The proposer of the topic will have 15 minutes in which to speak. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately 8 minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil mé buíoch den Aire as a bheith i láthair don díospóireacht seo..

I am grateful to the Minister of the Environment, Sammy Wilson, for his attendance. My most recent visit —

I hope the Member appreciates, first, that I have deserted canvassers in East Antrim, and secondly, that I have had to come out of the sunshine in order to listen to him talk about gold-mining in his constituency. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to hearing his comments, although I hope that his speech proves to be interesting enough to justify drawing me away from the country lanes of East Antrim into the Assembly Chamber.

As far back as last week, when this topic first appeared on the Order Paper, I could sense resentment from the Minister. Therefore, I am grateful to him for sacrificing other distractions.

My most recent visit to Cavanacaw, outside Omagh, was last Friday afternoon. The southern Sperrins region is a beautiful part of the world, but, on arriving at the townlands in and around Cavanacaw, I was struck by the huge stockpiles of rock that scar the landscape and are visible for miles. It looked more like a quarrying business than a gold mine. Anybody passing through the area would think that that they were looking at a succession of quarrying businesses rather than a gold mine.

In 1995, planning permission was granted to Omagh Minerals Limited for the extraction of gold and silver. However, the mine did not go into production until 2007. Although planning approval was secured, numerous conditions were attached to it in order to protect local residents, community amenities and the environment. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments about how well, or poorly, those planning conditions have been monitored and enforced. Are any enforcement cases open and live?

Omagh Minerals Ltd holds a prospecting licence for 189 square kilometres in the southern Sperrins from Gillygooly to Lack, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Many sites have been identified for excavation well into the future and many of them are known locally by local surnames; one such is the Kerr vein site. People are fearful about the future of the landscape and tourism in the area and about the environment.

I invite the Minister to visit Cavanacaw to see the situation at first hand. Minister Sammy Wilson has met Omagh Minerals Ltd and local residents, and I am grateful for his interest in the matter. However, that interest would be enhanced greatly by a visit to the site.

As I said in my opening remarks, planning permission was secured in 1995, but it was only actualised in 2007 after one of the longest-running public inquiries ever. Local residents succeeded in securing numerous conditions to the planning permission, but they feel strongly that they have been abandoned by the Department of the Environment and its agencies, not least the Planning Service.

In a BBC news interview, Moe Lavigne, vice-president of the Glantas Gold Corporation, which owns Omagh Minerals Ltd, said that:

“Galantas will not just be flogging its gold to the world market. The leftover rock can be sold on to building and construction firms as aggregate, and there’s even silver and lead in the rock.”

It appears to local people that stealth quarrying has taken place and that this is more about quarrying than gold-mining. The confirmation that it contains silver and lead is yet more evidence that the rock, which should not have been moved off site, is contaminated; a fact that the Minister needs to address.

Omagh Minerals Ltd is seeking revised planning permission to allow 40 trucks in and out of the mine per day compared with one per day at present; it also asks for changes to the closure plan. If granted, that would allow the long-term stockpiling of millions of tons of aggregate, which is required for backfilling and restoration, for probable removal off site.

Many residents have come together to engage on a new course of action to ensure that any further planning applications by Omagh Minerals Ltd are refused. The grounds for refusal are based on many factors, the most important being the enforcement case, which is still open and which now covers 12 conditions in breach, with many additional conditions under scrutiny.

Other agencies are investigating the mine. There are various issues for the Health and Safety Executive regarding stockpiles and the security of the site and its entrance; Revenue and Customs is seeking the collection of the aggregate levy; the Crown Estate is reviewing the bond and restoration fund to reflect today’s costs but has refused to disclose the value of the bond to local residents; and the Environment Agency is investigating pollution and the contamination of rock removed from the gold mine.

Given the involvement of all those agencies, it is clear that much work has to be done to bring the gold mine back into line with Government policy, planning legislation, environmental standards, and the 1995 permission approval conditions. People in the area say that the situation has got out of control, and the lion’s share of responsibility for ensuring that it is brought back under control rests with the Department of the Environment.

