Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Nov 1955

Vol. 153 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Forestry Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Moran

I was pointing out last night, when the Minister challenged me, the compulsory powers contained in this measure. The Minister tried to put it over to the House that there was no such thing as compulsory powers in this measure. He held up his hands in horror at the very suggestion of there being any compulsory powers or that he, in particular, would ever use anything like compulsory powers for the purpose of taking land for the purpose of afforestation.

I stated last night that, taken section by section, 95 per cent. of this Bill deals with the operation of compulsory acquisition of land for afforestation. Section 1 states:—

"In this Act ‘the Principal Act' means the Forestry Act, 1946 (No. 13 of 1946)."

The Bill refers in the main to Section 23 of the 1946 Act.

I want everybody concerned to understand that Section 23 of the 1946 Act is a section put on the Statute Book for the purpose of taking land compulsorily for forestry purposes. Section 23 (1) (a) of that Act reads:—

"If the Minister desires to acquire any land for the purposes of this Act but is unable to acquire the land by agreement expeditiously he may apply to the lay commissioners for an Order under this section authorising him to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with this Chapter."

That is a compulsory section. That is the section under which the Minister can take land for afforestation purposes in the very same way as the Land Commission can take land compulsorily for the relief of congestion or for the other purposes set out in the Land Acts. I do not say for a moment that it might not be necessary for them in certain circumstances to take land compulsorily for afforestation. What I do object to is the Minister trying to put it over on the House and the country that the last thing he is concerned with is taking land compulsorily and holding up his hands in horror at the very suggestion of taking land compulsorily for afforestation.

If he does not intend to take land compulsorily for afforestation then there is no purpose in introducing this Bill in this House. I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that this Bill is a Bill to operate compulsory powers, that under this Bill the Minister proposes to exercise compulsory powers. The Bill is an enabling Bill to help the Minister and the Department to operate Section 23 of the 1946 Act. When the Minister states, as he did when speaking to the motion before this House, that the last thing he would do was to operate compulsory powers, I should like to point out in reply that he is not fooling this House and that he certainly is not going to fool the country with that proposition. At column 906 of Volume 153 of the Official Report, the Minister is reported as having said:—

"Both myself and every other member of the Government will oppose any attempt to acquire land compulsorily for forestry."

Having put that on the records of the House and coming in with this measure to operate compulsory powers, I think the Minister should at least be candid with the House and the country. If he is going to operate Section 23 he is going to operate a section for the compulsory acquisition of land. He is going to take land for forestry from people who do not want to give land for forestry. Let that be made quite clear.

Coming along to the particular section, I said last night that this Bill was in my view impossible of amendment. I think it is the worst drafted Bill I have ever read and I have read it carefully. That might not be altogether the Minister's responsibility but I want to point it out to him as we go along. In the first place, I want to say, on behalf of the people for whom I speak, that if the Minister was setting out to solve the difficulty that he or his Department would meet in commonages he would have all our sympathy but what I want to point out is that this Bill is not going to do it; that this Bill is, as I said last night, a stunt on afforestation and stunting does not pay either in politics or any other walk of life. The main difficulty of the Department and the main difficulty of the commonages from the Department's point of view is that they are mostly areas where you have the people owning the commonages as vested or fee simple owners of an undivided share in the commonage.

To start off, this Bill has no definition section. There is nothing in this Bill defining anything. "Vested owner" has a certain legal connotation; it has an artificial meaning under the 1946 Act. There is no definition section in this Bill and one is left in complete doubt as to whether the term is meant to deal with vested land, as lawyers understand it, or whether it is to have the artificial meaning given to vesting in the 1946 Act. We are left without a definition section but in the West of Ireland—in the Minister's and my county—there are thousands and thousands of acres of commonage where the people are owners of undivided shares. There is a reference in this Bill to the Land Act of 1939 and I thought it might solve some of the difficulties, but it does not because Section 24 of the 1939 Act says in sub-section (1):—

"This section applies to every holding—

(a) the whole or an undivided share or undivided shares of which is or are purchased under the Land Purchase Acts or is or are subject to a purchase agreement entered or deemed to have been entered into under those Acts, and

(b) which is held by two or more persons (in this section referred to as owners in common) in common, whether as joint tenants or as tenants in common."

