from amendments since the Bill was drafted and published.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 198, as amended, agreed to.
Section 199 agreed to.
SECTION 200
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 97, lines 9 and 10, to delete “section 34(4), 51(4), 81, 100(4), 197 and 211(6)” and substitute “sections 32(5), 33(4), 34(4), 36(4), 51(4), 81, 100(4), 191(4), 197, 211(6), 227 and 228”.
This is a technical amendment to section 200(1) to clarify that the Minister may bring summary proceeding for offences prescribed under section 32(5), section 33(4), section 36(4), section 191(4) and the proposed sections 227 and 228.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 200, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 201 and 202 agreed to.
SECTION 203
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 98, line 10, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Subject to advice from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, a Report Stage amendment may be required to ensure compliance with the Aarhus Convention.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 203, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 204
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 98, lines 21 and 22, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 98, lines 26 and 27, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 204, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 205
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 100, lines 19 and 20, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 205, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 206
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 101, line 9, after “1946” to insert the following:
“as amended by section 83 (inserted by section 48 of the Harbours Act 2015) of the Harbours Act 1996”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 206, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 207 to 213, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 214
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 104, lines 16 and 17, to delete “Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 214, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 215 to 223, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. 46 to 50, inclusive, and amendment No. 55 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 106, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“PART 8
ARTICLE 3.3 OF THE MINAMATA CONVENTION ON MERCURY DONE AT GENEVA ON 19 JANUARY 2013
Definitions Part 8
224. In this Part—
“mercury” means elemental mercury (Hg(0), CAS No. 7439-97-6) and includes mixtures of mercury with other substances, including alloys of mercury, with a mercury concentration of at least 95 per cent by weight;
“mercury-added product” means a product or product component that contains mercury or a mercury compound that was intentionally added;
“mercury compounds” means mercury (I) chloride (known also as calomel), mercury (II) oxide, mercury (II) sulphate, mercury (II) nitrate, cinnabar and mercury sulphide;
“primary mercury mining” means mining in which the principal material sought is mercury.”.
I wish to begin by thanking Deputies for agreeing to yesterday's motion that allowed debate of these amendments to proceed. Deputies Stanley and Lawless spoke on it. I wish to offer my apologises because I was unable to be there. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, moved that motion.
In essence these amendments propose a ban on primary mercury mining, thus facilitating Ireland's ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. The convention, agreed and adopted in 2013, is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury. The convention focuses on a global and ubiquitous metal that, while naturally occurring, has broad uses in everyday objects and is released to the atmosphere, soil and water from a variety of sources.
Controlling the human sources of releases of mercury throughout its lifecycle has been a key factor in shaping the provisions under the convention. The provisions of the Minamata convention include: a ban on new primary mercury mines; the phasing-out of existing ones; the phase-out and phase-down of mercury use in a number of products and processes; control measures on emissions to air and on releases to land and water; and the regulation of the informal sector of small-scale gold mining. The convention also addresses interim storage of mercury and its disposal once it becomes waste, sites contaminated by mercury as well as broader health issues. Ireland officially signed the convention in October 2013 at the diplomatic conference in Kumamoto, Japan.
The purpose of these amendments is to insert a new Part 8 that will effect a ban on primary mercury mining in Irish law. This amounts to implementing one of a number of actions necessary to allow Ireland to ratify the convention in 2017.
The new section 224 provides definitions for a number of terms used throughout this new Part 8, such as "mercury", "mercury compound" and "primary mercury mining", which is defined as mining in which the principal material sought is mercury. These terms reflect what is proposed for in the convention.
Section 226 provides that the Minister may not grant a licence in respect of prospecting for mercury or for undertaking primary mercury mining. Moreover, it precludes the Minister from undertaking such activities.
Section 225 makes it clear that the holder of a prospecting or retention licence will continue to be allowed to search for traces of mercury where the purpose of such exploration is to assist in the identification of other minerals. In addition, the use of mercury or mercury compounds for laboratory scale research continues to be permitted.
Section 227 proposes that a person who prospects for mercury commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine, currently up to €5,000, or on indictment to a fine not exceeding €250,000.
Where the Minister authorises a person to mine any minerals or ores, such authorisation shall not permit extraction of mercury as a primary product or extraction of ores of mercury for the purposes of production of primary mercury.
