The Minister has given us very short notice in connection with the amendments. The Bill takes up four pages and we have five pages of amendments, principally from the Minister. The amendment paper alone seems to be practically a new Bill. We have not had time to consider the amendments, and in the circumstances it is unfair to take the Committee Stage to-day.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - FORESTRY BILL, 1928—THIRD STAGE.
The Dáil went into Committee.
As a rule that would be correct, but there was a long debate on the Second Reading. Various suggestions were made. I have got those suggestions examined in the interval very carefully, and the amendments that I have put in, to a great extent, aim at meeting the points that were raised in the debate on the Second Reading. Therefore they are not something absolutely new. The amendments have for their object the meeting of the points brought forward by various Deputies from practically all Parties. Those Deputies raised points on the Second Reading and it was to meet their points that I submitted the amendments. I suggest that we go through the Bill. I do not think it is possible that that Committee Stage will be concluded to-day and consideration of the amendments can be adjourned to next week. Then there will be time to put in further amendments. Finally, I suggest that there should be an opportunity given of putting in some amendments on the Report Stage. I agree that the notice is short.
We are not criticising the Minister's amendments. We only got them this morning and some of us have not even read them yet.
Perhaps the Minister will make a statement showing us the changes that have been suggested.
Mr. HOGAN
That is what I intended to do, and I think it will be necessary.
It would be quite feasible actually to go through the amendments to-day, but we either will not start at all or we must take the amendments in the ordinary way with whatever explanations may be given in regard to them. This point arises: It is a question whether amendment No. 1, in the name of Deputy Ryan, is met by amendment No. 2, in the name of the Minister. If the Deputy thinks it is not he has this remedy: he can simply not move his amendment, or not press it to a decision. In case the Minister's amendment is inserted, as we will assume it will be, then the Bill will be reprinted and Deputy Ryan has the right to put up another amendment. So long as amendments are not defeated in Committee the Deputy retains the right to put them up again. The Minister's suggestion is that we go through the Committee Stage to-day and postpone the Report Stage until to-morrow week at the very earliest. Then if there are some amendments put up on the Report Stage the Minister would not object to the Dáil going into Committee upon them.
Mr. HOGAN
Quite so.
These amendments could be debated to-day and some of them raised again on the Fourth Stage, when Deputies will have seen the Bill as amended. We could then take further amendments in Committee. Deputies will have every facility for clearing up their points, and that is what the Minister's suggestion amounts to.
Mr. HOGAN
That is right.
That is all right, but in this particular case the difficulty is that I do not know whether the Minister's amendment meets that or not. I take it the safer thing for me under the circumstances is to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
We are allowing the Minister's amendments to be inserted in the Bill before us, so that when the Bill is reprinted it will include the Minister's amendments.
I did not say that the Committee would have to allow the amendments to go in. The amendments have to be explained by the Minister, and there is nothing to prevent Deputies discussing them and opposing them. Anybody can divide against the amendments, but if the amendments are inserted in the Bill, and if the Minister agrees to reconsider them, the matter will still be open on report.
Seeing that the Minister has met the point made by Deputy Ryan, I would personally be in favour of allowing the Minister's amendments to go into the Bill, seeing that he has agreed to another Committee Stage. That would give the Deputies a better opportunity of knowing what was before them rather than have a Bill before them now with several conflicting amendments.
The amendments can be debated.
Mr. HOGAN
Yes, and ought to be. There are amendments here which could be debated at once, and there are amendments which meet the obvious points put up by Deputies at the Second Reading.
There are two amendments down—amendments 15 and 18—that are outside the scope of the Bill and cannot be moved. Amendment 15 proposes to interfere with local taxation and income tax, and amendment 18 deals with the prohibition of the export of timber, which is a matter not dealt with by the Bill.
Mr. HOGAN
As I said already, Deputy Ryan will have time to consider the amendment between now and the Report Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move:—
Before Section 2 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may from time to time by order made under this sub-section declare that this Act or such part thereof as may be specified in such order shall not apply to any tree of the species named in such order, and whenever such an order is made this Act or such part thereof as may be so specified shall not apply to any tree of such species so long as such order remains unrevoked.
(2) An order made under the foregoing sub-section may be revoked at any time by the Minister by order made under this sub-section.
This amendment is to insert a new section before Section 2. Now that Deputies have read Dr. Ryan's amendment they will see that it is exactly the same thing as the amendment I am proposing, with this difference, that mine is more elastic; that it enables the Minister to include certain trees this year as exempted trees, and certain trees next year, as the circumstances change. It enables him to do that, or alternatively, it enables him, if it is so thought fit, to exclude certain trees or to revoke the order. It gives the Minister power to do exactly what Deputy Ryan's amendment intended to give and in addition it gives power to revoke the order.
Amendment put and agreed to.
New section ordered to be inserted.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to cut down or uproot or permit to be cut down or uprooted any trees unless—
(a) such tree is cut down or uprooted under and in accordance with a licence of the Minister granted under this Act, or
(b) such tree is uprooted for the purpose of transplantation and is actually transplanted, or
(c) such tree is growing or standing in a county borough or urban county district, or
(d) such tree is growing or standing within one hundred feet of any building occupied as a dwelling house or used for housing domestic animals, or
(e) such tree is cut down under section 34 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925) or section 98 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927 (No. 27 of 1927), or
(f) such tree is not necessary for the ornament or protection of the holding on which it stands and is cut down with the intention of using the timber thereof for the construction or repair of buildings, fences or other structures on the said holding or another holding belonging to the owner of such first mentioned holding and such timber is actually so used.
(2) If any person cuts down or uproots or permits to be cut down or uprooted any tree in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every tree so cut down or uprooted or permitted to be cut down or uprooted.
Amendment 3:—
In sub-section (1) to insert in brackets after the word "person" line 25, the words "(subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 5.)."— Deputy Moore.
I think amendments 3 and 12 go together, so that we can postpone 3 and take the matter at No. 12.
Mr. HOGAN
I move amendment 4:—
In sub-section (1), line 26, to delete all words after the word "uproot" to the end of the sub-section in line 53 and substitute the words—
"any tree unless, not less than twenty-one days before the commencement of the cutting down or uprooting of such tree, the owner thereof or his predecessor in title or some person on behalf of such owner or predecessor shall have given to the sergeant in charge of the Gárda Síochána station nearest to such tree a notice in writing (in this Act referred to as a felling notice) of intention to cut down or uproot such tree.
(2) Every felling notice shall be in the prescribed form and shall state the name and address of the owner by or on whose behalf such notice is given, a place in Saorstát Eireann at which documents may be served under this Act and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
(3) If any person cuts down or uproots or causes or permits to be cut down or uprooted any tree in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every tree so cut down or uprooted or caused or permitted to be cut down or uprooted,
(4) If any person makes in a felling notice any statement which is false or misleading in any material respect he shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months.
(5) This section shall not apply to any tree in respect of which a permit has been granted by the Minister under this Act so long as such permit is in force, nor to any tree in respect of which a licence has been granted by the Minister under this Act, nor to any tree the cutting down of which is authorised under section 34 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), or section 98 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927 (No. 27 of 1927), nor to any tree which is the subject of a contract for the sale thereof made before the 1st day of April, 1928 where particulars of such contract verified in the prescribed manner have been furnished to the Minister within one month from the commencement of this Act and such tree is cut down or uprooted within six months from the commencement of this Act.
The first paragraph of that amendment is the important paragraph. The section would then read:—
"It shall not be lawful for any person to cut down or uproot any tree unless, not less than 21 days before the commencement of the cutting down or uprooting of such trees, the owner thereof or his predecessor in title or some person on behalf of such owner or predecessor shall have given to the sergeant in charge of the Gárda Síochána station nearest to such tree a notice in writing (in this Act referred to as a felling notice) of intention to cut down or uproot such tree."
The effect of the change is this: As Section 4 stood in the Bill it was necessary to give notice to the Department of Agriculture, and to refrain from cutting trees until a permit had been granted. No trees could be cut until a notice had been given and a permit obtained. I should not have used the word notice previously. I should have said that no trees could be cut until application had been made to the Department and a permit obtained. Under this section a tree may be cut if a fell- ing notice is served, and if the forestry branch of the Department, within 21 days, does not serve notice prohibiting the cutting of such tree. That is considered by people who have trees to sell, and by any of the interests and organisations I have met, as a fairly important advance. Notice is served on the nearest Civic Guard barracks, and unless the person hears from the forestry branch within 21 days that person can cut away. I believe that will facilitate business. That is the real point of the amendment, and that is the reason the section has been redrafted. This is the final sub-section of Section 4:
"This section shall not apply to any tree in respect of which a permit has been granted under this Act so long as such permit is in force..."