People are emphasising that the mining operations at Cavanacaw are the shape of things to come, and they are worried about the extent of the damage that prospecting licences are doing in the southern Sperrins from Gillygooly to Lack and what they will do in the future. People have described the operations as stealth quarrying rather than gold-mining, and they are worried about it.

As I said already, Minister Sammy Wilson had a meeting with representatives from Omagh Minerals Ltd in early May. The Minister was advised that the company will rely on new planning permissions and revisions to existing planning permissions to safeguard and develop operations. Multiple planning breaches concerning the current mining of Kearney vein are under investigation, but local residents have learned, to their horror, that Omagh Minerals Ltd plans to excavate a second vein for which it does not have planning permission. Once again, Omagh Minerals Ltd is showing contempt for planning regulations, and the Planning Service has questions to answer.

If Omagh Minerals Ltd intends to open new veins or to carry out gold-mining or quarrying activities in the Sperrins, they must be required to apply for the relevant planning permissions in advance of the operations, not retrospectively. In my constituency, I hear that some people who are attached to the company are boasting that they need submit only a retrospective planning application or explain away the mining as exploration work. Omagh Minerals Ltd is not worried about the planners; in fact, its workers think that, by the time that the planners dither about with enforcement cases, for instance, the company can empty any pit. That is the type of comment that is being made in Omagh and West Tyrone by people who are associated with Omagh Minerals Ltd. The residents’ concerns deserve the highest possible hearing from the Department of the Environment.

There is a series of related issues, which I will not go into today. I am grateful for the attendance of MLAs from other constituencies who are interested in the issue, and I look forward to the contributions of other Members.

I do not represent West Tyrone, but the environmental damage has the potential to move into Fermanagh. I was interested in Mr McElduff’s comments. During his contribution, I do not think that he once mentioned Eskragh or the position that he played for his GAA team in Tyrone. The Adjournment debate has certainly provided a new angle.

I want the Minister of the Environment to inform the House of the protection that his Department will give to the area in which the mining operations are taking place: the landscape, the environment and the community. I do not know the exact details, but I wonder whether planning permission has been granted for all excavations. People have told me that the mining operation seems more like a quarrying operation than a gold-mining operation. I assume that there is planning permission to excavate stone material, but I do not think that that is the basis of what it is meant to be doing.

I am also curious to know what mechanisms are in place to police the determinations of the planning permission and the licences that are granted. I come from a rural farming background, and I am aware that some people in that community who commit minor discrepancies, such as dumping or tipping a few loads of soil, face the full force of the departmental authorities. Sometimes, however, the bigger operations get away unscathed and do not feel the same rigours of the law or the authorities. That is my main concern. I am concerned about the spread of the proposals and what is happening here.

I am also curious to know how many licences have been granted for such work to be carried out throughout the Sperrins.

There is deep unhappiness among the local community there, and, indeed, among the wider community. A huge concern is that such activities will spread and escalate. People believe that the authorities are not listening to them and that Omagh Minerals Ltd appears to be able to do exactly as it pleases.

I thank the Member who secured the debate for doing so. Like Mr Elliott, I represent Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The area covered by the prospecting licence of Omagh Minerals Ltd extends to Lack in County Fermanagh. As has been said, that area is beautiful and scenic and is full of natural assets that provide local people with the potential to develop tourism initiatives. One concern is that that potential is being jeopardised by the activities that are being carried out.

Furthermore, as has been said, there are concerns about planning issues. As I understand it, even though all the conditions around the planning application had not been fully determined when Omagh Minerals Ltd began work, it has been carrying out its work undeterred. That simply adds to the general concerns about despoiling the countryside. I also understand that the Planning Service’s enforcement branch has not issued an enforcement notice to the company, despite the fact that work has commenced. That is quite a serious concern, and people are also asking the Northern Ireland Environment Agency what it is doing about it. We are all aware that there has been correspondence between the developers and the Planning Service and that they have had meetings, but people want those outstanding concerns to be addressed. We hope that the Minister can go some way towards doing so this afternoon.