That section is referred to in this Bill and it deals with joint tenants or tenants in common. Tenants in common in the main occupy 95 per cent. of commonages in the West of Ireland. They are fee simple owners in an undivided share and they have what we call per mea et per tuo rights and they are entitled to these rights. These rights cannot otherwise be determined as the Minister attempts to do in this Bill. I would suggest that before this Bill goes any further, the Minister would have a word with the Taoiseach on the constitutional aspect of this section. But if he thinks that under this section he can fence off two common owners who are vested fee simple owners in the whole area and put a wall around then he is fooling nobody but himself.

These two common owners will burst his Bill in its present form high, wide and handsome. I have said that, in my view, this Bill is impossible to amend because of the way in which it has been drafted. There are cross references in it to the Principal Act, and matters occur in it like, for instance, sub-section (5) of Section 4 which says:—

"This section shall be regarded as being contained in Chapter III of Part III of the Principal Act."

What that means is completely beyond me. Because of the way it is drafted, it would be completely impossible to do anything with this Bill by way of amendment on the Committee Stage or to get anything done about the objectives we had in mind when we introduced the motion into this House. I want to say that it passes my understanding why the Minister thinks the paying of compensation to an occurpier of land for six years is going to solve anything. The Minister's objective, or proposed objective, on the surface is to get land for afforestation purposes but how this measure is going to help him and his Department is completely beyond my comprehension. I want to say that if the Minister wanted the practical machinery he could provide, as it is provided in the Land Acts, that there would be a limited administrator for the purpose of taking the land. How this suggestion of the Minister that he can say compensation to somebody who has been in occupation for six years, and if some other fellow turns up a couple of years after, the Minister has a right to sue the first man to whom he has already lost the money, will increase the Minister's chances of getting land for afforestation is completely beyond my apprehension.

Mr. Blowick

Was that not the position up to this with tens of thousands of acres all over the country?

Mr. Moran

No. The question of compensation, except on the two fundamental problems I laid down to the House last night, has absolutely nothing whatever, in my submission, to do with the question of land for afforestation purposes at all. I pointed out last night to the Minister that, in my view, you had, first, to have an organisation that will go out and look for the land, which is not being done now, and secondly, if we are serious about this problem, we must pay the people for the land we are going to acquire for afforestation purposes. Those are the two fundamental things, if we are serious about this question of getting land for afforestation, and strange to say, neither of these points is dealt with under this Bill. I have said that the Minister and his Department have failed in this matter. I have pointed out that in my experience, the only land that is being made available for afforestation, in the West at all events, is mainly coming from a drive by private individuals or private organisations. There is nobody going out after them. They have to come to the Department. That is number one.

Number two is the question of finances, as to whether we are going to pay a reasonable sum for acquisition of land for afforesation, or as an inducement to the people to part with the land for afforestation, just as we have to pay a reasonable sum now, the market value before the courts, for land acquired for the relief of congestion. There is not one word in this Bill about what is going to be paid for land for afforestation. There is no guide laid down for our courts as to how they will assets the value of land for afforesation purposes. I invite any Deputy to go through the Bill and see where the lay commissioner or the appeal commissioners have any machinery to guide them as to how much they are to assess as compensation. It may be market value; it may be a price determined as reasonable to the Department and to the purchaser; but there is nothing in the Bill about it. If I go, or anybody goes, into court in the morning to appear for an objector whose and was being taken for afforestation purposes, there is nothing in this Bill that I can see to guide the court, and no machinery laid down for it, no yardstick, no principle, as to what is to be paid for land for afforestation purposes in this country.

I do not know why the Minister has been so silent on this matter in this Bill. I do not know why some section might not be in this Bill as, say, in the Land Act of 1950, where the principle was laid down that the party whose land was being taken was entitled to the market value. I can suggest a reason to the House as to why this vital section, this principle that is fundamental and that goes to the very root of afforestation in this country, the question of do-de-do-do, £. s. d., is completely absent from the Bill. If the Minister or the Government were serious about afforestation, I suggest that this House would be told about it. If they were prepared to go out and get land for afforestation, I suggest that they would in this Bill take the opportunity of telling the countryman what he would get for his land, if he was prepared to offer it for afforestation. But, taking this Bill from the first section to the last, not alone is the Bill completely silent as to what might be paid for land for afforestation, but there is not even a clue left to the unfortunate judge or lay commissioner who will have to administer the compulsory taking of land under this Bill as to how he will compensate the people—not a clue, not an inkling, from the Minister.