In addition to that procedure—the felling notice which must be served on the nearest policy barracks, which may be obtained at the barrack—it is open to an owner who, for instance, wants to thin his woods to write direct to the Department for a general permit for forestry purposes and get it. It is open to the Department to give a general permit to a man who is doing general forestry operations, and he need not adopt the expediency here of sending a felling notice to the Civic Guards. If he plants a lot of wood, or wants to transplant, the procedure of serving felling notices through the Civic Guards is not so appropriate. It would be more appropriate to have what I call a permit. The owner applies direct to the Department and he is more or less independent. He goes along at his own discretion:
...nor to any tree in respect of which a licence has been granted by the Minister under this Act, nor to any tree the cutting down of which is authorised under Section 34 of the Local Government Act, 1925.
It might be asked what is the point of the licence. I have explained the meaning of the permit, the circumstances in which it would be granted, and would be appropriate. It may be asked: "If the procedure is to first serve a felling notice, and then cut away till you are prohibited, what is the point of the licence?" Deputies may say that it may happen in practice that a felling notice might be served on the forestry branch through the Civic Guard, and that the Department or the official responsible would make up their minds whether they would prohibit it or not; if they did not prohibit, felling would take place, and that therefore there does not seem to be any case for the licence; that you either prohibit or you do nothing. The point about the licence is that on some occasions the forestry branch might get an application for the felling of a very big number of trees, for an ambitious programme, and the forestry branch would be anxious, perhaps, to investigate the question a little, in order to make sure that a prohibition notice should not be served. As a rule, when a felling notice is given, in 75 per cent. of the cases nothing will happen, and after three weeks cutting can take place, but there will be applications which are so important that obviously they should be investigated by someone. If there is not time to investigate them within three weeks, the procedure would be to serve a prohibition notice, which is a sort of stay of execution, and gives the Department time to examine the cases a bit further. If after such further examination it is considered that the application should be allowed, then a licence to fell the trees can be granted. In connection with Section 34 of the Local Government Board Act of 1925, if a tree is lying across the road obviously a county council should remove it without waiting for any authority, and in the case of Section 98 of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1927 I suppose the same consideration applies. The amendment proceeds:
...nor to any tree which is the subject of a contract for the sale thereof made before the 1st day of April, 1928, where particulars of such contract verified in the prescribed manner have been furnished to the Minister within one month from the commencement of this Act and such tree is cut down or uprooted within six months from the commencement of this Act.
It is open to argument, as a way of meeting a point made on the Second Reading by Deputy Moore, that it would be harsh on people who had made contracts prior to this Bill if they were not to be allowed to carry them out. I have never considered that in practice there would be any difficulty about that. I believe that the forestry branch of the Department will not interfere in such cases, and, in any event, we have it in black and white that this prohibition will not apply to any contracts made before the 1st of April.
What exactly was implied in the allusion to the Electricity Act: that it was not to apply to trees coming under the Electricity (Supply) Act? I would like to know the condition under which it comes in.
Mr. HOGAN
I think for the purpose of putting down poles they have to cut trees and that sort of thing.
They can cut any tree without notice for that purpose?
Mr. HOGAN
That is what it comes to. The Dáil has already given power to the Electricity Supply Board to cut trees that interfere with their operations, and it seems to me inconsistent that another Department would come in and provide licences for that purpose. Here is a case where trees are cut for one specific purpose, which is easily verified. There does not seem to be anything like the same chance of abuse as where trees are cut by individuals for various purposes. It seems to me that it would be inconsistent to give power to the Electricity Supply Board to operate and cut trees for any purpose, and to have the Department of Agriculture or its officials coming along asking that that power be modified.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The only thing that strikes me in connection with Section 4 is that three weeks seems a long time to be held up. If it were possible to get something in to meet cases of urgency it would seem to be desirable. Government Departments, I suppose, are not always too reliable in answering demands. I do not want to criticise them in any way, but I suppose it has happened from time to time that Government Departments have been a bit lax in answering inquiries or in meeting requests of this kind, and I can conceive circumstances where an application would go in that would be very urgent, and where three weeks would be a long time to wait. Whether it would be practicable to put in something to meet a case of that kind I do not know.
Mr. HOGAN
That is a matter that we have considered very carefully. Obviously from the business point of view the shorter the time the better. But it is within the knowledge of the Department—and this is a view with which I agree—that it would really be impossible to make sure of dealing with every application in a very much shorter time than three weeks. A very big number of applications will arrive in the beginning, and it will be rather difficult to sort them out, to find out which application should be let through without serving a prohibition notice, and which should not be let through. I do not believe that it will be possible to do the work within a shorter period than three weeks from the application. I have consulted certain people in the timber trade whose opinion in the matter I value, and from what they told me, and from whatever little experience I have had myself, I do not think it will make the slightest difference to people who are buying timber on a commercial scale. After all, when a man is selling a wood it is always two months between the time when he first makes up his mind to sell the wood and the time when he has it sold. However, that is a matter that Deputies can consider between this and the Report Stage. I suggest that this would do no hardship, and that it could not be done much shorter.
took the Chair.
The difficulty I was in was that permission came by default really. The suggestion apparently is that there should be some means of getting positive information.
Mr. HOGAN
That is not Deputy Moore's suggestion. As the amended section stands it means that I serve a felling notice, and unless I hear within twenty-one days that I am prohibited from cutting a tree I can cut it. Deputy Moore's suggestion, as I understood it, was that I serve my felling notice, and unless I hear within fourteen or fifteen days that I am prohibited I can go ahead. My answer to that is that while we will serve prohibition notices in a very small percentage of cases, nevertheless applications must get some examination so as to sift them out and find the, say, two, three or four per cent. of cases in which prohibition notices will be served. From the business point of view I do not think it will interfere with the commercial sale of the timber, because it always takes two months between the time when a man makes up his mind to sell wood and the time when he sells it.
The case I had in mind would be, as often occurs, where a carpenter, say, gets an order to repair a vehicle, or anything of that sort, which is very urgently required. He may have to arrange to cut down timber to do it. If he has to send in a notice and remain in suspense for three weeks it would be a great hardship on him, and it might be a hardship on the farmer, or anybody else, who needed the vehicle that was being repaired. That is a case that occurs to me. The amendment is so new that I do not know if there is very much in it, and I do not want to press the matter at the moment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I think that disposes of amendments 5, 6 and 7.
Mr. HOGAN
I think that those amendments ought to be left over until we consider the new Section 5, because Section 5 deals with some of them.
The position is that these amendments were put down to the original section. A completely new section has now been inserted, and therefore I think those amendments would fall.
Mr. HOGAN
Deputies have their rights. There will be ample time to put in those amendments. As the Ceann Comhairle explained, Deputies will now see the Bill in its new form, with the amendments inserted in their proper places, and they will have ample time to see whether it will be necessary to put down any of these amendments again.
I do not want to move amendment 6.
It was generally understood that the Minister would, when moving his own amendments, explain where there was a slight difference between himself and any of these amendments.
Mr. HOGAN
That was the reason why I suggested that I should go on to the new Section 5, because that deals with some of the points raised here.
Amendment 5 is very important, and I do not think it affects the Minister's amendment very much.
Mr. HOGAN
Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8, or at least some of them, are dealt with in subsequent amendments of mine. They are amendments to a section that is already deleted. Therefore, it appears to me that they must be withdrawn, of course with an absolute right to the Deputies who have put them down to put them in again, but Deputies will find that it will not be necessary to put in any of them. Take amendment 5: "In sub-section (1) (d), line 35, to delete all words after the word ‘building' to the end of the paragraph." Sub-Section (1) (d) of Section 4 in the Bill reads: "It shall not be lawful for any person to cut down or uproot or permit to be cut down or uprooted any tree unless —such tree is growing or standing within one hundred feet of any building occupied as a dwelling-house or used for housing domestic animals."
It is to delete those words, "occupied as a dwellinghouse or used for housing domestic animals" that Deputy Cole's amendment has been put in. A subsequent amendment proposes to omit those words. The Deputy will have plenty of time to verify that between this and the Report Stage.
Has the Minister made provision for amendment 8, by Deputy Cole? I cannot see it.
Mr. HOGAN
That is an amendment that can be debated or put in on the Report Stage. It is an amendment to a section which has had to be deleted.
Would it not expedite matters if the House agreed to the Minister's amendments as they appear on the paper, have the Bill reprinted in the new form, and amended on the Report Stage? We are only getting confused in trying to deal with amendments that do not now apply at all to the sections to which they were put down.
Mr. WOLFE
This amendment 8 is a very important one. Does the Minister say it was dealt with?
Mr. HOGAN
No, I do not say that.
The Deputy can deal with it on the Report Stage.
