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 —