I would respectfully suggest, not alone to the Minister but to the House, that, in my view, and I am sure in the view of many Deputies, the fundamental issue in this matter is what we are prepared to pay for land in the interests of afforestation, and that the Minister might be compelled to say it in his reply on this section of this debate, or at least on the Committee Stage of the Bill, because if we are not prepared to tell the people what we are prepared to pay them for their land, or to tell the courts what value they should put on land that is to be compulsorily acquired—and I underline the word "compulsorily"—then I say that we are largely wasting our time in debating this measure.

On Section 4 of this Bill, about which again I really cannot make up my mind, I want Deputies to read the section and to read the Bill rather than the White Paper issued with it. I want to emphasise that we are dealing with compulsory acquisition under Section 23 of the 1939 Act. The section says:

"Where (a) the Minister has made an application under Section 23 of the Principal Act for an acquisition order in relation to any land held in commonage, (b) an acquisition order based on that application has come into force, and (c) as a result of the representation, being a representation specified in sub-section (2) of this section, of any of the owners in common of the land, the acquisition order is in respect of part only of the land."

On my first glance at this section, I could not understand it. My second reading of the section was that it only applied to any commonage plot of land already taken by the Minister or his Department. My third reading of the section, brought me back to my first view, that I do not know what to make of it.

Then the section goes on to say that the following provisions shall have effect, that, if a vesting Order is made under Section 26 of the Principal Act, as from the vesting date, the remainder of the land shall cease to be held in common by the owners in common and shall be held in common by the objectors only, in various proportions, to the proportion of their former shares to one another in the whole of the land; and, that in respect of the interest in that remainder of each of the owners in common, other than the objectors, common rights have not been defined, whether they are joint tenants or tenants in common.

Again, this section is beyond me, and who is going to interpret it I do not know; but the peculiar thing is that, in the following sub-sections, the Minister proposes that where you have a commonage and, say, there are 20 people in the commonage and five of them object, the commonage will be taken over compulsorily under this section, but the 15 people are going to get the compensation. He does not specify what the rate of compensation is to be to the 15 who are to be compensated in respect of the whole of the commonage.

Sub-section (3) of Section 4 provides the amount of the compensation payable under the Principal Act to each of the owners of commonages other than the objectors. That sub-section reads:—

"The amount of compensation payable under the Principal Act to each of the owners in common other than the objectors shall be determined as if the whole of the land to which the Minister's application under Section 23 of the Principal Act related had been acquired by the vesting Order."

If words have any meaning, that means that where you have 40 common owners and 18 of them object, the other 22 will be paid the full value of the whole commonage.

Mr. Blowick

Who said that?

Mr. Moran

You said it in your Bill.

Mr. Blowick

Tell us where?

Mr. Moran

Again I quote Section 4 sub-section (3) on page 5 of the Bill and if I am wrong the Minister will correct me:—

"The amount of compensation payable under the Principal Act to each of the owners in common, other than the objectors, shall be determined as if the whole of the land to which the Minister's application under Section 23 of the Principal Act related had been acquired by the vesting Order."

Mr. Blowick

How does that include the owners of the unacquired shares?

Mr. Moran

Because the Minister says under the section that the amount of compensation payable under the Minister's application shall be determined as if the whole of the land had been acquired by the vesting Order.

Mr. Blowick

How can you determine the separate shares then?

Mr. Moran

What I am pointing out to the Minister is if you have commonage X, and there may be 2,000 acres in it, he is providing that the people who agree to his application are going to be compensated for the whole of the Order made by him. In other words the whole of the amount will be paid to the 22 people who row in with the Minister and the 18 objectors are left out in the cold.

Mr. Blowick

That is not correct.

Mr. Moran

That is what the Minister has in the Bill.

Mr. Blowick

No, it is not.

Mr. Moran

I invite Deputies to read the Bill and to interpret sub-section (3) of Section 4 because that is what it says. Here we have the position of the Minister compulsorily acquiring the commonage and if there are 40 owners and 18 objectors, the people who row in with the Minister will be compensated by somebody, I do not know if it is the Department, but the people who come in with the Minister are to be paid for the whole of the land while the 18 common owners who object are to be ruled out.

Mr. Blowick

That is not correct.

Mr. Moran

I am saying it is correct; that that is the position under this Bill. I invite every Deputy sitting behind the Minister to read the Bill and see what it says and decide whether my interpretation is the logical one or otherwise under this section. If it does not mean that, then no doubt, in the course of the debate, the Minister will try and interpret for me and for the House what sub-section (3) of Section 4 does mean.

Mr. Briscoe

Or he may amend it.