With regard to amendments of this type, which are of considerable importance, and in regard to which no provision has been made in the amendments proposed by the Minister, it seems to me that it is wrong to preclude Deputies from discussing these matters now. I think it would be better, in dealing with any section, in regard to which any amendments have been put down by a Deputy, and when the Minister has made no provision to meet those amendments, that even those amendments which succeed the Minister's amendment should be discussed before the Minister's amendment, or all the amendments might be discussed together before we accept the Minister's amendment.
May I point out that amendment 8 is an amendment to a section which has been deleted, and therefore it cannot be moved.
Before the section is amended it might be better, in order that the point of view of Deputies should be discussed at this stage, that it should be in order, so to speak, to discuss subsequent amendments with the Minister's amendment.
Mr. HOGAN
I think Deputy O'Hanlon's suggestion is the right one. It is no use discussing those, because we will be discussing issues which will not arise on the Report Stage. When Deputies receive the revised form of the Bill they might make up their minds that certain points are covered sufficiently. Apart from the ruling that these cannot be moved because the section to which they were applicable has been withdrawn, it seems to me a waste of time to discuss amendments which, on consideration, in view of new sections inserted, Deputies would not move on Report. I think the businesslike thing to do would be to allow me, generally speaking, to move my amendments and explain them, and to accept them, or delete them if you wish, after you have heard the explanation, and when you have them in their place in the Bill, after having had time to consider them.
I do not know that there could be any exception to that, provided the Minister agrees to recommit the Bill for any particular section.
Mr. HOGAN
I agree.
This amendment 8 is not in its proper place now in regard to the new amendment, so that I claim the right to move it on Report.
The Deputy will get that right.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, grant to any person a licence in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot any tree specified in such licence.
(2) Every application for a licence under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(3) A licence granted under this section shall operate to relieve in respect of every tree mentioned therein the licensee and any person authorised by him from any prohibition against cutting down or uprooting contained in this Act but shall not operate to give any other relief or to confer any further or other authority in respect of any such tree.
(4) A licence granted under this section may, if the Minister so thinks fit, contain a condition that the licensee shall, within a specified time after cutting down or uprooting a tree under the licence, plant one or more trees of a specified kind on the holding on which such tree was cut down or uprooted and if in any such case the licensee fails to perform such condition within the time specified in that behalf in the licence he shall be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of every month during which such failure continues and shall be liable on summary conviction of any such offence to a fine, in the case of a first offence in respect of any particular licence, not exceeding five pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence in respect of the same licence, not exceeding ten pounds.
(5) Before granting a licence under this section to cut down or uproot a tree on a holding which is for the time being subject to an annuity payable to the Irish Land Commission the Minister shall have regard to the security for the payment of such annuity.
Mr. HOGAN
I move amendment 9:—
To insert before Section 5 a new section as follows:—
(1) Where a felling notice contains a statement that a tree is being cut down or uprooted for a specified purpose, it shall not be lawful for any person to use or deal with such tree or any substantial part thereof or cause or permit the same to be used or dealt with when cut down or uprooted in pursuance of such felling notice for any purpose other than the purpose so stated in such felling notice.
(2) Every person who uses or deals with a tree or any part thereof or causes or permits the same to be used or dealt with in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every such tree.
That speaks for itself.
This will be recommitted again?
Mr. HOGAN
Certainly, it will.
It seems to me to be out of place to discuss it now, but in the second line of the amendment it says "uprooted for a specified purpose." The primary purpose may not be the purpose of the particular user —it might be quite a different purpose altogether, to clear the land, for instance.
Mr. HOGAN
If the Deputy would turn to page 3, sub-section (5), of amendment 10 he will find: "For the purposes of this section the following trees shall be deemed to be exempted trees, namely, (a) a tree which is stated in the felling notice to be intended to be uprooted for the purpose of transplantation, (b) a tree standing or growing in a county borough, or urban county district, (c) a tree growing or standing within 100 feet of any building," and so on. For instance, supposing a felling notice comes up notifying the intention of the owner of certain lands to cut trees because they are falling over the house and it is found afterwards that they are half a mile away from the house, that would be a gross fraud under the Act. When a notification like that comes in, you are not going to send down an inspector in such a case—you could not be sending down inspectors in cases like that. You do nothing, and the man cuts straight away. In such a case you might find afterwards that these trees were half a mile away from the house.
The point I want to get at is: "uprooted for a specified purpose." Therefore, a person who deals in these trees would want to know the purpose.
Mr. HOGAN
"To use or deal with such tree"—that is not referring to a dealer in trees, but to the man who gets leave to cut a tree for a specified purpose. For instance, it was pressed on Second Reading that people should have the right to cut trees for fuel under certain conditions. Trees are cut on that understanding and we find afterwards that they are cut entirely for sale. That should be made an offence. The position would be: You want to cut trees for fuel; you serve a notice and cut away after a certain lapse of time. There is no inspection of any kind. The only check is that we may get information afterwards from the Gárda that they have been cut down and sold while the man said he wanted them for fuel. In view of the fact that, for administrative purposes, we may have no control over the cutting of trees, except the user of them afterwards, and as we are giving such wide exemptions, the least we ought to be in a position to do is to prosecute a man, who is not stopped from cutting trees, because he has sent in his notification form that he wanted the trees for a specific purpose, but afterwards uses the timber for a different purpose—a purpose for which he would not be allowed to cut it.
I think the difficulty is that when you cut down a tree, say, for the purpose of making planks to build a cow-house, a certain portion of that tree is not of any value for that purpose and might reasonably be used as fuel. I agree with the Minister that this section is necessary to prevent the abuse of the latitude given under the previous amendments, but it can be met by people, when they put in an application to cut a tree, saying the tree is to be cut for planks and fuel. That will get over it. Certainly there is always, when you cut through the branches and tops, a certain amount not of any use for commercial purposes. I believe the Minister might make that a little clearer, either by some amendment on the Report Stage or in the Orders to be issued, because there are always little bits of a tree left over that you want to use in some other way. I agree with the main point of the Minister, that it should not be allowed to be cut for fuel and then sold, but perhaps the section might be extended, or the Orders to be issued under the previous amendments might show clearly all the purposes for which the tree is to be used.
This section is likely to be misunderstood by persons dealing with it, such as the Gárda, who could make it very annoying if this was literally interpreted and given full force. There might be three feet of a tree useful for a commercial purpose and it would be a pity to use it for firewood. I can visualise three or four feet of a certain class of tree being useful in that way and no other parts of the tree being fit for anything except firewood. Such a part of a tree might be worth 10/- or £1 and it might be made an offence for it to be utilised in that way. It is a common thing to get only three or four feet of useful timber out of a whole tree. The main purpose might be to use that tree for firewood, and it might be made an offence to use that particular portion in this way. It is a section which could be abused, except its terms are drawn very tight, and the whole thing will depend on those administering it.
Mr. HOGAN
When hedge timber and that sort of thing has to be cut down there is no necessity for setting out lots of details. There will be a form filled to the effect that two or three trees are to be cut down and that it is hedge timber, and there will be no more about it. It is only in rare cases that you fill in what you want to do with the timber. Deputy Gorey made the point that certain trees might be wanted for firewood. There is a tree felled for firewood and some of it is sold, and an inspector comes down and says you should not have sold any part of this particular tree; you have got leave to fell for firewood. But look at the other side of the question. An application is made to fell a tree for firewood, and then it is found that only the tops of the branches are lopped off and the rest is sold. Would that not make hay of the whole Act? You must leave something to administration.
Deputy Gorey sees the difficulty from one point of view. He points out that there might be what would make a nice hub of a wheel in a beech tree, although the tree was cut down for firewood, and that the Civic Guard would prosecute a man because he sold that piece of wood. That never would occur in any circumstances. I will tell you what could occur if the section was drafted differently. Suppose a man wants to sell a tree that he should not sell, or should not cut down for sale, or wants to use it for some purpose that it should not be used for, he simply gets a licence, cuts off the tops and some of the branches and then sells the rest. There are extremes on both sides.
It will have to be left to discretion.
Mr. HOGAN
That is the trouble, I agree.
May I ask the Minister what is the meaning of these words: "Every person who permits the same to be used or dealt with in contravention of this section"? Would that apply to sawmillers or to other persons engaged in wood-working industries?
Mr. HOGAN
What is the Deputy reading from?
"Every person who uses or deals with a tree or any part thereof or causes or permits the same to be used or dealt with in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every such tree."
A DEPUTY
That is sub-section (2) of Section 9.
Mr. HOGAN
That is common form; it means guilty knowledge and malice aforethought. It implies guilty knowledge and conspiracy.
A famous statesman said recently: "My knowledge of the law is not worth twopence——"
Mr. HOGAN
Of some law.
I was only concerned whether that word "permits" may not mean that somebody connected with the wood-working industry would have to see the permit to know the reason why it was granted.
Mr. HOGAN
No. It really means that the person prosecuting would have to prove conspiracy and guilty knowledge, which is common form. You will find cases where a man was induced to fraudulently cut by a merchant. Why should he not be brought up in such a case? But that would have to be proved up to the hilt.
