I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—Section 1. The words "Lands and" deleted in line 14. The justification for that is obvious. The section would then read: "In this Act—the expression ‘the Minister' means ‘the Minister for Agriculture.'"
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - FORESTRY BILL, 1928—FROM THE SEANAD.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments passed by the Seanad to the Forestry Bill, 1928.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—Section 3. After the word "adapted" in line 44, the words "and amended by this Act" inserted. It is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 3:—
Section 5, sub-section (1). The word "or" deleted in line 36, and the words "any tree or to" substituted therefor.
Perhaps it would be as well to take amendments 3 and 4 together, because they explain each other. I therefore move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 4:—
Section 5, sub-section (1). After the word "tree" in line 37, the words "over ten years old" inserted.
If you take those amendments together the section will read: "It shall not be lawful for any person to cut down any tree or to uproot any tree over ten years old unless..." It was felt that nurserymen constantly transplanting seedlings and young trees should not be asked to make any application at all. Foresters are quite satisfied that trees under ten years are never cut down. The simplest way to deal with nurserymen constantly transplanting huge numbers of trees would be to exempt trees under ten years.
Amendments agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 5:—
Section 5, sub-section (3). The following words added at the end of the sub-section: "but where it is shown that the commission of the offence was the result of a bona fide mistake of fact the total penalty shall not in any event exceed £100."
Section 5 provides that felling notices must be served in every case and I think the amendment passed in the Seanad is reasonable enough.
Who is to decide that the mistake is bona fide or not?
Mr. HOGAN
It would be a question of law. The courts would decide.
Why fine a man £100 after that?
Mr. HOGAN
That is a good question.
If it was a bona fide mistake why fine him £100?
Or even 100 shillings.
Why fine him at all? It would be a curious law.
Mr. HOGAN
After all, if an offence is committed, it is really to give the judge a chance of straining the law.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 6:—
Section 6, sub-section (2). The following words added at the end of the sub-section: "but where it is shown that the commission of the offence was the result of a bona fide mistake of fact the total penalty shall not in any event exceed £100."
This is exactly the same point.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 7:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). The word "section" deleted in line 24, and the word "Act" substituted therefor.
It is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 8:—
Section 7, sub-section (5). After the word "holding" in line 62 the following words inserted: "or for the construction or repair of farming implements for use on any of the said holdings."
Deputies will remember that in every case a felling notice will have to be served, but in the case of certain trees the owner can cut them; the Department have no authority to prevent the cutting of certain trees. This amendment is another addition to sub-section (5).
Is there any possibility that a tree would be wanted for the purpose set out in the amendment?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes, to put shafts on a cart.
You would have a lot of it left.
Mr. HOGAN
Farmers cut trees for the purpose of repairing farm implements.
The handle of a hammer, for instance.
Mr. HOGAN
I agree there is not much in it, but it was put up in the Seanad that a farmer might want to repair implements.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 9:—
In Section 7, sub-section (5). After the word "which" in line 63 the following words inserted: "is not necessary for the ornament or protection of the holding on which it stands and which".
I wonder what is the use of putting in words like that. Surely when a man wants to cut down a tree he will find that it is not necessary for the ornament or protection of his holding.
Mr. HOGAN
It is a question of law. It is a question for the Department in the first instance.
Would not that always be a matter of opinion?
Mr. HOGAN
It is always a matter of difficulty. The point is that that particular reservation has been made all through the whole of the Land Act and all through this Bill. All through the Land Acts that particular reservation has been made. The aim has been to prevent the cutting of trees which are necessary for shelter or ornament. That reservation has always been made and, in fact, has been fairly well administered. It has always been hard to administer a Forestry Act. It is sound principle to have more strict provisions against the cutting of shelter belts or ornamental timber than in the case of other timber. That was the case always. It was done in the Land Acts of 1903, 1909 and in the Act of 1923.
I do not think it is a very serious matter, but it is perfectly useless.