Mr. Moran

That is the only meaning at all events that I can take out of it. The main difficulty in Section 4, even as it at present stands, is whether it can only apply to land acquired now or in futuro. I have some doubts about that but I also suggest to the Minister in dealing with vested owners in commonages, and this is the main problem, that he will have to keep these circumstances in mind. There are people who are fee simple owners, and I suggest to the Minister that they will stunt him under this section. I suggest that this section is not going to disturb a single snipe in marginal lands in Mayo, Galway, Kerry or Donegal.

I do not think that the Minister is well aware of the fact that the rights of partition were reserved under the 1939 Act. Common owners in fee simple as I have stated can, if they are not able to solve their problems, file a petition, but this Section 4 is altogether a different cup of tea.

Mr. Blowick

That is what I intended it to be.

Mr. Moran

Well, whatever the Minister intended, in my view this Bill, which I have described as "stunt" legislation, is not going to disturb one snipe in the commonages of Mayo, Galway, Kerry or Donegal. The commonages will still be there when this Bill goes on the Statute Book. This Bill is not going to solve the problems we have had in mind when we tabled a motion in this House. This Bill does not provide at all for the question of rights or take any cognisance of the fact that the people on commonages may have rights—rights to go over commonages for water or different individual rights which they have acquired over a number of years by user and which would be some of the main obstacles in the path of the Department in acquiring these commonages.

This Bill will not cut down the legal fence that I or anybody else can erect around these commonages from the point of view of the right of user acquired by the tenants using these commonages over generations. This Bill has not a hope of dealing with owners in common who have undivided vested interests in commonages in law or from time immemorial. These are the commonages that the Minister and his Department should be looking for and this machinery is not going to bring one perch of these commonages within the Minister's control.

I think some of my colleagues suggested during the debate in this House that the Minister, if he was serious about this matter and wanted to make progress, could nominate a limited administrator who might be an occupier as one who might accept proceedings for compulsory acquisition; that he should nominate the man in possession as being a limited administrator for the purpose of serving proceedings on him for compulsory acquisition. That would be a simple procedure but it is not done under this Bill. Instead you have the extraordinary procedure here by which the Minister and the Minister himself is going to examine titles. This is a new principle in this House and the legislation enshrined in this House. The Minister is going to decide who should get the money. It is the Minister now and the Minister alone who will have this decision. This I want to point out of a new departure in Departments of State in this country. We can well understand how that practice could be abused. I, for one, at all events, strongly object to the principle that the Minister can decide on paying compensation to somebody who is in occupation for six years, for being disturbed. I do not think the Minister is the person who should decide and I do not think this House should leave it to the Minister to decide whether X, who is in occupation, should get the money.

The only protection for the State is that if Y turns up, the State has the technical right under the Bill to sue X for the money paid to him. Of course, X will have left the country or will have divested himself of his assets. The position is that, having paid compensation, the real owner comes along, and then the Minister will pay the real owner, but has the technical right to try to recover from the person already paid. I object to the principle that the Minister should be put in the position of deciding any question of title. He should not be in the position of deciding whether the man in occupation for six years should be paid compensation.

I cannot for the life of me see why these sections should be introduced into the Bill, and I cannot for the life of me see how this question of making provision to compensate a temporary occupier is going to speed the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes. I invite the House to examine that proposal. Deputies on all sides of the House will realise that it is as far removed from the practical acquisition of land for afforestation purposes as we are from the moon.

The Minister avoided the question put to him that we should regard the temporary occupier as the occupier for the purpose of getting the land. If the Minister is interested in getting land for forestry, why is this cumbersome machinery provided to pay compensation to the temporary owner? Is the Minister serious in this measure? If the Minister were serious, some indication would have been given to this House and the country as to what price he would be prepared to pay for land. But that question has been let go.

I think this measure has been designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to keep Deputy MacBride quiet, but evidently Deputy MacBride is not prepared to accept this measure, and I do not blame him. The best summarisation that I can make of Deputy MacBride's speech is, "Adieu, adieu, adieu, I can no longer stay with you", so far as the Minister and the Government are concerned. Whether the Minister will let the parting grieve him or not I will not speculate, but that was the position here and the Minister had to tip off Deputy O'Hara to let down the guillotine on Deputy MacBride's head. It does not appear that the parting does grieve Deputy Blowick, as Minister for Lands.

It may well be that Deputy MacBride has decided that now is the time to get out from the sinking ship. However that may be, he has well and truly left it, and if this discussion has been of any interest to the House and the country, it will be that it has made it clear that all this talk about the wonderful peace and harmony between the Coalition Parties has now quite disappeared under this measure. Whether Deputy MacBride cannot see the wood for the trees, or whether the Minister cannot see Deputy MacBride for the wood, I do not know, but we have been left with this serious position. I do not know whether I should condole with the Minister on the defection of Deputy MacBride, or congratulate Deputy MacBride on his escape from the Minister.