The Minister has raised rather a fearful prospect about a man asking permission to cut down trees on the grounds that there was danger that they were going to fall upon his house. He took an unfavourable example and supposed that the trees were half a mile away, but let us take a favourable case where a man wanted to cut down a tree which was only five feet away and where there was real danger in the thing. Is he to wait for three weeks? I want to get that clear from the Minister.
Mr. HOGAN
There is a point in that.
Tie a string around it.
We are law-abiding and we want to know.
Again let us take that with regard to trees that come within the category of amendment 10. There is no permit required in regard to these; therefore the point does not arise.
Mr. HOGAN
Here is what happens if the Deputy will read amendment No. 10, sub-section (1): "Whenever a felling notice has been given in respect of any tree the Minister may, unless such tree is an exempted tree within the meaning of this section, within, but not after twenty-one days——" Now the point is: Is that for all trees—good, bad or indifferent, exempt or not? A felling notice must be served, and for all trees except the exempted trees, the applicant must wait for twenty-one days before he can cut, but with regard to the exempted trees he can serve a notice to-day and cut to-morrow. The only advantage is that there has been a notification in such cases as I have mentioned. A tree is falling on a house; the man issues notice to the nearest police barrack and cuts it. It may be found afterwards that it was a dodge. If Deputies will withdraw their amendments to the sections deleted and allow me to go on with the new sections a lot of this discussion will disappear.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
New section ordered to be inserted.
Mr. HOGAN
I beg to move amendment 10:
To insert before Section 5 a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever a felling notice has been given in respect of any tree the Minister may, unless such tree is an exempted tree within the meaning of this section, within but not after twenty-one days from the date on which such notice was so given, make and serve on the owner by or on whose behalf such notice was given or his successor in title an order (in this section referred to as a prohibition order) in the prescribed form prohibiting the cutting down or uprooting of such tree.
(2) Every prohibition order shall be served either by delivering the same to the person on whom it is to be served or by leaving it for him with a person of the age of sixteen years or upwards at the place named in the said felling notice for the service of documents under this Act.
(3) Where a prohibition order has been made in respect of any tree and has been duly served in accordance with this section, it shall not be lawful for any person to cut down or uproot or cause or permit to be cut down or uprooted such tree unless at the time such tree is cut down or uprooted or caused or permitted to be cut down or uprooted a licence has been granted by the Minister under this Act in respect of such tree.
(4) If any person cuts down or uproots or causes or permits to be cut down or uprooted any tree in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every tree so cut down or uprooted or caused or permitted to be cut down or uprooted.
(5) For the purposes of this section the following trees shall be deemed to be exempted trees, namely—
(a) a tree which is stated in the felling notice to be intended to be uprooted for the purpose of transplantation.
(b) a tree growing or standing in a county borough or urban county district,
(c) a tree growing or standing within one hundred feet of any building,
(d) a tree which is not necessary for the ornament or protection of the holding on which it stands and is stated in the felling notice to be intended to be cut down for the purpose of using the timber thereof for the construction or repair of buildings, fences or other structures on the said holding or another holding belonging to the owner of such first-mentioned holding, or on a holding belonging to another person in the immediate neighbourhood of such first-mentioned holding,
(e) a tree which is stated in the felling notice to be intended to be cut down for the purpose of using it as domestic fuel on the holding on which it stands,
(f) a tree which is dead or decayed or irremediably damaged and useless for commercial purposes,
(g) a tree in respect of which it is stated in the felling notice that such tree is standing on land purchased before the 1st day of April, 1928, and that the whole or some part of the purchase-money of such land was lent to the purchaser thereof on the terms that such tree should be cut down and sold and the proceeds thereof applied in or towards repayment of such loan and that such loan or some part thereof is still owing at the date of such felling notice and that such tree is being cut down for the purpose of complying with the said terms of the said loan.
I hope Deputies are clear on the procedure: a felling notice must be served in the case of the cutting of every tree.
In the case of every tree?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes, or in the case of every group of trees. One notice would cover hundreds of trees. The Department, of course, may interfere, but they must interfere within twenty-one days, and if they do not the man can cut away. Then, with regard to what is called exempted trees notice must be served, but the felling may take place immediately. There must be notification, but there is the advantage that a man can act quickly and immediately and do what he likes, but he must come within the terms of the Act of Parliament. If he serves notice to the effect that there is a fine beech tree falling over his house, if it was found afterwards that that tree was half a mile away he can be prosecuted. In other words, he can be prevented from abusing the actual licence itself.
The new section, as it stands, deals with at least four points. It enables a man to cut trees for firewood; it enables an owner to give a neighbour power to cut trees for various purposes on his own land. It also covers a point analogous to the point made by Deputy Moore, because where money was advanced on a mortgage before the passing of this Act the security, of course, was the woods on the land. The whole of the money would not have been advanced but for the fact that there was valuable timber on the land. That must be just as much safeguarded as in any case where a contract had been entered into for the sale of timber. There are one or two exceptions. In all cases, with the exception of exempted trees, a felling notice must be served. An owner may proceed to cut trees after the twenty-one days' notice has been given unless he is prohibited by the Department. The exempted trees are the trees which I have just read out: a tree which is being uprooted for transplantation, a tree required for building, a tree growing in an urban district, a tree to be used for firewood, or a tree which is dead or decayed or irremediably damaged and useless for commercial purposes.
That is the effect of the new section. In my opinion, that is a much simpler and a much more satisfactory arrangement from the point of view of the owners of the trees at least than the arrangement that was proposed under the Bill when it was introduced. Under Sections 4 and 5, as the Bill originally stood, it was necessary to get a positive permit in all cases of the cutting of trees.
I think that most of the Minister's amendment is extremely good. There is one point, however, on which I differ from him. I do not think it is a good thing to compel a notice to be given in every case as regards exempted trees. If a notice has to be given in every case, it will cause great inconvenience and danger, I fear, occasionally. Take a case where, for instance, a tree was falling on one's house. If you had to give notice before you took down the tree, it might come down on the house before you had got the permission to take it down. The same would apply in cases where there was a danger of trees falling on glass-houses in gardens. The damage might have been done before permission was obtained to get the exempted tree down.
Mr. HOGAN
In that class of case, you do not want an exemption at all. You can serve a notice on the nearest police barrack and cut away.
But, if the law is there, you must give notice. It might turn out to be a very serious matter for an owner if he were to take a tree down without getting the required permission, or, in the cases that I have referred to, serious damage might have been done before the permission was obtained.
Mr. HOGAN
You have the right to cut. No one can prevent you from cutting. All you are asked to do is to send a boy to the nearest police barrack with the notice.
I do not like the way this is left. Something might turn up to prevent a man sending a notice to the nearest police barrack.
There is one matter that I wish to refer to. There is an Act of Parliament dealing with it, but unfortunately I have not got a copy of the statute with me. Speaking from recollection, and I think the Minister will agree with me on this, I know that under that particular statute there are at the present time very wide powers vested in either county councils or in county surveyors with regard to the removal of trees or interference with trees.
Mr. HOGAN
I am aware of that.
I take it that, in this Bill, the Minister has been careful to preserve these powers.
Mr. HOGAN
If the Deputy turns to sub-section (5) of the proposed new Section 4, he will see that it is provided that this section shall not apply to any tree, the cutting down of which is authorised under Section 34 of the Local Government Act, 1925, or Section 98 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927.
I think the power conferred on local authorities was given much earlier than that referred to in either of the two Acts referred to by the Minister. I think that they have power of their motion, without reference to any Department, to cut down trees.
Mr. HOGAN
I think that under the Local Government Act of 1925 (No. 5 of 1925) the powers which local authorities had under the previous Acts have been all repealed, and that they are all now amalgamated in the one section. However, the matter is one that I will look into.
This new section is a great improvement on the Bill as introduced. I would like to hear the Minister's views as to whether it might not be possible to take out of the Bill the necessity of giving notice with regard to exempted trees. I do not put forward that suggestion very definitely, because there may be very good reasons why this matter of giving notice should be maintained. I can see, however, that in practice there may be a great deal of difficulty in having the section, as amended, carried out. The amendment will enable farmers to cut down certain exempted trees subject to giving notice. The exempted trees fall into certain categories. One refers to trees required for firewood, another to trees required for repairing fences, and so on. The Minister, I am sure, is aware that it is a common practice, particularly on large farms, to fell small trees which probably would come within the definition of trees, but which would be much closer to the definition of shrubs. The trees used for the repairing of fences are usually very immature trees. If notice has to be served in cases of this kind, it will mean that farmers will be considerably hampered in their operations because of the necessity of having to send notices continuously to the Civic Guard. It would also have the effect of, so to speak, swamping the Forestry Department with these notices. I suggest to the Minister the desirability of considering whether it might not be possible for him to abolish the necessity for having notices served in regard to exempted trees.