Mr. HOGAN
That is an extraordinary point of view. I do not see why there should not be more care taken to prevent the cutting of shelter belts and ornamental trees than in the case of trees that are not serving that purpose.
Why not add that after the one that you propose to delete and leave that sub-section (e) in?
Mr. HOGAN
As it stands, yes. As sub-section (e) of sub-section (5) of Section 7 stands it is quite possible to cut a tree for fuel purposes without waiting for the permission of the Department provided that the tree is not necessary for ornament or for shelter. If you had a new section and added it after it would mean that all trees that are not necessary for ornament or shelter to the holding could be cut.
Must the person who makes the application state whether it is an ornament or not?
Mr. HOGAN
No.
Who is to state it then?
Mr. HOGAN
What happens is this: a felling notice is served on the nearest police station stating that certain trees are to be cut for fuel. That goes to the Department. The Forestry Branch do not bother any further about it. The next thing is that the sergeant of the Gárda Síochána reports that six or seven trees on a small little shelter belt of sixteen or seventeen have been cut. After all, you can imagine a case where such a report should be sent in. That goes to the Department. They decide that this man has availed of this section to cut part of a shelter belt for fuel. They have his own statement saying that he is cutting the trees for fuel and the report of the sergeant is that he has cut six or seven in a shelter belt. We will prosecute him then.
Who will prosecute him? Who will give evidence?
Mr. HOGAN
We will prosecute; we will call in the police after that. We may have to send down an inspector from the Department.
How much will it cost to send down an officer from the Department?
Mr. HOGAN
It will cost an awful lot. If we take any other course this Bill would be difficult to administer. Everybody wants to put a stop to the indiscriminate felling of trees. But, on the other hand, everybody wants to allow men to do what they like with the trees on their holdings. That is what it comes to. It is very hard to reconcile these two points of view. This is rather—I will not say futile— but it is rather a difficult compromise. It is an endeavour to give the latitude to the farmer that he should have in dealing with trees on his own land, and at the same time to give the State the power to come down on him occasionally when he breaks the law. We do not intend to appoint inspectors, as Deputy Corry suggests, to stand behind every shelter belt in the country. There is no doubt that people will cut shelter belts and get away with it. The only way we can hope to administer the Act is occasionally to get a clear case and then come down heavily in that case on the man who has broken the law and that will deter others from doing the same.
If five or six escape one poor devil will have to suffer.
That is really the only way you have of putting the words of the Bill before the people—to prosecute them.
Mr. HOGAN
In the administration of the law there is a dictum that ignorance of the law saves no one. That applies to everyone.
Will you take care that the scapegoat will be a member of Cumann na nGaedheal?
Mr. HOGAN
I will ask the Gárda Síochána to keep a very close watch on Deputy Corry's farm.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 10:
In Section 7, sub-section (5). A new paragraph added at the end of the sub-section as follows:—
"(h) a tree in respect of which it is stated in the felling notice that the land on which such tree is standing is subject to a mortgage or charge subsisting at the passing of this Act and that such tree together with other trees (whether included or not included in such felling notice) standing on such land is a substantial portion of the security for the payment of the moneys secured by such mortgage or charge and that such tree is being cut down for sale with the intention of applying the proceeds of such sale in or towards payment of such monies."
Mr. HOGAN
This is still an amendment to Section 7, which deals with exempted trees. Deputies will remember that a point was raised in the Dáil that where a contract had been entered into before the passing of this Act, where a bona fide contract was entered into, that that contract should be honoured, and that the owner should be allowed to sell his timber; when it was a contract entered into bona fide there should be no interference. Another case was where the trees were given as security for a mortgage. A man may have got a loan of £1,000 on the security of some land on which there was a wood. The land may be bad, and the main security was the timber on that land. That may be the real security for the advance. It was pointed out that it would be grossly unfair to introduce legislation which would prevent the person who lent money on such security from realising his security. It was further pointed out that such transactions have taken place in the past when there was no Forestry Bill. It was further pointed out, of course, that if the mortgagee could not cut and sell the timber that what he would do would be to sell out the whole place.