Mr. MacBride

Will the Deputy allow me to say one thing?

Mr. Moran

I will allow the Deputy to say all he wants to say when I have finished my speech, that is, if we can get in a couple of Civic Guards to keep himself and the Minister apart.

Mr. Blowick

Tell us when to laugh at the fun.

Mr. Moran

Perhaps we should weep at the lack of activity on the Minister's part in dealing with the question of afforestation for the nation and perhaps we should laugh at the Minister's threat to take down his notched gun.

A Deputy

Plenty of people make good money on guns in this country.

Mr. Moran

I must be a very courageous man to stand so close to the Minister, in view of his statement in column 906 when he says: "If there is to be anything of that nature I, for one, will head men with guns to defeat it." I have risked my life in coming so close to the Minister to-night and I would like to point out the fear and trembling felt throughout the country at the threat of the Minister for Lands to cause a national disruption. I am taking my life in my hands, due to the risk of the Minister taking down his much-notched gun and firing at me across the House. I hope the Taoiseach will broadcast to the nation, so as to quite the people's fears of what may happen when the Minister takes down his gun.

The Minister said that he would take down his gun to prevent land being compulsorily taken for afforestation purposes, whereas he has just brought a measure to this House which is solely designed for the compulsory acquisition of land for forestry. It would take a man such as the Minister to justify a position of that kind. I have sufficient respect for the Minister's ingenuity and intrigue to realise that he never brought in a measure of this kind without knowing well what it means. He never brought in a measure of this kind without knowing that not a single snipe will disappear from one commonage in Mayo or elsewhere as a result of this Bill.

The Minister denied that and he was perfectly right. This Bill was obviously brought in as a window-dressing Bill to try to retain Deputy MacBride in that wing of the shaken Coalition. But evidently Deputy MacBride saw through it and handed in his gun to the Coalition last night. The Minister is now going to use it, but I do not think, when people study this Bill, that anybody will be under any impression that afforestation is going to advance in this country. The Minister has clearly gone back from the target that he had his colleagues laid down and made so much talk about during the last election campaign.

Mr. Blowick

And which the Deputy did his best to sabotage.

Mr. Moran

The Minister, in his speeches time and again, has pointed out that the commercial needs of the nation are 10,000 acres, and he is inclined to pat himself on the back that he and his Department will be able to maintain that 10,000 or 15,000 acres. Those on these benches who had 25,000 acres in mind can forget about it. That figure has gone now. Those who went round the country to cross-roads meetings telling the people that the hillsides and the valleys would be planted can forget about it.

Mr. Blowick

You never planted much.

Mr. Moran

Those who dangled the carrot before the people that the whole nation would be saved by this 25,000-acre programme can now forget about it. Deputy O'Hara knows about the time when he and the Minister went round the West of Ireland, telling how trees were going to dry up the climate. We were to have a new climate because of all the trees that were to be planted. The people can now forget about the 25,000 acres— that has been abandoned and we are down to 12,000. It is no wonder that the people whom the Minister described as "the mad people shouting about trees, trees, trees" now feel they have been sold out by the Minister and his colleagues on the aims that they set up for his Department some years ago.

Not alone will there he no 25,000 acres, but the Minister is making sure that not one snipe will be disturbed on any commonage throughout the West of Ireland where the Minister is seeking land and where we know the Department could, with a bit of co-operation, get marginal land. I suggest to the House—I have told the Minister already—that, in my view, it is impossible to amend this Bill. It is the greatest slobber of a Bill ever introduced into this House. On behalf of the people for whom I speak, I want to say we want land for afforestation. We want to provide land——

Mr. Blowick

Why did you not do it when you had power?

Mr. Moran

We were doing as much as the Minister, but we did not come down as the Minister did, with a whole shoal of photographers to plant a whin bush and call it afforestation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. Moran

Only when the Minister repeats his interruptions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy repeated himself before.

Mr. Moran

I have followed the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will have to put it down to the Deputy, I am afraid.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy has a certain amount of abuse on his chest and he must get it off,

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Moran, on the Bill.

