Debate contribution: Mineral Licensing Moratorium
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 17 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Mineral Licensing Moratorium
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5014077
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome this important motion. The decision to grant seven mineral licences despite overwhelming public opposition flies in the face of reason, logic and science. Friends of the Earth and Save Our Sperrins — I welcome Fidelma, Cormac and others who are in the Public Gallery — have highlighted multiple worrying issues about an inadequate and predetermined consultation process, which is what has happened. They have also raised concerns about a lack of equality, strategic environmental assessments and proper environmental screening and about superficial due diligence. As we have heard on the issue of public consultation, over 2,000 people and four councils — 99·5% of respondents — objected to the licences being granted. It seems that, while the dissenting voices of the public and even of councils are dismissed and do not matter, the lobbying of Peter Mandelson and US congressmen holds infinitely more weight with the Minister and her Executive colleagues. It has been mentioned that, in 2022, the current Economy Minister, who then held the Finance portfolio, called for a moratorium on all prospecting licences. Now, three years later, she has made a catastrophic U-turn and decided to grant them. Many people, including me, wonder why that is the case. If the Minister wants to claim that the Department's legal advice on this is sound, she should publish it. Furthermore, what is the point of Ministers if they cannot act? The Minister wants to claim disingenuously that her Department does not grant prospecting licences for gold and silver. People who live and work in the Sperrins know full well that prospecting licences are the first step to getting access to precious metals. In a bizarre neocolonial twist, the Crown Estate owns the rights to precious metals buried in Derry and receives a 4% tax on those that are mined, so this could well be to the benefit of the royal family. What an irony. People and places are not extractable resources. Our Sperrins and areas elsewhere are not a blank slate for the accumulation of capital and wealth for shareholders, corporations or anybody else. It is not too late for the Economy Minister or the junior Minister who is standing in her place to take action and listen to the voices of local communities, campaigners and the vast majority of the public and rescind the licences. The Member for Mid Ulster talked about not controlling our own affairs: that cannot be used as an excuse to give cover to her party colleague the Minister for the Economy and her approach to do the bidding of big American, Canadian and other multinational extractive companies that are interested in only one thing: not jobs or communities in Mid Ulster or elsewhere but profit. There is no point in decrying —.
OK. Sorry about that.
464 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.21 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.80 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.17 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.