A contradictory attitude was demonstrated by government ministers towards a 1992 ban on mining in parts of Co Mayo, the High Court was told yesterday.
Mr Hugh McCullough, chief executive of Glencar Exploration Company, said the then Minister for Energy, Mr Robert Molloy, had urged that the ban be overturned while the Minister for the Environment, Mr Smith, who had the power to lift the ban, told Glencar he did not wish to interfere with local democracy at that point.
Mr Justice Kelly suggested that the government was speaking "out of both sides of its mouth at the same time" on the issue and Mr McCullough agreed.
"What's new?" the judge said.
Mr McCullough recollected that Mr Smith had said he would await the outcome of legal action over the ban and had not said he would not do anything. Yesterday was the fourth day of an action for damages taken by Glencar Exploration Company and Andaman Resources plc against Mayo County Council over a mining ban proposed in 1991 and formally approved by the council in early 1992. The ban was overturned by the High Court in December 1992.
Glencar is seeking more than £2 million in damages against the council.
Cross-examined by Dr Michael Forde SC for Mayo County Council, Mr McCullough agreed that Glencar still held exploration licences for areas in Co Mayo, where the company had found a substantial gold prospect some years ago.
Since 1995 the licences were held in the event of reaching a damages settlement with Mayo County Council, he said. He denied that Glencar was holding on to the licences in the hope that, if it secured major damages, it could use that money to develop the gold prospect. He said all efforts to secure a joint-venture partner for the project had failed.
He agreed that, in a letter written to Newcrest gold exploration company in Australia, he had said he believed planning permission would be granted. But at that stage he was trying to persuade Newcrest to stick with its joint venture agreement with Glencar to develop the Co Mayo prospect. In the event, Newcrest had pulled out.
Newcrest had reconsidered its position when the ban was lifted but decided not to get involved again because of continuing opposition to mining from Mayo County Council. He agreed Newcrest was unhappy with the government's failure to intervene but rejected a suggestion that this was the main reason for the company's decision to pull out.
Mr Paul Wheeler, a mining geologist, said Co Mayo was recognised in 1990 as a very attractive area for gold exploration.
He believed the prospect would have had a market value of between £2.8 and £4.8 million in the third quarter of 1991. The case continues today.