There is a wider concern about inconsistency in the enforcement of planning decisions. For example, I know of industries providing employment that have been served with enforcement notices because of some of their activities. In one case, a business was extending its work premises. Another example is of a farmer who built a slurry tank under the terms of a Department of Agriculture and Rural Development scheme and received an enforcement notice from the Planning Service before the cement had dried. That does not sit well against the fact that there is a lack of enforcement notices for companies that are engaged in the activities under discussion this afternoon. I agree entirely that there is great concern about the issue, and I support the comments made today.

I, too, thank the Minister for taking the time to be here and for dragging himself away from canvassing, knocking on doors and shaking sweaty hands on this warm day. I also thank him for his commitment to our area. I concur with the remarks made by two of the three Members who spoke previously. There are serious concerns that the operations under discussion today are quarrying by stealth and not, in fact, gold-mining.

I will speak about the major health concerns involved. I assure the Minister that I will not be using medical terminology, which confuses most people.

Water pollution is an obvious concern. It is our most natural resource, and clean water is a precious commodity. There is a danger that the Foyle River system and the surrounding groundwater will be polluted, resulting in a negative knock-on effect for local agriculture and fishing. There is also the possibility that the polluted water might enter the food chain. Furthermore, there is concern that there is no effective containment of contaminated water. Heavy metals are toxic, and there is a fear that they may be carcinogenic.

High levels of rainfall can cause an overflow and a release of toxins, and there is also a problem of acid rock drainage. There is the suspicion that overflows from the tailings pond ended up in the Creevan Burn during high rainfall, and that was disguised by high flooding and water discoloration.

Metals other than gold are released when rock is crushed, including lead, cadmium, nickel and arsenic, which are all potentially toxic and dangerous. Heavy metals in such unnatural concentrations can pose enormous problems because they will not break down or disappear completely. The presence of toxic metals in effluence and tailings poses a health threat.

There is also a concern for the livestock, wildlife and fish because they will also suffer from metal poisoning if their food or water is contaminated. Human health is at risk through direct and indirect consumption of contaminated products.

All the heavy metals that are released are present in dust and sediment. An open-pit operation, such as that at Cavanacaw, produces a lot of dust, especially in such a windy location. That dust is transmitted easily and poses a danger for surface vegetation, crops, livestock and humans. Pregnant women, the elderly and vulnerable people, especially those who suffer from asthma, are particularly at risk from dust and sediment, and that fact should not be dismissed.

Excavation, rock moving and crushing generate a high level of noise, and that has major ramifications for the health of homeowners in the area, along with domestic livestock and wildlife. The workforce at Cavanacaw should be aware of the increased risks to their health, and those who work in close proximity to toxic chemicals, dust, and extreme noise on a daily basis may well see a deterioration in their health and have long-term health problems — never mind accidents and, in the worst-case scenario, early death. The health of local residents must not be ignored or dismissed, because they can suffer the same negative impacts. However, they face additional problems, such as stress, worry, anxiety, loss of amenities, the devaluation of properties and negative equity. Those problems can cause mental-health issues. Increased levels of traffic must also be taken into account.

I am reliably informed that condition 28 of the planning consent document stipulated that fixed water sprays be installed on the roads to limit dust transmission, but that provision was never implemented. Condition 28 also stipulated that stockpiles of rock should be sown with a range of plants to limit the transmission of dust outside the site boundary. That was not done. Condition 23 stated that ore stockpiles should be retained in a covered area for the same reason, and that has not been done either. Those three planning breaches were confirmed by the Planning Service. No one can have any idea how much toxic dust blew across the fields in that windy location, or how much of that has entered the food chain through crops or cattle and sheep grazing. Environmental health officer David Gillis confirmed that little or no monitoring of the site had ever taken place.