The Minister explained the difficulty that we are trying to keep trees in the country and yet that we want to get freedom to licence people to cut trees. To a certain extent, I suppose that is true. This is a case where we are dealing with a small wood. But cases of that kind are quite different from the case of a farmer who wants to cut down one or two trees for firewood. The amendment deals with the type of case where we should, if possible, keep trees from being cut. I think the Minister said, when this Bill was before the Dáil on the last occasion, that there would never be any difficulty as regards giving a permit to cut matured trees. In view of that, I think that the mortgagor could very well wait until the timber was matured before realising his money. If it was a case of taking a farm over from a man if he did not get what was owed to him for the trees, it would possibly be very much better for the country to have the trees left on the land and the land taken over.
The amendment does not state that the trees would be specifically mentioned in the mortgage.
Mr. HOGAN
It must be set out on the face of the mortgage that a substantial portion of the security for the payment of the moneys advanced was in regard to the trees on the property.
The amendment says "the land on which such tree is standing is subject to a mortgage or charge."
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.
And the amendment further states: "such trees being cut down for sale with the intention of applying the proceeds of such sale in or towards payment of such moneys."
Mr. HOGAN
The Dáil agreed to sub-section (g) in the section, which reads: "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."
That applies to the case of a man who was advanced money for the purpose of purchasing land and where it was agreed that the trees on the land should be security for part of the purchase money. The Dáil agreed that in such a case they should be exempted. It was pointed out to me in the Seanad that it would be quite illogical, in case of that provision in the Bill, not to exempt also in the other case; that is, in the case that we are now dealing with under the amendment from the Seanad. This is not the case of a man buying land, but the case of a man who, having land, borrowed money on the security of the trees on that land. I had no answer to that case in the Seanad, and I accepted the amendment now before the House, and I suggest that it be accepted.
How would this affect estates that are about to be purchased by the Land Commission?
Mr. HOGAN
This applies to mortgages that have already taken place. It does not apply to mortgages in the future.
Where landlords have trees mortgaged these places will be skinned.
Mr. HOGAN
I should say that there are very few mortgages in which it is set out on the face of them that the trees are the security for the money borrowed.
Would the Minister be willing to amend the amendment by the insertion after the word "Act" the words "provided the lands on which there is a mortgage or charge after the passing of this Act are not value for more than the mortgage," or words to that effect?
Mr. HOGAN
What would the effect of that be? It would be this: that in a case where money was lent, instead of going against the timber, the mortgagee would go against the lands and sell them out. That point was made in the Seanad, and there was general agreement on it, that the effect of it would be to put the mortgagee in a worse position than he is at present. From his point of view he would be in a worse position. The person who lent the money, instead of going against the timber, would go against the land.
Might that not be better in some instances?
Mr. HOGAN
It might, but it might be a very much greater hardship in other cases. The point was not overlooked. It was put to me in the Seanad. Personally, I have no views one way or the other. The general consensus of opinion was, I think, that it would bring about a considerable amount of hardship, and that the mortgagee would attempt to liquidate his debts by going for the land instead of for the trees.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 11:—
Section 8, sub-section (1). After the word "Minister" in line 15 the following words inserted: "on the application of the owner of such tree made in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 12, 13 and 14:—
12. Section 8. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—
"(4) Where the Minister refuses an application for a licence under this section he shall state in writing the grounds on which he has refused such application."
13.—New section. Before Section 9 a new section inserted as follows:—
"9.—(1) There shall be established and maintained for the purposes of this Act a panel of referees consisting of such number of fit and proper persons as shall from time to time be found necessary for the purposes aforesaid.
"(2) The members of the panel of referees shall be appointed by the Executive Council and every such member shall hold office for five years from the date of his appointment, but shall be eligible for reappointment at the expiration of any such term of office.
"(3) Every member of the panel of referees shall be paid such fees and expenses for every examination and report made by him in pursuance of this Act as the Minister shall, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, direct."