Extraction of trace quantities of mercury in the course of extraction of other minerals, ores or compounds will continue to be permissible provided the purpose of the extraction is not to produce mercury in metal or concentrate for sale or export. Such traces would be regarded as contaminants to be removed during the processing of the ore.
Section 228 proposes that a person who carries out primary mercury mining commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €250,000.
The proposed amendment to the Long Title is intended to reflect that the Bill will include provisions in respect of the Minamata convention.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 106, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“Scope of Part 8
225. This Part shall not apply in respect of—
(a) quantities of mercury or mercury compounds to be used for laboratory-scale research or as a reference standard,
(b) naturally occurring trace quantities of mercury or mercury compounds present in such products as non-mercury metals, ores or mineral products, including coal, or products derived from these materials, and unintentional trace quantities in chemical products, or
(c) mercury-added products.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 106, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“Restriction on Minister’s power to grant licences in respect of mercury
226. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as—
(a) authorising prospecting for mercury or primary mercury mining, or
(b) empowering the Minister to authorise prospecting for mercury or primary mercury mining, by the grant of a licence or otherwise.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 106, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“Prohibition on prospecting for mercury
227. A person who prospects for mercury commits an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a class A fine, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €250,000.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 106, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“Prohibition on primary mercury mining
228. A person who carries out primary mercury mining commits an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a class A fine, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €250,000.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 224 to 238, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 239
Question proposed: "That section 239 stand part of the Bill."
The Office of the Attorney General has highlighted a legal issue in respect of the Continental Shelf Act 1968 arising as a consequence of a transfer of ministerial functions order made in the past. This may require the bringing of a Government amendment on Report Stage. In essence, the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment is not legally required to consult the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport with respect to the safety of navigation and sea pollution. The purpose of the amendment would be to rectify this position.
My question goes back to our recent Private Members’ Bill relating to fracking, which has gone through Committee Stage. A question arose relating to exploration at sea and whether it would apply.
My question is more specific. An example might arise in the Irish Sea. Let us suppose there was a seam of coal in a sub-sea area and someone was looking to extract it by various means. This might not necessarily involve a mine. One could use steam to gasify it or use other mechanisms.
In our discussions yesterday, we were considering onshore mining exclusively. An offshore coal seam might be extractable using unconventional methods that would not amount to fracking but could perhaps be steam-based recovery.
How would such a prospect be regulated? Is it a petroleum prospect licence or a mining licence or do we in any cases issue mining licences out in our sea waters?
That is a good question, Deputy. We will have to do some research but as I understand it, it is a mining licence.
The provisions of this Bill will apply in those circumstances. It is not a hypothetical question, there is apparently a coal seam out in the Irish Sea which has been considered for a long time.
I do not think we should be doing any exploration for any fossil fuels any more. We have to put an end to all our offshore exploration for fuels from a climate perspective but that is a real prospect as I understand. So would that prospect be regulated under this legislation?
Yes. However, I understand nothing has come before us.
On a related matter, in answering questions raised during the debate on the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016, we dealt exclusively with onshore fracking. I do not know if there is any example where fracking offshore is possible - it would seem to be technically impossible - but if there were an offshore fracking development, would that also effectively be a mining licence application or would it be a petroleum licence?
As I understand it, the only use of fracking in the petroleum sector is where they hit a stubborn section of the core and they frack it to shatter the rock to be able to ease the continuation of the drilling. The only purpose is to facilitate the boring.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 240 to 242, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 243
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 113, lines 4 and 5, to delete “Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources” and substitute “Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 243, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 244 to 248, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 249
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 114, lines 10 and 11, to delete “Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013 (S.I. No. 520 of 2013)” and substitute “Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I. No. 264 of 2015)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 249, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 250 and 251 agreed to.
SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 116, line 1, to delete “and dolomitic limestone”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 118, to delete lines 4 to 8 and substitute the following:
“In this Schedule “silica sand” means sand of sufficient purity to be suitable for use in the manufacture of glass or ceramics.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 13, line 8, after “Acts,” to insert the following:
“to give effect to Article 3.3 of the Minamata Convention on Mercury done at Geneva on 19 January 2013,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