I have been informed that, depending on the Minister’s response, the Committee for the Environment may look into the issue.

I will try to address all the points that have been raised by various Members as best as I can in the time available. Having met people on both sides of the argument and having spoken to officials from the Department, I understand the anxieties on both sides.

This issue is an example of the conflict that can occur with all economic activity, especially in rural areas where the landscape is beautiful and where there are some sensitive environmental issues. There is a conflict between jobs and the environment and between people’s amenity and their employment. Let us not forget that the mine creates employment in the area and that local people depend on it for their income and livelihoods. At the same time, people who are affected by an economic activity have the right to expect some protection from it.

I listened to what Members said about the Department’s role. I think that some of those comments were unfair. Mr McElduff gave us some of the history behind the mining operation. However, to ensure that all the issues that may arise from the mining activity were aired fully, debated and considered before a decision was made, the Department held an extensive public inquiry. At that inquiry, all the issues were aired, and, as a result, 40 conditions were attached to the planning application.

Since then, the site has been monitored. As a result of departmental action, some of the issues that arose have now been dealt with, and those matters have involved more than on-site considerations. For example, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) has employed Queen’s University to look at the off-site impact of activities at the gold mine. We do not just look at what happens on-site; we also look at the off-site impact.

I will address Dr Deeny’s points in a moment. However, I will address Mr McElduff’s comments first, and my remarks may be pertinent to some of the other comments that were made. A number of false assertions were made during the debate. First, activity on the site did not start in 2007. Permission to mine was given in 1995, and mining started in 1997. It is significant that for probably 10 years, there were no huge issues with the site. We must bear in mind that the issues arose first in 2007, which, I think, is the date to which Mr McElduff refers, when it was decided to remove some of the rock from the site. Prior to that, there was activity, but it did not give rise to the concerns that are being raised now.

Secondly, it has been argued that this mine is an excuse to quarry. A number of Members used the term “quarrying by stealth”. However, I suppose the mine is like a quarry, given that it is an open-cast mine; that is the way in which the rock has been exposed. I spoke to the mine owners and asked them to explain the requirement for such a huge scar on the landscape, given that the vein of gold was so narrow. They referred to health and safety and to the importance of ensuring that the sides of the mine did not cave in. The mine has to be stepped and tiered, meaning that it has to be wide at the top so that the very narrow vein at the bottom can be reached.

The closure plan requires that a scar will not be left on the landscape. When the extraction is finished, the hole must be filled in. However, as we all know, when rock is extracted, broken up and replaced, there will be more rock than is needed to fill the hole. Mr McElduff said, quite rightly, that we do not want huge piles of rock scarring the landscape. That means that some of it will have to go off-site.

The issue is about how much rock is required for the closure and whether more rock was removed than was necessary. The company was wrong not to have a proper closure plan in place, because that would have indicated how much rock was required for landscaping and how much was surplus.

Some Members accused my Department of acting slowly. Within five months of the rock removal starting, my Department had stopped it. Some Members also asked why we did not serve the company with an enforcement notice. We did not do that because the company complied with the Department. It stopped its activity after being approached by enforcement officials from the divisional planning office. Therefore, an enforcement notice was not needed.

I made it quite clear to residents whom I met before the activity stopped, that if it continued, an enforcement notice would be served and acted upon. However, that was not necessary. Therefore, it is unfair for Members to say that my Department did not act, when it acted fairly quickly.

I suspect that some surplus rock will be removed from the site at some stage. That rock could be used for local road building. As Members know, I do not subscribe much to this. However, rather than increasing the carbon footprint of the construction industry by drawing rock from further afield to use in road schemes here, it makes much more sense to use the surplus rock from the local site.

I have dealt with many of the points that Mr Elliott raised on the issue of licences. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) issues the licences for further excavation or mining, not my Department. The granting of a licence does not necessarily mean that a company will be given approval to mine. Two separate Departments are involved in that, and the kinds of factors that the Department of the Environment takes into consideration might differ from those that DETI takes into consideration when granting a licence to a company.