Mr. HOGAN
There was general agreement here—at least if you take what people say—that it is necessary to control in some way the cutting of trees. That is number one. Number two is, there is general agreement that it is exceedingly difficult to do it. In that state of affairs I suppose the proper thing to do is to investigate and see for what purpose trees should be freely cut without permission from anybody. I have incorporated in this exemption section, with one or two exceptions, the suggestions made in the Second Reading. Deputy Heffernan's suggestion is that that does not go far enough. I ask that notification should be given to the Civic Guards that trees are being cut for these purposes. I make no claim as to preventing them cutting such trees, but I say in the section that if they cut freely, when how, and where they like for these purposes there should be some method of seeing that when you give so much latitude, almost complete and absolute, for cutting these trees there should be some method of checking that the trees have been cut for the purposes specified. If there is to be no notification you might as well take the section out of the Bill. If you take out those exemptions, and if you allow trees to be cut freely without notification for all these purposes, the section might as well be removed.
As I have said, I do not mind making exemptions as wide as possible. I do not believe you can administer this Act by filling the country with inspectors who go around with a microscope examining trees and filling up forms. The only way you could administer the Act successfully would be to leave it wide and interfere as little as possible, but to make it clear that certain things were offences, and when an offence is committed be in a position to come down heavily on the person who committed it. I suggest to Deputy Heffernan, in view of the comprehensiveness of these exemptions, and in view of the fact that people may cut trees for these purposes without any permit, the least that may be expected of them is that they should notify, and afterwards we would be able to find out if there were any glaring case where a man cut valuable timber, such as copper beeches, and was selling it. If in such cases he had filled in a notification that he wanted trees for firewood he could be come down upon heavily.
Will the Minister say if the exemption would include small holdings where it might be necessary to cut trees for poles?
Mr. HOGAN
The Deputy will perhaps wait for another section to meet that. If it was required to cut down a tree for the purpose of transplanting, a man should be able to do that without getting any leave from the Department. Let him just send in his notice and do it. The Deputy has in mind a case where a man is doing certain forestry operations in his own land. That is covered by amendment 16.
I have not referred to the cutting of trees for the purpose of transplanting.
I would like to ask if the Minister has provided in the Bill that no prosecution should be brought save with his consent, coupling with it the useful addendum, so often used, that his consent shall prove itself without sending down any official or witness.
Mr. HOGAN
That is the position under the Bill.
I notice that the Minister very properly protects the rights of those who have bought timber before the 1st April. I mentioned on the Second Reading a rather peculiar case, though it would not be altogether isolated, where a person had bought fee simple land with timber. Would that cover his right if he bought the land with timber on it, to use the timber for a specific purpose, say in a factory of his own?
Mr. HOGAN
I would say it would. If it could be proved that a man bought a fee simple wood for the purpose of cutting down the trees, that is a contract for the cutting down of the trees.
I suggest we ought to let these amendments go, and we can discuss them when we come to the recommittal stage, as there is no use in discussing them now and again later on.
Amendment 10 put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move:—
To delete sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) and substitute one new sub-section, as follows:—
"(1) Whenever a prohibition order has been made and served under this Act in relation to a tree the Minister may at any time after the making of such order grant to the owner of such tree a licence in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot such tree and such licence shall operate to relieve in respect of such tree the licensee and any person authorised by him from the prohibition effected by the said prohibition order."
As I explained before, occasionally the Department may get a felling notice which appears on the face of it to require a certain consideration, which it could not get within three weeks. A prohibition notice would give them time to look further into such a case, and afterwards they could cancel the prohibition by licence.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
To insert before sub section (2) two new sub-sections as follows:—
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the foregoing sub-section it shall be lawful for any person engaged at the date of the passing of this Act in the Saorstát in any branch of the wood-working industries to purchase and fell trees without licence for the purpose of his industry subject to such regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by the Minister. Any person claiming to be included under this sub-section shall make application to the Minister within one month after the passing of this Act who shall have power to decide as to the bona-fides of every applicant.
(3) The Minister shall cause a register to be kept of every person exempted from the operation of this section by the foregoing sub-section and there shall be entered in such register the full name and address of the person and such description of the situation of the place of business of such person as is necessary to identify the same.
The purpose of the amendment is to protect certain industries. I do not think the Minister would hold that an industry is in a stable condition, or can feel the necessary confidence, if the raw material which it requires will not be available for it. In the Bill there is no security that the raw material will be available. Furniture factories, coach-building factories, sawmillers, and various other industries will have to get the Minister's permission before they can cut any timber for their industry. Of course most Deputies will believe, as I do, that ordinarily there will be no difficulty in getting that permission. I think no Government would in ordinary circumstances be foolish enough to refuse it, but at the same time the whole purpose in putting in that prohibition is in order that it may be exercised at some time or other. I consider in such important legislation we should not, even theoretically, leave any industry in the position that wood-working industries would be in if this Bill goes through. We all know there is not much public opinion at present, and that the Government, not merely in this but in most countries, can at present do things that if there was any well-developed public opinion or normal mental activity amongst the people they would not be allowed to do. In this case I can easily see there would be opportunity for the present or some future Government to use the powers under this Bill to make things very uncomfortable for people engaged in certain industries. I hope the Government will realise it is not for the period of the present Government this Bill is being passed, but for the period of different Governments, and we may have a lot of Governments in the next few years. To leave power like that in the hands of the Minister, or any Government Department, is inviting tyranny and accepting a principle that is one of the most fiercely contested there is at present. If we all believed that Government officials could do no wrong, that they could show no bias and all that, I suppose we might be in favour of a very different principle of industrial control to what prevails.
Certainly the arguments of those who oppose socialism would have lost their chief value. In giving the Government this power we are certainly admitting a principle that has not been accepted up to the present, namely, that State officials will in all circumstances act strictly fairly, that they will not have any regard to personalities, and will only consider the good of the country as a whole. I hold, just as the Minister has admitted, that in certain circumstances these licences should not be required. In the circumstances relating to these industries the case is much stronger than any other that could be brought forward. Several of the wood-working industries are the most promising industries at present. We are told that the tariff on furniture is a great success, and that the production of furniture in this country is increasing. The Government has, I believe, given a State loan to one furniture factory. It is hoped that the coach-building industry will develop from its present depressed state into being more active. There is, however, no security for capital, and there can be no confidence on the part of those engaged in such industries if raw material is not to be made available except through the good-will of the Government. The Minister should, I think, accept the amendment.
Deputy Moore, in speaking very moderately on this amendment, said that its purpose was to protect industry. What industry? The industry of the person who grows timber or the person who cuts it down? The only industry to which the Deputy referred was that of the person who cuts timber and runs a sawmill. There are, perhaps, about two hundred and fifty such persons in this State, and, while practically every tenant farmer or person who has land of his own is a grower of timber, Deputy Moore invites us to act in the interests of two hundred and fifty persons. I, for one, own a sawmill, but I am not in agreement with the amendment. Though I own a sawmill I have not been consulted on this amendment, and there are many others like me who are not in agreement with it.
I am not putting forward the amendment in the interests of sawmillers.
I, of course, accept that. Deputy Moore is well aware of the fact that we all have amendments submitted to us, and I know that he would not put forward an amendment in which he did not believe.
I have not been influenced by any representations made to me.
This is Deputy Moore's own proposal?
No; I did not even say that.
Is Deputy Moore really putting forward the amendment? I take it that it is his proposal. He proposes, in the first place, to create a monopoly. The only people who will have any powers under the proposed section are those engaged at the date of the passing of the Act in any branch of the wood-working industry. That is a complete monopoly for any person who has at the passing of the Act a sawmill, and anyone who comes later can claim no right. Even if the most respectable people in the world, say, Deputy Flinn, Deputy Fahy and Deputy Lemass, proposed to start a wood-working industry six months hence, they will have to go to the Minister and get a licence for all the timber which they propose to cut. The amendment gives a monopoly to existing sawmillers. I am an existing sawmiller and I have not suggested to Deputy Moore to move such an amendment. Deputy Moore talked about the Bill inviting tyranny, but is there a greater tryanny than that of monopoly? If this amendment were adopted how would it work? It would mean that the existing sawmillers who came under the section could go anywhere in the Saorstát and buy any timber they liked, at practically any price they liked, without any check or control of any kind whatever. They could denude the hills on the side of Glendalough as the hills on the road to Glendalough have been denuded. The Minister could not say, "No." Nobody could say "No," except in so far as Deputy Moore has inserted the expression: "Subject to such regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by the Minister for Agriculture."
