asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce why, on the conclusion of the relevant legal proceedings, he did not make an order under section 14 of the Minerals Development Act, 1940, in substitution for the Minerals Development (Nevinstown and other Townlands, County Meath) Order, 1971, and thereby acquire for the State the known mineral deposits in the area in question.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mineral Deposits.
32.
Legal advice received by me following the conclusions of the legal proceedings indicated that it would not be possible to make a new acquisition order which would not be open to challenge in the courts and, having considered all aspects of the case, I decided against making such an order.
Does the Minister mean, by saying he was advised that an order could not be made that would not be open to challenge, he was advised that he could not make any effective order?
I am not quite clear about the distinction. I was advised that I could not make an order which would not be open to challenge and I could not be sure that the possibility of the same sort of circumstances, as occurred in regard to the previous order, would not recur.
I presume the Minister appreciates that by not making such an order a few individuals have benefitted, each to the extent of many millions of pounds? Would the Minister agree it is very important that the Minister should explain clearly to the House why he did not make such an order, in view of the fact that the consequence of his not having done so was to place a number of millions of pounds in the pockets of a handful of people?
Has the Minister sought advice as to the necessity of having the Constitution changed in order to deal with this problem if it arises frequently in the future?
I have not hitherto sought advice on the constitutional aspect.
Could I have an answer to my question please?
The Deputy is more familiar with the law than am I. Perhaps, therefore, he will forgive my hesitation. There is the absence of references in the Supreme Court judgment to the notice and the constitutional validity of the Act. This might possibly have been due to a difference of opinion between members of the court. Then—I am skipping a little—Counsel advised that section 14 could not be operated with safety in regard to the right minerals, even with giving prior notice and specifically designating the minerals involved, and that if so operated the Minister would almost certainly be involved in further lengthy litigation with an uncertain outcome. That was my advice.
Apparently on the basis of that information the Minister was faced with the prospect either of making an order which might have been challenged—with a lengthy delay, as he says—or attempting to amend the law, if that were necessary. Does the Minister accept that, even if there were to be a lengthy delay, no great difference would occur in view of the lengthy delay now occurring in relation to Tara, which is adjoining it and which presumably should be developed together with it? Would the Minister explain—because to my mind at least he has not explained at all, as yet—why it was he was prepared to allow the matter to go by default with the consequence that a handful of people each made many millions of pounds? I think the Minister will accept that it is not sufficient an explanation for allowing that to occur to say——
We seem to be entering into the realm of argument and debate.
——that he was given advice to the effect that the matter might be challenged? That is not sufficient.
We cannot debate this very large issue today. This is Question Time.
I shall repeat what I said earlier. The Minister would almost certainly be involved in further lengthy litigation with an uncertain outcome.
Much of it is lengthy too.
All litigation is uncertain; there is no certain outcome.
In view of that advice the procedure we adopted seemed to offer the best opportunity of resolving the matter without much greater delays than are currently occurring.
To some extent my supplementary question has been covered. The purpose of putting down this question in the first instance was to ascertain why the excuse given by the Minister for not making this order under section 14 was, if I remember correctly, that he was so anxious to ensure there would be no delay in getting mining operations under way? There does not appear to be any particular case at the moment.
It is distinctly unsatisfactory.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.