Mr. Moran

I want to point out to the House that we want to acquire marginal land. We know that there are thousands of acres of commonage to be got, if the proper machinery is there to acquire it. I have suggested to the House a simple method of doing that. I have pointed out the patent fraud of this Bill and that it will be completely ineffective for this purpose. It is so badly drafted that it is incapable of amendment. I started off by describing the Bill as a stunt Bill. I conclude by describing it as the greatest stunt ever put up for public consumption in this House.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy said the very same words about the 1950 Land Act and he never came back since to amend it.

Mr. Coogan

I rise to congratulate the Minister on this Bill which I can foresee will help to remove obstacles in the drive for better afforestation. I was practically convinced a moment ago by the last speaker that the Minister was about to ride roughshod over the rights of the people. I do not think he is that type of man. I would strongly advocate an all-out drive for afforestation in the West, and especially in Connemara.

The Minister recently made some references to afforestation and the programme for the West in Galway. I am happy to note that, since 1950, we have had three forests planted where previously we had only one in Connemara, and that one on the very fringe. From the point of view of giving employment, I think afforestation in the West would be one of the best planks in a save-the-Gaeltacht policy. I should also point out its tourist value and its influence on climate in the West, apart from its value in providing a raw material that this country sadly lacks.

I think that after myxomatosis young plants have a good chance to develop and that this is an opportune time for the Minister to forge ahead, before the return of the rabbit pest. To listen to some of the speakers here last night, and even a few moments ago, one would think that the Minister was to blame for the lack of afforestation in the West. I wonder what was being done over the past 20 years by those who were in power? Governments in the past have avoided afforestation because of its long-term nature and because of the fact that it is not a get-rich-quick policy. I know the Minister cannot go out and plant like wildfire around the country; he must operate with caution. I know what has happened in the West—there was one big flop which was well known as the graveyard of afforestation in Ireland. The Minister is not just thinking of providing big figures for election purposes and I congratulate him on that, because what we need is the fully-grown trees, not just stunted failures.

It has been said that only God can make a tree, but God helps those who help themselves. I would suggest to the Minister that he should get all possible technical help in this all-out drive. I welcome this Bill as a means of expediting afforestation, and especially as it affects my constituency. It will certainly provide work for which we are crying out. It will provide raw material with a high labour content for many years to come.

Finally, although big bodies move slowly, I hope the Minister will help in this all-out drive and I say: "God bless the work and God speed the work."

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

San mBille seo tá an tAire ag lorg cumhacht talún d'fháil i gcóir foraoiseachta.

Tá ganntanas talún ann mar is deacair feirmeacha agus píosaí talún d'fháil go deontach. Táim chun a theaspáint don Aire go bhfuil a lán talúin ann ar a raibh crainn agus i rith na héigeandála baineadh iad agus níor cuireadh aon chrann nó sceach ina n-ionad.

Do réir Ailt 41 d'Acht Foraoiseachta 1946, dob éigean do gach tiarna talún agus do gach feirmeoir a fuair ceadúnas na crainn a leagadh, crainn a chur ina n-ionad agus gach acra a bheith curtha ar a raibh na crainn ag fás. Molaimse go dtabharfaidh an tAire fógraí do na daoine seo go gcaithfidh siad na crainn a chur roimh dháta speisialta agus muna ndéanfar an méid sin, go nglacfar an talamh uatha agus go gcuirfidh an tAire an Roinn ag obair ar an talamh. Fuair na daoine seo a lán airgid as na coilte seo agus níor chaitheadar tada as a gcuid saibhris.

During the emergency a lot of landowners, and big landowners, in the Midlands got very large sums of money particularly towards the end and immediately after the war for extensive forests and belts of trees on their land. In the last stages, the tree was cut and sold by the ton to Dublin sawmills and timber merchants. Some of it was exported in the baulk. Now it is embodied in the 1946 Act that it is obligatory on such people to replant Section 41 is defined as: "Attachment of replanting conditions and preservation conditions to limited felling licences." The section provides:—

"Whenever the Minister grants a limited felling licence (other than a limited felling licence relating exclusively to an exempted tree or trees)—

(a) he may, if he thinks fit, attach to the licence the following conditions, that is to say:—

(i) a condition (in this section referred to as the planting condition)..."

Again and again, I have taken up with the Minister's Department, from the point of view of providing employment, the fact that these men who grew rich overnight have never planted as much as a whin-bush. I gave one specific case to the Minister's Department and I was told in the Department that the landowner had informed them that he had planted a wood in another part of his estate. Now I am living in a forestry belt and I know that that statement was a life; I know that he never planted anything and I know that he converted a large part of his land into grazing. That has occurred all over the country and, with one exception, I do not know of any big landowner who planted as much as a bush to replace what was sold for thousands of pounds.