I am not a lawyer and I do not like to lay down the law, but I do not think that the Minister could prescribe regulations which could nullify this amendment if it became part of the Act. I think it could be voided in common law if people were checked from exercising any rights given them under the Act. The existing timber merchant is to be supreme. Deputy Moore in an amendment that is going to be ruled out of order wants to check him from any competition on the Border, to check him selling timber in its rough state to anybody outside the Saorstát. A small number of Saorstát timber merchants are to have the whole control. Deputy Moore talks about well-developed public opinion, but if there is well-developed public opinion in this State it would not stand for the setting up of a monopoly on the part of a small ring. Deputy Moore said that there is an assumption that Government officials can do no wrong. They can. They can make mistakes and they admit, so far as I have come in contact with them, that they can make mistakes. At any rate they have no personal ends to serve. Deputy Moore is going to put control as to what timber is to be cut on existing sawmillers. Is it possible that they with personal interests to serve and profits to earn can do no wrong? I would prefer in the general interests, in those of the grower as well as those of the merchant, as well as those who want to beautify our hills and preserve the charm of our countryside, to have a Government official as a referee than an interested sawmiller. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment, but if he does I would almost be inclined to divide the Dáil upon it against him, as it would be fatal to the interests of the timber growers, which are of greater concern than those of the merchants.
Deputy Cooper has made what I might call an impassioned speech against the amendment. I think his grievance against the amendment only came in as an aside towards the end of his speech when he referred to a subsequent amendment which Deputy Moore has on the Order Paper. That is with regard to export. This amendment must be taken more or less in conjunction with the other amendment with regard to export in order to have full effect. I do not know if the Deputy's big objection to this amendment lies against the free export or the free import of timber so much as his objection lies against the free export and the free import of other articles to this country. Another thing that has to be taken into account is that this was an amendment to the original Bill. Deputy Moore can speak for himself, but personally I do not know if he would have been as strong in this amendment if he saw certain provisions here where the onus is put on the Department of Agriculture to say "you must not cut a tree," whereas under the original Bill the onus was on the timber merchant to get a permit, which is quite a different thing.
The Bill is entirely altered, but even so I think a very good case can be made for an amendment to give the timber merchant power within certain regulations. The regulations are, of course, a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, but within those regulations the timber merchant. I think, cannot be expected to do his business properly or efficiently unless he has some idea that he is going to get, or has a reasonable chance of getting, a permit under certain circumstances. That really appears to be the gist of the amendment—to give to a timber merchant an idea of what the regulations are which he has to fulfil in order that he may be more or less certain that he will get a permit to cut certain wood.
It seems to me that if Deputy Moore's amendment is accepted the effect of it will be to vitiate the whole intention of the Bill, because, after all, what is the intention of the Bill but to encourage afforestation and the planting of trees in this country and to regulate the cutting down or destruction of trees in accordance with the requirements of the country? Control in that case can only be exercised by people who are not personally interested, people who have expert knowledge. For that reason naturally the control in regard to the felling of trees is placed in the hands of the Department, which is in a position to know whether it is advisable in the interests of the country, of a particular industry, or in the interests of growers to give permission to cut down particular trees. It seems to me that Deputy Moore in moving the amendment is actuated by what I might describe as an obsession which some persons have for industrial protection and in the desire to help industrialists as opposed to agriculturists. They are even prepared to place in the control of certain people, wood-workers, complete control of afforestation in Ireland. The effect of the amendment would be that anybody styled a wood-worker would have the right to enter any forest in Ireland and to take therefrom the most suitable trees for his purpose. It seems to me that that would be creating an intolerable state of affairs. It would place the control of all afforestation work in Ireland in the hands of a body defined as wood-workers. To start with, what is the definition of a wood-worker? Possibly Deputy Moore has a rather restricted idea in his mind of what a wood-worker is, but in fact a wood-worker would have to be regarded as a person who performed any industrial operation on a tree. A simple operation on timber might place him within the category of a wood-worker. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that it is inadvisable to accept this amendment, if for no other reason than that it is creating a class privilege. It would be creating a class privilege to the advantage of the person who is least entitled to it. The person who is not the owner of the tree is going to get special powers which the owner of the land, who grows the trees, does not possess. The farmer who is the owner of the land, and part of whose occupation is the planting of trees, has to apply for a special permit before he cuts down a tree even for his own purposes, whereas a particular individual, defined as a wood-worker, has only to comply with certain regulations and he can walk in and cut down as many trees as he wishes. I think that would have the result of vitiating the whole intention of the Bill.
In my judgment both Deputy Cooper and Deputy Heffernan have taken too narrow a view on this amendment. I do not think they can have read the words as they appear in the amendment to see how far they would carry us. I think we should translate them in a far broader way, the view with which they must be translated if they become part of an Act, and as they might be construed in favour of a defendant. The amendment, as I read it, suggests that any person engaged in the wood-working industry is exempt from the Act. Put into simple language, that is what it means. Deputy Cooper suggests that he is concerned in the saw-milling industry. So am I. I do not think we need go that far to become exempt from the Act if this amendment is passed. I spend some of my spare time in chopping firewood and the moment I do that I am engaged in woodwork. When this amendment becomes law I am exempt from any venom the Minister for Agriculture can pour upon me, so that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the amendment. Since the amendment was proposed I have been engaged in the woodworking industry. I have been engaged in sharpening a pencil. Surely I have been engaged in woodwork while I was doing that. That is the section which it is solemnly proposed should be added to the Bill, leaving it to the justices and judges all over the world to discover what is woodwork and what is not. I suppose it means working in wood—anybody who occupies himself for half an hour in chopping up firewood or sharpening a pencil. It is putting too narrow an interpretation on it to say, as Deputy Cooper suggested, that you must be the owner or the part-owner of a sawmill. Anybody who sharpens a pencil is a woodworker and is exempt from the Act.
I think if this amendment is accepted it will destroy the Bill entirely. The object of the Bill is to preserve the trees of the country. This amendment would give to one class of people in the country what none of the others have. That is, without any licence they can make an arrangement with somebody who wants to sell trees, irrespective of whatever damage it may do to his own place or to the neighbourhood. Without any licence this can be carried out to the detriment of the community. I think it is a bad principle to give to anybody a monopoly in a thing so important as this, the cutting down of trees. To my mind this amendment would vitiate the whole Bill. I am quite certain that the sawmillers will not be interfered with in any unreasonable way. They have only to ask, as everybody else has to ask, for a licence to cut down trees and there is no reason why the Minister would refuse to grant it. It can be assumed that the Minister would be a reasonable man now and in the future. He has nothing more to do than the owner of ornamental trees; he has to make his application for permission to cut them down. No case has been made out for this special exemption, but I think a very strong case is made out that a monopoly should not be set up. That, to my mind, would be one of the greatest detriments.
Apart from the question of monopoly, I think that the acceptance of Deputy Moore's amendment would mean the nullification of the Bill altogether. There are certain trees which the farmers can cut down. They are exempt, but if they have to give notice in regard to the cutting down of trees as suggested in the amendment, it will mean that all they have to do is to get someone in the saw-milling industry to take over the trees. I think in fairness to everybody the amendment ought to be withdrawn because it is a nullification of the whole measure.
Mr. HOGAN
That is the point. What would happen if one is refused a permit is that one would go to a sawmiller and sell. It would be extremely pleasant for the sawmiller, who would realise that his market is protected, and for the man with the timber, who would realise that there is someone to whom he could sell. Perhaps Deputy Moore will say that we could alter the wording of the amendment. As the amendment stands it will simply make bits of the Bill. Anybody who is refused a licence would go to the sawmiller and he would buy. Let us take, not so much the wording as the meaning of the amendment.
I agree with Deputy Wolfe that, as the amendment is drafted, it means that anybody who cuts wood is a wood-worker. The amendment, taken in conjunction with amendment 18, really means what Deputy Cooper says. There is a distinction between those who cut timber and those who export timber. The Deputy referred to timber merchants and their position, and this, I take it, is put forward from Deputy Moore's point of view as doing the fair thing by the timber merchants. This amendment is no good to them. It only raises false hopes. The normal operations of the timber merchants are not going to be interfered with, and they know that pretty well. I refer Deputies again to the sub-section. The intention is to cover any person owning a sawmill at the date of the passing of the Act. What is hoped for under this section as it stands is that it will give the existing sawmillers a right to cut timber when and where they like. It is hoped if new sawmillers come in that they will not get any licence, and the result is that the existing sawmillers would have a monopoly. If that were passed and I had anything to do with the Act, I would give a licence to every sawmiller. It is not the business of the Minister to create a monopoly for any section of the community. While I would regard it as a first-class misfortune that this section, as introduced, would be passed, and that any class in the country, or any individuals who are in a certain position by accident— by the chance that they are in the business at the moment—should get a monopoly, at the same time it is not my business to discriminate between certain individuals who are pursuing the same sort of a vocation.
