Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ná habair é.

I welcome this Bill. It is a very long time since we had such legislation before the House. It is important legislation but, like everything, we should make haste slowly and not rush it. The background to this Bill is that the previous Acts date from 1940 to 1999 and include the provisions for regulating mineral prospecting and development and a statutory vesting of the exclusive right to work minerals in the Minister for Communications, Climate Change and Environment, subject to the payment of compensation.

We have to develop our natural resources and with Brexit it is important that we ensure that whatever resources we have underground must be extracted for the benefit of the people. We have lost so much of our fishing resources since our accession to the European Union and autonomy over so much of our indigenous areas of existence and survival. It is very important that we examine this, that we have fair play and that we are careful that we will not have unintended consequences. The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong but I do not see any section in the Bill that provides for a review of the legislation and an impact assessment not too far down the road after it is enacted. One would have that fear because previous Acts, namely, the Minerals Development Act 1940, Part II of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960, enacted two years after I was born, the Minerals Development Act 1979, the Minerals Development Act 1995 and the Minerals Development Act 1999 are so old. These Acts incorporate a provision for regulating mineral prospecting and development; the statutory vesting of the exclusive right to work minerals in the Minister, subject to payment of compensation; the acquisition of other rights necessary for the efficient development of minerals, subject to payment and compensation; and payment to the State of rents and royalties from the extraction of minerals, with which I have some issues.

The Bill will replace a suite of legislation which dates back to 1940 with modern, streamlined statutory provisions. The existing legislation is obviously quite extensive and hence we now have what the Minister believes is a comprehensive Bill with a total of 251 sections. Part 2 addresses the administrative practice for prospecting licences from application to surrender, including public notice, consultation prior to issuing of licences and payment of compensation for damage or nuisance arising from prospecting activity. This is a very wide-ranging area and like other issues such as wind farms, wind energy development, major roads projects or whatever, a compulsory purchase order, CPO, can be invoked. These are massive projects and while they are meant to be for the benefit of the people they can have major impacts on ordinary citizens. This legislation introduces a new type of licence known as a retention licence where a prospecting licence holder has discovered a mineral resource that cannot for the time being be worked due to a need to address access issues, environmental concerns or other matters. This Part also provides that the Minister in assessing the public interest of an application takes into account the economic benefits for the region as well as the environmental impact on the proposed exploration programme. It provides for making regulations setting out conditions attaching to a prospecting or a retention licence. A new requirement is that prior written consent will be required for boreholes, trenching and bulk sampling.

The legislation does not say much in terms of providing for a community where the members have come together in the case of a quarry or in some development activity where explosives might be used, which creates dust and noise. I have a plant hire business and know all about dust and noise. One cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. I have been involved with local communities during the period I was a member of a county council and prior to and subsequent to that. There is an issue currently with EirGrid where it is riding roughshod over a community stretching from Cork right down across Tipperary, parts of Waterford, Tipperary and into Kilkenny. We have had sham consultations and engagement. This legislation is not sufficiently robust to provide for a proper, honest and full consultation with communities from the start of the project - from the cradle to the grave. Often the first a community hears of a development is when a site notice is erected, no consultation has taken place, then there is a row, all types of issues arise, and there is mistrust and distrust and that is not good for anyone.

Sections of the Bill provide that the State must benefit from such activity, as I said in my opening remarks, but there must be gain for small communities where they have to put up with all that is involved in a mine. I accept that it will generate employment and many people will travel to work to it. My son-in-law worked in Lisheen Mine for many years and it was a great place but now it is empty. That is a pity and it is a big loss. It is an example of where there was good consultation, engagement and involvement with the communities. When they moved out of that mine, they tried to set up a different industry. I was involved in that and they have a fine clean situation.

This is a good example, but there are many horrific examples of rushed planning, strange planning decisions, numerous appeals to An Bord Pleanála, court cases, constant aggravation and improper rehabilitation works when the work is finished. Therefore, we need to update the legislation but we also need to have it copper-fastened and draft it in such a way that there is a community gain as well. If the community is paying, it is entitled to some gain. This way, a good example can be created and can lead the ship in other ways.

The specific sections of the Minerals Development Bill I have raised in the past concern dolomite and dolomitic limestone, its inclusion in the Schedule of minerals and its definition under "minerals" in section 2, headed "Interpretation": "(f) dolomitic limestone that occurs in association with dolomite in a deposit where dolomite is less than 85 per cent of the deposit". I do not understand what this means and I think very few people do. It is mangle jangle. I see my colleague beside me, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, wondering whether I have gone a bit dotty.

The four following points illustrate why dolomite and dolomitic limestone should be excluded from the Schedule attached to the Bill. This applies to ordinary quarry people. I call them the backbone of our society. They might employ ten, 20 or up to 100 people. It is not all about CRH. We know how powerful CRH is and how it has got away with setting exemptions and sometimes possibly infringing on the planning laws because it is big and powerful. We see so much of this now with companies such as Tesco and EirGrid, all the big media companies and - if I may go there - the vulture funds. I know where I would like to have them: in a disused quarry ready to be filled in. I would make sure many of them would be inside before flooding it and covering it over.

First, is the definition subjective? Can it be interpreted to include one deposit and exclude another? Can the Minister of State honestly put his hand on his heart and say as much? How can he? I assert that this has been the case in the past.