My advice to the Minister is to give a certain date. In the beginning these people said they could not get wire; they could not get posts; they could not get proper fencing. I am prepared, as a public representative, to give the Minister facts about all these estates and large farms. I will give them to his Department. I suggest that he fix a certain date for the replanting of these estates and, if the owners fail to implement that, the Minister should step in, take over the lands and replant them himself.

There is a forestry unit in Castlepollard. In the initial stages that unit planted 600 acres of land. Subsequently they took over more and more land. That has provided excellent employment. They are running short of land now. Why not go in on these large estates where no planting has been done? It is my duty to mention that two years ago the Coleman estate was offered to the Land Commission for sub-division and for afforestation. Everything seemed to be going well. No one lives on it. Nobody is employed on it. Suddenly the Land Commission came to a decision, just one month ago, that they would defer any action for 12 months. Why has that been done? The Forestry Division of the Land Commission were sure this land was coming up. Everything was ready. What has happened? Has the value of the grazing portion of the land gone up in the last 12 months? Has somebody intervened in the Land Commission? Has somebody approached the Minister and asked him not to take over the Coleman estate or defer its taking over? The cadre for whom a considerable employment potential would be created may now pack up and emigrate.

An Ceann Comhairle

This seems to be administration rather than matter arising under this new Bill.

Mr. Kennedy

I am indicating that there is a considerable portion of land which can be got very easily. If provision to acquire the land does not exist in the Bill at the moment, it can be made on the Committee Stage, thereby achieving the object the Minister has in view in one particular respect. I take it the Minister's view is also the view of the House.

I live in a forest area and I know a little about forestry. In my area Bord na Móna is operating within a couple of miles of the forestry unit, and in the bog of Bealnagun, from which 600 tons of turf go out every week, and where the minimum employment is about 250 and the maximum employment about 600, acres and acres of land are becoming available on this cut-away bog. Here is an area in which the Minister can extend the work of the forestry unit. Let him cut the red tape and the procedure and go ahead with replanting and providing employment for the people. In my county the Brosna has been drained and water-logged lands have become available. We have heard a good deal about drainage and forestry going hand in hand. Here is an area in which the Minister can expand operations. I want to point out, too, that the Minister will have to increase the grant of £10 per acre to at least £30 per acre to make it economic for the farmers to take advantage of these grants.

That is my contribution. The particular point I wish to emphasise is that certain people have failed to comply with the conditions of Section 41 of the Forestry Act of 1946. The Minister should get his Department to investigate what has happened and he will have the full co-operation, in that investigation, of the general public. His Department will have to be more active. If necessary, he should get a better staff or hand over the work of forestry to someone who is prepared to put the Act into operation.

Mr. MacBride

Am I right in thinking there is no sanction or penalty provided in the Act in the case of people who do not replant?

Mr. Kennedy

I do not know.

Mr. Coburn

I wish to refer to one aspect of Deputy Moran's speech. Deputy Moran seems to think that this Bill is brimful of references to the compulsory acquisition of land. I have glanced through the Bill and, although Deputy Moran contends that 95 per cent of the measure refers to compulsory powers, I have failed to find the word "compulsion" or "compulsory" in any one of the provisions in the Bill. So much for that.

During the debate on the Vote for Forestry last June the Minister promised to introduced the present measure. He has implemented that promise now. Having listened to many of the speakers, I think all Parties welcome the Bill. As the Minister has said on many occasions, and as every Deputy knows, the real problem in relation to the development of forestry is the difficulty of acquiring land. If this Bill has the effect of easing in some way that difficulty, the Minister will have done a good day's work.

Many counties will be affected by this proposed legislation. At the present time, there must be throughout the country thousands of acres of land suitable for afforestation purposes, which cannot be availed of because of legal difficulties. I know of one instance of that in my own county, down in Omeath. The people living in that part of the county have been agitating for many years past for an afforestation scheme, and the one obstacle in the way of the Forestry Department initiating a scheme in that area is the very obstacle that this Bill is designed to overcome, namely, the inability of local graziers to show clear title.

I need not refer at this stage to the names of the six townlands involved, because all the details and data are in the hands of the Department. Suffice it to say that the people concerned are extremely anxious for this afforestation scheme. They realise that many advantages and benefits would result from it. It would give employment in the area; it would protect agricultural land in the vicinity from trespassing by sheep and other animals; and it would enhance the scenic properties of the area. In addition, it would provide a shelterbelt for the whole locality.