If the Dáil thinks well to give a right to cut trees freely to sawmillers, it would be absolutely absurd of the Minister, whoever he might be, to say that one sawmiller should have that monopoly, which will put good money into his pocket, and the other sawmiller would not. Anyone with a sense of business or equity would give a licence to every sawmiller to cut trees, present or future. You could not justify any other procedure. When people get a monopoly they are bound to take advantage of it. The Native Timber Merchants' Association may contain the most unimpeachable business men in world, but if they are going to get this monopoly they will take advantage of it. There is no altruism behind this matter; there are good, sound business reasons. I quite understand that and I appreciate it. They would be foolish if they did not take advantage of a monopoly. They will not get the monopoly, because it would be the gravest injustice for the Minister to give it to them. The Minister would give a licence to every person and every timber merchant to cut trees wherever they liked.
Now, as regards the second part, what is hoped under amendment 18 is, that having given a monopoly to the existing sawmillers in the way of getting the raw materials, in the way of purchasing raw materials, nobody else would be allowed to export timber. All the timber would have to be sawn and exported in that way. I rule out the timber merchants, and the producer would then be in the position— that is, the farmer, the landowner, whether he owns in fee or as a tenant —that he would be growing trees and he would have to sell those trees to one class. I have too much respect for the Native Timber Merchants' Association not to realise that they would at once from a ring. They would at once know who had the right to do business. They could be all circularised and they would not be so foolish as to do otherwise. I would lose all respect for them if they were. They would get into a room and decide what price they would ask for the timber. I believe they would be thinking of this particular matter and not the producer, and I believe that the producer would be getting a lower price. Nobody could export timber in the round. It would have to be exported sawn.
That amendment has been ruled out of order.
If the Minister will allow me, I would like to point out that my amendment stated "homegrown hardwoods unless in a manufactured state." Sawn timber is not timber in a manufactured state.
Mr. HOGAN
Anyway, that amendment is ruled out.
Is the Minister referring to amendment 18?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes. Now let me say this: that there may be an absolutely good case for interfering in the timber industry at the moment. It is a protected industry as it is. It is protected at the expense of the consumer. The proposal here is to protect it at the expense of the producer as well. For all I know, a very good case may be made for doing that. But this is a Forestry Bill, and this amendment brings in an industrial question which raises all sorts of commercial reactions, reactions on the producer and reactions on the consumer, as well as on the sawyer and woodworker, and reaction on labour. This is essentially a question which should be examined as a commercial one, and it has no place in a Forestry Bill. There is no machinery in the Department of Agriculture to administer any such section. The Forestry Branch of the Department of Agriculture is unqualified to take any such thing into account. As I said already, this is a commercial question, and if anybody has any application to make in connection with the woodwork industry there is a way to make it, and let it be made to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is for his Department to examine such an application and to examine it fully as a commercial proposition. It certainly is not the function of a Forestry Bill to do something like this, and it is not in the interests of forestry at all. The proposal may be quite right in itself—I do not think it is—but it is purely a commercial question, and it should be examined only as a commercial question. I do not care what your views are on protection or subsidies, but surely it must be admitted that a commercial question like this should be examined as such, and I want again to point out that there is no machinery in the Forestry Branch to examine it, and it was never intended that there should. Before this section is introduced these things should be taken into account, and if it is to be introduced at all it should be introduced in some Bill other than a Forestry Bill.
It is apparent that this amendment is very unpopular. Some of the arguments used against it were certainly most extraordinary. For instance, Deputy Cooper, in protesting against the amendment, protested against it on the grounds that it was giving a monopoly to certain people, and that it meant that the woods of the country would be denuded by the timber merchants. Then the Deputy went on to protest against the proposal to prohibit exports of timber. I do not see how he can reconcile these things. If he is in favour of free exports, then the denudation does not matter much to Deputy Cooper. Another remarkable thing in the debate was to see how many of the big farmers and estate owners were talking about a monopoly. I think that some fine day they will discover that that argument can be used against themselves in the other industry in which they are more directly concerned. I think a Deputy who himself has control and absolute control of hundreds of acres of land should hesitate before protesting against the monopoly that this amendment is to give certain people who have capital invested in the country and who are drawing raw material for their industry within the country, to give them a right to purchase that material without any permission from the Government which is what the amendment proposes to do.
I do not think it would be held that such people would be likely, willingly, to go out and destroy the raw material of their industry. That is not the thing one would expect from people who are engaged in the woodwork industry—that they would go out and destroy the raw material of their own industry. It would be about as reasonable as to expect that the farmer would go out and destroy or poison his own land. Certainly some of the arguments that were used were anything but convincing. Nobody dealt with the chief thing which underlies this amendment. What underlies this amendment is not regard for the sawmillers or for furniture people or anything else. It is simply this—to give confidence to people who are in industry. Everybody realises that it has been the favourite argument used from the Government Benches, that those investing in industry here need encouragement and a certain amount of security——
Invested or investing?
I do not understand the Deputy.
I think the Deputy's whole argument, according to the terms of his amendment is that he means to prevent anybody from further investing.
I do not think so at all. It may interest Deputy Gorey to know that this amendment, coupled with the amendment against the export of timber, militates against the interests of the sawmillers, because the sawmillers might easily get a much better price for their produce if exported, whereas under the proposed prohibition on exports the timber could only be exported in a manufactured state.
Nobody has dealt with the fact that under this there will be no security that the raw material that these factories are using, or are likely to use, will be available except at the discretion of a particular Minister or a Government Department. It may be that legislation is taking that form and that all government is drifting in that direction, but it is a rather new thing and it is rather an objectionable thing, and certainly if I were an industrialist and had big money deposited in the woodwork industry, I would not like to have my industry in that position so that on a change of Government, if I did not happen to be a good fellow to the previous Government in power, the Party succeeding them could show their spite, and there are many ways as well as direct ways by which Governments can act. For instance, they might want to get back their own from somebody who had displeased them at any time before——
Hear, hear.
Deputy Gorey may say "Hear, hear," but this is not a thing that, in my opinion, should be commended. There is very big capital invested in the sawmilling industry and in woodwork generally, and it would be a good thing if some means could be suggested by which they could carry on their business on more secure terms than this Bill will allow. I do not propose to withdraw the amendment, but I can realise that up to the present it has not been received with favour. At the same time I would wish that more convincing arguments had been used against it.
Amendment put and negatived.
Mr. HOGAN
I move amendment 13 which reads:—
In sub-section (4), page 4, line 3 to insert in brackets immediately before the word "after" the words "(not being less than twelve calendar months)."
In the event of the Minister desiring to compel replanting, he must give a minimum of twelve months.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
I move:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"In the event of the Minister refusing to grant a licence an appeal shall lie to the Judge of the Circuit Court who on being satisfied that the removal of the tree is desirable for the economic working of the holding, may grant such licence."
It was generally conceded on Second Reading that the Minister was taking too much powers throughout the Bill. In fact, I think in the majority of the sections the Minister has power to withdraw or give consent. Notwithstanding what has been said by a previous speaker, we have every confidence that the Government will do the right thing, and will not withhold consent where it is pointed out that consent is necessary or essential, and that nothing wrong will be done. At the same time we have had experience of Orders of Departments, and we know that they are not always correct, that there are occasions even when they may err. Accordingly, I think it would be no harm if there was an appeal to some person. It has been stated that if there was an appeal to the Circuit Court, it would be only on a point of law. I do not mind having the appeal to anyone else, the Judicial Commissioner, for instance. I think that we should have an appeal to some person; I do not mind whether it is the Circuit Judge, the District Justice, or the Judicial Commissioner.
Mr. HOGAN
I am not quite clear what the effect of this will be. I think the amendment is to be taken as an amendment to Section 5. Section 5 reads:—
The Minister may if he so thinks fit grant to any person a licence in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot any tree specified in such licence.
Section 5 deals with all sorts of trees and all sorts of applications. The Bill provides that trees might be cut down for all sorts of purposes, under all sorts of conditions, under licence given by the Minister. Then would follow:—
"In the event of the Minister refusing to grant a licence an appeal shall lie to the Judge of the Circuit Court who on being satisfied that the removal of the tree is desirable for the economic working of the holding, may grant such licence."
This is really an appeal on one little point. The Minister may refuse to have a wood cut down that has nothing to do with the working of the holding. There may be an application to cut trees for firewood, to cut trees for building, and for a number of purposes which would have nothing to do with the working of the holding. Of course, most trees are cut for use outside the holding, and for reasons which have nothing to do with the holding, and yet an appeal to the Circuit Court Judge would be an appeal on that point; on the question whether the Minister's refusal of a licence was justifiable, having regard to the fact that it would be desirable to remove the tree for the working of the holding. I presume the Deputy's purpose is to provide an appeal from the Minister to the Circuit Judge in all cases. The more I think of the proposition, the less I like it. I think what it really comes to is that the judge would be the executive head of the forestry branch. You are making the Judicial Commissioner, who of course is a High Court Judge, or a Circuit Court Judge, the executive head of the forestry branch. You are giving him no law to administer. He uses his discretion. A judge should never use his discretion. That is a wide statement, but it is not far wrong. A judge should interpret law.