I have already dealt with the point that Mr Gallagher made about enforcement notices. He also asked what action NIEA is taking. As I explained, and this should answer one of Dr Deeny’s points also, NIEA has a specific role. It ensures that nearby water supplies are not contaminated as a result of on-site activities. Settlement pools of water sit on the site, and it is NIEA’s job to ensure that those do not leak into nearby watercourses or water sources by taking monthly samples. Twelve samples are taken every year to ensure that there is no leakage from the site.

NIEA has reported that there have been no instances of water pollution as a result of activity on the site to date. One reason for that — Dr Deeny talked about the issue of heavy metals, etc — is that although the company has permission to use a cyanide reactor to separate gold from ore, it has decided not to use that method. Therefore, the danger of that form of pollution has not arisen on site.

Dr Deeny also raised the issue of dust coming from the site. The initial public inquiry indicated that all screening, etc, had to be done in closed and wet conditions to reduce the levels of dust, and that is being done.

However, he is right in saying that no sprays have been installed in relation to materials carried on-site — and, of course, dust arises from such activity — and that stockpiles of stones were due to be planted out within two years of the operation beginning. Those conditions were not met, but I understand that sprays for the lorry loads of stone are now in place, that planting has started and that tests will take place over the growing season. I accept that those actions should have begun earlier, but as a result of enforcement action taken by the Department, those issues are being resolved.

Dealing with noise emanating from the mine was part of the original planning agreement. I may be incorrect, and if so I apologise, but looking through the conditions that are still outstanding, acoustic mounding was to be provided in the form of a till bund. The Department is satisfied that the second phase of the project has yet to commence and is awaiting a survey from its construction services branch. I accept that that is another condition that should have been met at an earlier stage, but the Department is pursuing it in light of the complaints that it has received.

I listened to what Members have said today, and my Department is committed to ensuring that no one, regardless of size, scale, or type of operation, is seen to be above the rules, regulations or planning conditions. By and large, most of the conditions laid down at the time of the original planning permission for the mine have been met. However, I am aware that some conditions of a more technical nature, and others that are more serious, have not been met. In relation to those conditions, I assure Members that no more rock will be taken from the site until a proper closure plan has been established and until the Department knows for certain what surplus rock exists. Furthermore, all the environmental issues that have been raised are being dealt with. Indeed, I understand that some of them have already been dealt with.

One other issue mentioned, which I wish to deal with, is that of the Kerr vein, and whether the mining company will begin work on that vein without planning permission. The original planning permission allowed the company to mine the vein but it decided not to do so at that time. I understand that in the interest of transparency, the company has announced on its website that it intends to mine that vein, and I wish to make clear that it is doing so on the basis of the original planning permission that was granted and not as a kind of snub-nose gesture towards local people.

Mr McElduff asked whether I will visit the site. I have sent my factor — my man who does — to look at the site and he has reported back to me. I have also studied extensive aerial photographs of the site and I have spoken to public representatives, the mining company and residents. I believe that I have a fairly good view of the site. However, should there be an occasion in the future — and of course the Assembly knows that my future is somewhat uncertain — [Laughter.] That being the case, the invitation may come too late, and I may not have the opportunity to go —

You better do it quickly.

It may be too late if I do not do it before this weekend. If I felt that a visit to the site were necessary, I would be more than happy to go.

The Executive and my Department have an obligation to ensure that any complaints are looked at properly. We also have an obligation to judge and to balance the economic interests and the environmental and amenity interests of any planning application. I hope that my reply to the debate has demonstrated that we have sought to do that. We may not have done that to the satisfaction of some who have been severely impacted by the issue, but I hope that no one will run away with the idea that local people have been abandoned by the Planning Service, as has been suggested. That has certainly not been the case. When issues have been drawn to the attention of the Planning Service, it has sought to resolve them as quickly as possible.