14.—New section. After the preceding new section a new section inserted as follows:—
"10.—(1) Where the Minister refuses an application for a licence under Section 8 (which relates to licences to fell trees) of this Act the owner of the tree to which such application relates shall be entitled, on sending to the Minister a requisition in the prescribed form and manner and within the prescribed time and on payment of the prescribed fee, to have such application referred to a referee.
"(2) Upon receipt of a requisition under the foregoing sub-section, together with the prescribed fee thereon, the Minister shall cause the said application to be referred to a referee nominated by the Minister from the panel of referees for examination, and such referee shall make a report in writing to the Minister of the result of his examination.
"(3) The Minister shall thereupon consider the said report and send a copy thereof to the applicant for the said licence, and shall either confirm the refusal aforesaid or grant the said licence to the applicant therefor.
"(4) Where the Minister grants a licence in pursuance of this section the fee paid on the requisition for examination by a referee shall be returned to the person by whom the same was paid."
As the Bill stood originally, the Minister could refuse a licence and there was no more to be said. This question was debated at great length in the Dáil. In the Seanad there was an amendment down to the effect that, wherever a licence to cut a tree was refused by the Minister, the applicant might be put in the position of being able to take his case before a High Court Judge, who was to be the judicial commissioner. I opposed that amendment for all I was worth in the Seanad. I pointed out that it was entirely unsound, and that the effect of it would be to make a High Court judicial functionary the executive head of the Forestry Branch, and that that was absolutely unsound. I pointed out that the business of a judge was to interpret the law, to know law, and to know exactly the Act he is dealing with, and say what the law was. Supposing a case was brought up before such a judge, that the Department had refused to grant a licence to a certain person to cut wood, as entitled under that Act, and the case was brought before a Judicial Commissioner, what was he to do? He had no law to appeal to. The law was that licences may be refused or granted for reasons not set out in the Act, as there are too many considerations. In case of a refusal to grant a licence the case is brought before the Judicial Commissioner. What law has he to interpret? He has none. He must begin to read up his forestry. He must have some forestry policy, some views on forestry in order to come to any conclusion on the question. A judge should not have a policy on anything, forestry or otherwise. I suggest it was unsound to bring a High Court Judge into an administrative matter. I accepted the amendment, and the effect is, first of all, that a panel of referees are appointed by the Executive Council. There are six. An applicant is refused a licence. The Minister must give his reasons for refusing the licence.
Did the Minister say the number of referees would be six?
Mr. HOGAN
I did, but it is not in the amendment. What is proposed is a panel of about six, like a panel of referees under the Live Stock Breeding Act.
You have six in mind.
Mr. HOGAN
I have not. The number may not be six when we come to administer it. I have nobody in mind, good, bad or indifferent, and have not the slightest interest in the question.
Six new jobs.
Mr. HOGAN
Where the Minister refuses he must give his reasons. When an applicant submits his case to any one of the referees, that referee will report to the Minister and a copy of the report will be sent to the applicant. After that the Minister has discretion to refuse or consent. The only advantage of that is that if you give your reasons in writing that ensures very great care is given to the application. If there is a copy of the referee's report sent to the applicant, he has a pretty useful card to play if the referee, who must be regarded as a judge in this business, and who must be impartial, sets out in the report that in his opinion for certain definite reasons a man should be allowed to cut trees, it makes it difficult for the Minister to override him, and it makes it easy for the owner to ventilate his case either here or in the Press. Deputies may say that a referee appointed by the Executive Council would take the recommendation of the Minister. That is not always the case. Once they are appointed they become extremely independent. Once you get people such as referees appointed, they act regardless of Departmental views. That is my experience in connection with the Live Stock Breeding Act and the Dairy Produce Act. There is no reason why referees should not be impartial. In fact, they like to show they know a little better than the men under them, for they are a court of appeal. I suggest that these amendments are safeguards and improve the Bill and ought to be accepted.