My second point concerns all-island consistency in the treatment of dolomite and dolomitic limestone. If a royalty is applied to dolomitic limestone in the jurisdiction of the South and the Northern Ireland Act does not include dolomite, there is potential to distort the market by effectively subsidising Northern Ireland producers. We have seen this so many times, even with coal. Deputy Eamon Ryan's - tá sé imithe now - introduced the famous levy on coal for the anti-pollution - I cannot think of the phraseology. We saw how the suppliers in the shops, the people who were bringing it in here and the wholesalers lobbied. Now what has happened? They have all gone out of business because it is all coming in with no levies from the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. This is very important. As I said earlier, this would stop the market by subsidising the Northern Ireland producers up the road who will now be more aggressive competitors than ever with the onset of Brexit.

Uimhir a trí concerns unintended consequences, to which I referred earlier. Dolomite and dolomitic limestone is the host rock for virtually all the lead and zinc deposits in Ireland. Will implementation of the Bill into law place the existing mines in a position where they have illegally extracted another scheduled mineral not included in their state mining facility? Has the Government copper-fastened this?

Uimhir a ceathair concerns a cost-benefit analysis. In 2003 - a long time ago - the then Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was asked in a parliamentary question "the amount which has been paid in royalties over the past ten years". The Minister's response was that €140,539 had been paid, averaging €14,050 per year, which was buttons. One would not give that to children going to mass in one diocese, not to mind the whole country. I question the cost of administering the State mining facilities that facilitated the collection of this royalty. It is farcical. I pay that amount in PRSI for two of my employees. It is a joke.

The Bill has a number fundamental flaws, particularly in respect of the treatment of dolomite and dolomitic limestone. Dolomitic limestone is a limestone rock with raised levels of magnesium with commercial values similar to limestone aggregate, and we all know what that is. The interpretation of "minerals" in section 2 attempts to provide definitional clarity as to where limestone ends and dolomitic limestone starts. It is a very thin line. Again, the definition reads, "dolomitic limestone that occurs in association with dolomite in a deposit where dolomite is less than 85 per cent of the deposit". How does one assess this? It is not really possible to make an assessment to such a fine degree as 85% versus 15% by drilling a test hole or bore hole. This provides the lower demarcation levels between dolomitic limestone and limestone. However, clarification is needed as to what "dolomite is less than 85 per cent of the deposit" actually means and how it is assessed and arrived at.

The sentiment in the section is noble, that is, to claim and recover to the State royalty from any limestone deposit which has a raised magnesium level, irrespective of the sector in which the dolomite limestone is used. The difficulty with this is implementation. Is it worth the candle going after this for €14,000 per year? What is the cost of the administration? The implementation of law regarding what is dolomitic limestone and what is limestone is subjective. Inconsistent implementation under the current minerals Act has been very subjective. On the one hand, large-scale multinational companies have exploited deposits of dolomitic limestone without State mining facilities and, on the other, owner-operator deposits have had to attempt to obtain State mining facilities. This section has the potential for distortion of the market where one deposit is considered limestone and another dolomitic limestone. An example of a case in which dolomite products compete with limestone products in the same marketplace is refractory production. Premier Periclase uses limestone and salt water in the production of high-end refractory for furnaces without contributing any royalty, yet to produce similar refractory with dolomitic limestone, a royalty payment would be compulsory. This is very confusing.

Another anomaly concerns active lead and zinc deposits. The host rock in the deposits at Tara, Lisheen, Galmoy and the potential site at Caherconlish is in all cases dolomitic limestone. The base metals are extracted from the host rock, which is returned to refill the mine void space as a concrete, yet the current State mining facilities issued only levies royalty on the base metal. It is like a merry-go-round. It is very technical.

It is important that implementation is consistently applied. Under the current Act, the implementation track record does not inspire confidence. The Schedule of the 1940 Act also includes dolomite and dolomitic limestone. However, the first issued State mining facility for dolomite and dolomitic limestone was not until 1969 - 29 years later - to Quigley Magnesite, with a second issued for a deposit at Stonyford, County Kilkenny, to the Irish Sugar Company. The Geological Survey of Ireland published a directory of quarries, mines and pits in which the first three entries were dolomitic limestone, yet none of these deposits had or has a State mining facility.

A further inconsistency concerns the Department's exploration and mining division's six-monthly section 70 reports to the Oireachtas under the Minerals Development Act 1940 whereby up until 2013, the list of State mining facilities, SMFs, published had two dolomite entries which had expired in 2009. CRH's deposit was and is still in operation without such a facility.

I rest my case because I am out of time. One of the most fascinating aspects of the Bill is the length of time it has taken to be published. Initial requests for expressions of interest were published in The Irish Timesin July 2005. One could write the Bible in the intervening time, but the Bible is a document on which we can depend, quote from, act on and live up to. I feel the Bill is not a document from which we can quote, or of which we can be sure. We should make hay slowly. Why did it take so long for the Bill to come before the House? Why is preferential treatment shown to CRH, while many small businesspeople have been forced out of business, demanding royalties and turning a blind eye to the big brothers? The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has been, as I said before, toothless, useless and fruitless in tackling this. I hand over to my colleague, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

See this speech in context