Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The proposed amendment clearly refers to prospecting and retention licences. As I said during the previous discussion, prospecting licences are already subject to a two-year review process. It is intended that retention licences will be treated the same. These reviews are not a box-ticking exercise. Work carried out in the period under review is scrutinised by professional experts on the staff of the Department to ensure compliance with best practice and meeting commitments. Work programmes for the next review phase are also revaluated. Quite apart from the formal reviews, of course, the technical staff of my Department maintain contact with the licencees throughout the licence term and keep apprised of developments. Site visits are also undertaken as part of this process.

Mining licences are also kept under review in accordance with the terms of the licences and, particularly for the main underground and surface operations, inspections by an independent qualified mining engineer are carried out twice per year.

The Senator raised a separate issue in regard to old operations which it is claimed are not being worked. I do not want to discuss particular cases here but I believe the issue here is not a licensing issue but, rather, relates to the question of excepted minerals. These are mines that were being worked in 1978 and which were registered by the Mining Board as excepted from the statutory vesting in the Minister of the right to work minerals that was contained in the 1979 Act. This Bill contains provisions that will automatically cancel all those registrations on enactment. If a deposit of formerly excepted minerals is still genuinely being worked, the operators will have an opportunity to apply once again to the Mining Board to retain the excepted minerals status, but this will be done only if the operator makes an application within the prescribed period and if the Mining Board is satisfied that the minerals are being worked, and worked efficiently.

We have had a discussion on this and I acknowledge the Senator's concerns. It is a question of trying to create the difference between prospecting and exploration licences in respect of drilling. The process is not the same as that for a mining licence. There are two issues, namely, that of excepted minerals and that of the application process. As I stated on the last occasion, where a prospecting licence is given, exploration might just be a matter of evaluating the different types of rocks or rock infrastructure in an areas. It also could mean drilling. One could compare it to drilling for water. It could involve equipment of the same diameter as that used to drill for water, perhaps 5 cm to 6 cm. There still has to be a screening process, which must take account of noise pollution and the impact on water tables. There are still screening parameters for a prospecting licence. My Department has the technical expertise to deal with those matters.

The corollary is the application for the actual mining licence. This is a completely different ball game, which involves going to the planning authority and taking responsibility. It requires environmental impact assessments and environmental impact statements by the company itself. A big part involves public consultation, whereby the public has an opportunity to make its voice heard in regard to potential applications.