What the Minister has said as to what we were going to say is fairly correct. I would say that the Executive Council would be advised by the Minister responsible as to who the referees would be, and they would be appointed. I agree with the Minister that once men are appointed they are independent, except that this, not being a big job, may be a stepping-stone to another and, therefore, the referees might not be very independent. Leaving that consideration out of the question, this is going to cost money.
Mr. HOGAN
No, these men will be competent men who have business of their own, and who will be called in if there are appeals, and they will only get their expenses.
There would be fees and expenses.
Mr. HOGAN
They will get their expenses.
There would be a certain amount and the whole thing is useless, for even if the referee is independent enough to turn down the decision of the Department the Minister can turn down the decision of the referee and stand by the Department. I see no necessity for the appointment of these men. The Minister has said there is a special difficulty in having a High Court judge acting as referee on appeal, because the function to be exercised is not so much judicial as executive. That may be, but if it is not possible to have an appeal to an independent person then I do not see any use in this matter of appeal, and whatever expense there is going to be it is for nothing. It is only holding out hope to certain people who make an appeal. If the Minister has made up his mind it does not matter what the referee and others say. The Minister can turn him down. I do not think the Dáil should agree to this proposal at all.
I suggest that the word "referee" is a misnomer. I think "referee" implies a final decision. In this case the referee is in the capacity of a representative of the Department. He is sent down to examine and report, and the Minister may accept or reject the report. Why appoint a panel of referees for that when the Minister has his Forestry Department is more than I can see. I presume there is somebody in the Forestry Department who can do work of that kind, and give as valuable a report as that of a business man placed on the panel of referees.
Mr. HOGAN
Deputy Ryan's point is that the referee will never disagree with the Departmental point of view.
He may.
Mr. HOGAN
Rarely, and if he does the Minister will always back up the Department. That is absolutely wrong. I do not remember ever turning down a referee under the Live Stock Breeding Act, and we had 25 or 30 appeals every year. That is what I call tell-truth. It is a matter of administration. The officers who judge the bulls are in a great many cases officers of the Department. They are paid for this purpose. We always have a great number of appeals, and in practice I do not remember a single case where we turned down a referee. I should say that in about 70 per cent. of the cases the referee would agree with the judge. In 30 per cent. he would recommend licences, but I have never got a case yet where the referee was turned down. Deputies should remember how the thing happens. First of all, the chief live stock officer gets the report. He never sees the bull in question. He does not know anything about it. He knows that the owner is Michael Nolan, of somewhere in the County Cork. The Secretary of the Department does not see the bull either. He does not know the judge. Suddenly a file comes to the chief live stock officer from the man who actually inspected the bull. The officer reports that the licence is rejected in a particular case, and the chief live stock officer simply minutes that rejection. Later it comes to the Secretary, who has never heard of the case. The man wants to appeal to a referee. It comes to me and I put my initials to it. That goes to a referee, who does not know the judge and who never heard of Michael Nolan, of Cork. He has a look at the bull, makes up his mind and sends on a report to the chief life stock officer. Unless there is something on the face of the report that makes the chief live stock officer suspicious, he simply approves of the referee's decision. There is no such thing as a sense of loyalty between the chief live stock officer the Department and the man who judged the bulls, and there would be no such thing as a sense of loyalty between myself as Minister for Agriculture and the officer who judged the bull. Perhaps I never met him. You see the referee's decision that the bull is tip-top, and you know that he is a good judge of cattle. Unless there is something in his report that makes you think the referee does not know his job you accept him automatically.
I am perfectly certain, from my experience of administration, that this would be a valuable safeguard. In fact, it was considered to be a valuable safeguard in the Seanad by people who think they are going to be hit by this Bill. Take a man who will be a referee. He will be some good nurseryman. You cannot afford to turn down a man like that lightly. You have, in the first instance, to give your reasons. The forestry officer who is really responsible gives his reasons for advising refusal. This man goes to a man who is well known in the country as a class of man who has no interest in the matter. He has another way of living. He goes into the thing in detail, and he gives a decision against forestry. As a matter of fact, you practically always agree with the referee. That is my experience.