He can use his discretion on the witness.
Mr. HOGAN
A judge should interpert law. He should have a code of law to interpret. Here you have no law. I admit that. Everything is left within certain limits to the discretion of the Minister. By the Minister is really meant the Department. This discretion is very wide. There are a certain limited number of cases where the discretion is taken away—for instance, in the case of exempted trees. They are a limited number. Outside this the Department itself has discretion. That is the whole point and purpose of the Bill. There has not been any attempt made in the Bill, and I do not see how any could be made, to lay down the particular considerations which the Department should take into account when exercising discretion. You could not possibly cover these in a Bill. They change with each particular case. Moreover, if you lay down these considerations it would amount to nothing, because the Minister could still without any reference to them exercise his discretion, and there is no appeal from him. A judge would be in exactly the same position, except that he would probably know considerably less about the considerations that should influence his decision in cases like these than the forestry branch. After all, it is their business. They are supposed to be technical experts in forestry. They have long experience of the working of the Forestry Acts. They are engaged in developing forestry and know all about the difficulties of administration.
How is a judge to exercise discretion in forestry without any experience, and without any connection with forestry and with no law of any kind to go on? There would be something essentially unsound and amateurish, in giving such discretion to a judge, and I do not believe a judge would exercise it. I do not know what rights a judge would have in such circumstances. Supposing a case came before a judge, I believe that what would likely happen is the judge would announce: "I have no law,""I have no information.""I will simply leave things as they are." It would be a complete misunderstanding of the judicial position to ask a judge to exercise jurisdiction in cases of that kind. It would lead nowhere. Any Circuit Judge, a first-class lawyer, a man who never had anything to do with farming, agriculture or forestry, when cases like that came before him to decide whether a person should or should not cut trees, would say: "There is no evidence before me except that of the man that he wants to cut them badly." Even if a judge gets evidence from the forestry branch against that, the judge does not know what weight to give it; he has no law to interpret it; and he is exercising jurisdiction on a subject of which he has no knowledge. That section would make a Circuit Judge the Forestry Department.
When we were dealing with the Licensing Act a short time ago we had practically the same issue to contend with. The question was what should be the compensation and how it should be arrived at, and that was left to an arbitrator. Could we not have an appeal to an arbitrator or to a referee on the same lines under this Bill? Owners of trees are as much entitled to it as the publicans are. There was an appeal to the Circuit Judge in that case, and the same argument, that he had no discretion, could be used in that case.
Mr. HOGAN
No, there is machinery in that Act for the courts to assess compensation.
But it was left to arbitration. I ask that the word "arbitrator" be put in.
Mr. HOGAN
What the Deputy should ask for is that the arbitrator be made the executive head of the Forestry Department.
Oh no.
Mr. HOGAN
That is what it comes to.
I want an appeal to some person, I do not mind who.
Mr. HOGAN
I believe that that would simply ruin the Bill. It would make it quite impossible.
I will leave it over for the Report Stage, and perhaps it can be discussed again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, grant to any person a general permit in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot any trees in any specified wood in the ordinary course of thinning or clearing such wood either with a view to re-planting or in accordance with the general practice of good forestry.
(2) Every application for a permit under this section shall be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars.
(3) A permit granted under this section may be granted for any period not exceeding one year.
(4) A permit granted under the section may be recalled by the Minister at any time."
This is to enable the Department to give a general permit to anyone who is doing forestry work to do anything he likes in connection with a forest—to thin, transplant, and so on.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
"All contracts made prior to the 1st day of May, 1928, for the purchase or sale of standing timber, may be carried out without restriction but subject to the provisions of Section 8. Copies of all such contracts shall be filed with the Minister at the passing of this Act."
I would suggest to the Minister that the 1st May is at least as reasonable as 1st April. It happens that I know of an individual case where a contract was made on the 1st April. I do not know the particular person concerned, and I am not pleading for him. What I mean is that the contract was not made having regard to the Bill, or anything of that sort, and unless the Minister has a very strong reason for it I suggest that the 1st May is at least as reasonable as the 1st April.
Could the Minister take the 25th April, the date of the introduction of the Bill?
Mr. HOGAN
Perhaps we will discuss that on Report. I am disposed to stick to the 1st April, but the Deputy could put in an amendment to the amendment that has already been inserted, and we could discuss it on that. I am strongly inclined to leave it to the 1st April.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New section put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) It shall be the duty of the owner of any wood to take such steps as may be necessary by fencing or otherwise to prevent trees growing in such wood from being damaged or destroyed by horses, mules, asses, goats, sheep or cattle.
(2) If any person makes default in complying with the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
Mr. HOGAN
This section must be withdrawn, in view of the next amendment.
Question: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill," put and declared lost.
Mr. HOGAN
I move:—
Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) The Minister may make and cause to be personally served on any person who is the owner of a wood containing seedlings or saplings a notice requiring such person to take such steps as may be necessary by fencing or otherwise to prevent seedlings or saplings growing in such woods from being damaged or destroyed by horses, mules, asses, goats, sheep or cattle.
(2) If any such person in respect of whom a notice has been made under this section and upon whom such notice has been personally served makes default in complying with the provisions of such notice he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(3) No tree of over twenty years old shall be deemed to be a seedling or sapling for the purposes of this section."
This is an attempt to improve on the section that has just been deleted. Deputy Cooper pointed out on a previous occasion that the police might come down on the owner of a wood and summon him for trespass without any previous notice. To meet that case I propose the amendment. There is no offence except in the non-compliance.
From my reading of it, the first sub-section of this proposed new section could very easily stop at the word "destroyed." The addition of "horses, mules, asses, goats, sheep or cattle" is a blot on the Bill by restricting it to these animals. There are other animals.
Mr. HOGAN
Does the Deputy mean pigs?
There are several, such as squirrels and rabbits. There can be several methods of destruction.
Mr. HOGAN
But it would be too much to compel an owner to provide against squirrels or rabbits. He might not be able to do it.
Squirrels cannot be provided against, but rabbits are a great source of destruction, and if netting were sunk four or five inches in the ground——
Mr. HOGAN
That would cost a good deal of money.
I know it would. I think that it is a blot on the Bill to put such animals in.
Mr. HOGAN
I would consider that before the Report Stage.
New section put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) Every proprietor of any sawmill or factory in which timber grown in Saorstát Eireann is sawn or converted from the round or rough state shall furnish in the prescribed form to the Minister, within twenty-eight days after being required by the Minister so to do, such information as the Minister may require in relation to the source of supply, volume, and variety of such timber so sawn or converted in such sawmill or factory.
(2) If any person on being required under this section by the Minister to furnish any information fails or refuses to furnish such information or furnishes information which is false or misleading in any material respect, or other wise makes default in complying with this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds and in the case of a continuing offence a further fine not exceeding ten pounds for every day during which the offence is continued.
Mr. HOGAN
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, line 54, to delete the words "grown in Saorstát Eireann."
This meets Deputy Ryan's point of view. Deputy Ryan's amendment is to insert the words "or outside Saorstát Eireann." My amendment is to leave out both, and then it will read: "Every proprietor of any sawmill or factory in which timber is sawn...."
Deputy Ryan is satisfied.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move:—
Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Every exporter of timber in the round or rough state shall furnish in the prescribed form to the Minister, within twenty-eight days after being required by the Minister so to do, such information as the Minister may require in relation to the source of supply, volume, and variety of such timber exported by him from Saorstát Eireann during the period specified in that behalf in the requisition."
That speaks for itself. It would be very difficult to administer the Bill unless we could get returns of that sort, and the House has already agreed that returns should be made by saw-millers.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That Section 8. as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
This Act may be cited as the Forestry Act, 1928, and the Short Title and Principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Forestry Citation Acts, 1919 and 1928.
Mr. HOGAN
I move:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day as shall be fixed for that purpose by an order of the Minister."
Obviously there should be an appointed day for the coming into operation of the Act, and this provides that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Mr. HOGAN
I beg to move amendment 25:—
To delete the following words and figures—
"No. 19 of 1927, the Land Act, 1927, Section 3, sub-section (3)."
That enactment was repealed in the Schedule, but we propose to let it stand. It is rather a nice point. Section 3 (3) of the Land Act of 1927 deals only with land from the time that it vests in the Land Commission to the time that it vests in the tenant. During that time the Land Commission is collecting rents and the occupier is still just the tenant, with merely a tenant's right to the forest. We do not propose to alter that—we think it is correct. Somebody else may have a right to the timber, but once the land is vested in fee-simple in the tenant different considerations arise.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported, with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, June 7th.