I am rather surprised at the Minister. I expected that he would put in a lot more officials than the six he is looking for. Since he has mentioned the case of the bulls——
We will not have a discussion on that.
I am going to make the same allusion as the Minister made. In County Cork we had one set of inspectors who inspected the bulls and gave licences, and another set came afterwards and rejected them.
Mr. HOGAN
That is a different point.
Do you remember it?
Mr. HOGAN
I do.
I object teetotally to these three clauses in the Bill. I think it is simply setting up another band of officials.
Mr. HOGAN
That is really nonsense. This will not cost a hundred pounds a year.
Everything that was started was started on a small scale, but it gradually climbed up. I think this little job is going to start on a small scale, but after a while we will see a man with £1,500 a year and bonus as well.
Mr. HOGAN
Not at all.
I know you too well. I think in cases like this we had a long declaration yesterday from a member of the Government Party about using compulsion on farmers. I think this is a case of setting up a panel of referees, and that this kind of thing is only so much eye-wash. If my own personal case were to be considered I would rather have it considered by the Minister than have to pay a couple of pounds for a referee who would come down and do something, or who might not do anything. In all probability the case would be tried before he came down at all, as happens in most cases. I think this is setting up another band of officials in this country who are going to batten on the unfortunate farmers. God knows we have enough officials without having any more clapped on, in the shape of referees. I think the Minister would be wise to withdraw these three clauses. After yesterday's debate on the condition of the farmers, I do not think any Deputy could conscientiously put any more burdens on their backs.
Mr. HOGAN
I am not going to explain that these are not officials and that they will cost practically nothing. The referees under the Live Stock Breeding Act cost practically nothing. I put it to Deputies that this is one case where the Bill has been improved in the Seanad.
First-class train fares and expenses.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Mr. HOGAN
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:
New section. Before Section 9 a new section inserted as follows:—
"9.—(1) There shall be established and maintained for the purposes of this Act a panel of referees consisting of such number of fit and proper persons as shall from time to time be found necessary for the purposes aforesaid.
(2) The members of the panel of referees shall be appointed by the Executive Council and every such member shall hold office for five years from the date of his appointment but shall be eligible for reappointment at the expiration of any such term of office."
Question put and declared carried.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
New section. After the preceding new section a new section inserted as follows:—
"10.—(1) Where the Minister refuses an application for a licence under Section 8 (which relates to licences to fell trees) of this Act the owner of the tree to which such application relates shall be entitled, on sending to the Minister a requisition in the prescribed form and manner and within the prescribed time and on payment of the prescribed fee, to have such application referred to a referee.
(2) Upon receipt of a requisition under the foregoing sub-section, together with the prescribed fee thereon, the Minister shall cause the said application to be referred to a referee nominated by the Minister from the panel of referees for examination and such referee shall make a report in writing to the Minister of the result of his examination.
(3) The Minister shall thereupon consider the said report and send a copy thereof to the applicant for the said licence and shall either confirm the refusal aforesaid or grant the said licence to the applicant therefor.
(4) Where the Minister grants a licence in pursuance of this section the fee paid on the requisition for examination by a referee shall be returned to the person by whom the same was paid."
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
New section. After the preceding new section a new section inserted as follows:—
"9.—Where a felling notice has been given in respect of any tree and the Minister, with a view to the preservation of scenic beauty, makes a prohibition order or refuses to grant a licence under section 8 (which relates to licences to fell trees) of this Act in respect of such tree, the Minister may, if satisfied of the bona fides of the intention to fell such tree, award to the owner of such tree out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas compensation in account of such order or refusal and the amount of such compensation shall in default of agreement be determined by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919."
This is a new section. The argument put up in favour of this amendment was that when a man applies to cut trees which are fit for cutting and the Minister says no, because the scenic beauty of the district would be destroyed, they must be allowed to stand. These are national reasons and if the owner suffers at least there should be discretion with the Minister to give compensation. That was carried, and I suggest that the Dáil agree with it. What the section means is that you may or may not——
Would the compensation be an annual compensation?
Mr. HOGAN
Not at all. It would be a matter for the arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1918, to hold an inquiry and to find out what was the financial loss to the owner by reason of the fact that he was prevented from cutting the trees. Before any such inquiry would be held the Minister would have to decide that he would, in fact, give compensation.
Is there anything in the Bill to show that the nation would then become owner of trees for which compensation would be given?
Mr. HOGAN
No. The position would be: there is the law, and as long as the law stands the nation can prevent the owner cutting the trees. The trees are only useful to the nation from the point of view of their scenic beauty. That is their value; that is the reason the owner is stopped from cutting them. As long as the law stands they must be retained for scenic beauty, but if any Parliament likes to change the law and make it more stringent it can do so.
There is no clause in the Bill making the trees the property of the Government after the owner has been compensated?
Mr. HOGAN
No.
Will payment of the compensation be repeated every time the owner makes a demand?
Mr. HOGAN
To begin with, no compensation need be given at all if the Minister so decides. All that the section provides is that the Minister may, in any case, pay some compensation. The man is entitled to some compensation, because he has been prevented cutting, for the reason that the trees add to the scenic beauty of the neighbourhood. You can imagine a case where a man would be entitled to some compensation, and if it is a bona fide case where there would be real hardship because a man is prevented cutting trees for the reason that they add to the scenic beauty of the neighbourhood. He can decide to pay some compensation, but it is a question for the arbitrator appointed under the Act already passed, to hold an inquiry, and, taking all the circumstances into account, decide what is the monetary loss to the man by reason of the fact that he is not allowed to cut the trees. The man, of course, remains the owner of the trees, in the sense that he is owner of the feesimple of the land. The trees are there, but they cannot be touched by him.
I know of such cases.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 16:—Section 9, sub-section (1). After the word "wood" in line 41 the words "or on any specified land" inserted. This is a drafting amendment.
I suggest that there should be a further amendment in order to make this section complete. Should it not read "wood or land" in the second last line?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think so. I think the section is clear enough. You cannot thin land. Probably that was the reason it was drafted in that form. I see the Deputy's point, but I think it is clear enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 17:—Section 9, sub-section (3). The sub-section deleted.
This is an amendment put in by myself. The forestry branch are of opinion that if you require a permit that in any event we have discretion.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I have to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 10, sub-section 5 (5). After the word "means" in line 9 the word "hazel" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 11. The section deleted.
The amendment is to delete a section which empowers the forestry branch to tell a man who owns a wood to fence it. Personally I was never very keen on this section. It seems arbitrary to go and tell a man: "You must fence this wood." I agreed to the deletion in the Seanad. I think it could not be administered, and that it was not worth the paper it was written on.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 20:—
Section 14. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—
(2) Every regulation made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after the regulation is laid before it annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.
This is a stock amendment. It is to provide that all regulations made shall be laid on the table of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 21:—
New section. Before Section 16 a new section inserted as follows:—
"16.—Paragraph (7) of the Schedule to the Principal Act shall be construed and have effect as if the words ‘and profits a prendre,' were inserted therein immediately after the word ‘easements' now contained in that paragraph."
This is rather an important amendment. The real usefulness of this Bill is that it gives power to acquire land compulsorily for forestry purposes and gives power to abolish rights and easements on lands we have purchased. For forestry purposes we often purchase mountains where there are ancient rights undefined. For instance in county Wexford we took over Forth mountain but we could not say what the easements were. We knew they were there. We had the deeds but we did not know the original owners. We are taking powers to wipe out easements undefined and to pay compensation money out of the purchase money for them. The word easement is used in the principal Act and there is also "and profits a prendre" which is a legal term. I almost forget now what it means but it is a sort of easement. There is a certain right to take certain things from lands and it is felt that it would be necessary to provide for this also. Hence the amendment was inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Reported: That the Committee had agreed with the Seanad in all its amendments.
Question: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in its report," put and agreed to.
Ordered: That a message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.