Some time ago, officials of the Forestry Department, and also of the Land Commission, visited Omeath. They made a survey of the area and got the signatures of the various tenants. As I say, there are six townlands involved altogether and the fact that so many signatures have been obtained from these graziers is proof of the desire for an afforestation scheme in this part of North Louth. I sincerely hope that this measure will have the effect of overcoming the difficulties in this particular case and that the long awaited planting of trees will materialise without further undue delay. If this Bill is passed, as I am sure it will be, and if it has the effect of meeting the wishes of those people in Omeath, the Minister will have earned their sincere gratitude.

I would like to compliment the Minister on introducing this legislation, but I do so on one condition, that he will adhere very strictly to his assurance that he will not bring into play compulsory powers for acquisition. He said that his eventual annual target for the planting of trees is in the region of 25,000 acres. His efforts to achieve that target should be helped considerably by this Bill. It should also enable this acquisition difficulty to be overcome.

I congratulate the Minister on his stand with regard to compulsory acquisition. He has stated on more than one occasion that he will not be a party to forcing any man to part with his land. We all agree that forestry is very important to a country and that it brings great benefits and advantages to it. It provides employment; it has a beneficial effect on the climate; it brings natural beauty to a countryside; and its contribution to its industrial progress is evident. However, I think the Minister is perfectly right when he makes it abundantly clear that no progress in afforestation can be justified, if it trespasses on the rights of a man to his own property. I am satisfied that he will do all in his power to carry out a great afforestation drive while, at the same time respecting the rights of people.

In conclusion, whilst I do not think this Bill will have the effect of a magic wand being waved over all these difficulties and disposing of them, at least it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. J. Flynn

I appreciate the efforts of the Minister in trying to solve these difficulties. I also appreciate the Minister's effort, by the introduction of legislation, to clarify this question of title. During the previous Government's period of office, my experience was that, in one particular case, for three long years, we had to contest the question of title with the owners, sub-landlords, landlords and so on, people who were residing outside the country. It certainly was difficult for the Department and for the Minister concerned to do anything, but eventually the position was clarified. I am glad now that the Minister in his proposed legislation is making it possible to ease that problem of title, so that his Department can make progress.

I am not at all sure as to how the Minister will succeed under Section 4 of this legislation. My experience down in our part of the country is that, in regard to commonages, where a number of people have a common grazing right over an extensive area, it is difficult to segregate the people who will consent to the Department's proposals and the people who will not see eye to eye with the Department, in regard to allowing their portions of land to be used for afforestation purposes. However it is good to see the effort that is being made in that direction.

I suggest that the Minister and his Department should move very carefully in the question of commonages. They are a vital part of the economic life of the people on mountain land. There are sheep owners who have extensive commonages and rights over extensive areas, and it would interfere with their way of life, if great care is not taken in approaching this question of acquiring the part of the commonages which may be vital to their husbandry. Even with the best intentions in the world, it may be made difficult for these people if care is not taken by the Department in the segregation and adjustment of their rights. There may be a question of acquiring by agreement, which is quite a different thing. In afforestation, you must have goodwill and agreement between the owners of the land and those acting on behalf of the State. Otherwise, the scheme may not be successful. You must have the whole neighbourhood co-operating with the Department with goodwill and then the scheme is bound to be successful. If you have litigation by some group of people who are not satisfied with the arrangement, then things are not as they should be.

I was listening to some points made last night in regard to what could be done by the Minister. I am not going into the question of administration. I suggest there is another way in which the Minister could add to the pool of land which he stated was available. When migration schemes are being operated by the Land Commission, they should bear in mind the portions of land which could be made available to the Forestry Section. For instance, we have people whom we are anxious to migrate from South Kerry; and portions of the area from which they are being migrated are eminently suitable for afforestation. The Minister could consider that point. That land could be added to the pool market out for afforestation in those areas.

I would ask the Minister whether he would accept a proposal or an amendment that the Land Commission be requested to take over portion of the holdings of migrants for afforestation, or could that be dealt with already under the administration of the Land Commission and under their forestry programme? If not, he could make it quite clear in his reply to the point I have raised.

In areas where the Department state it would not be possible for them to have commercial timber—for example, seaport districts in South Kerry, the area along Valentia, Sneem and Waterville—could the Department not arrange for the growing of timber for wood pulp, second or third-rate timber, that would create employment and be an asset to the State at a later date? Could that not be one end of the afforestation drive, letting the commercial timber be grown on the more suitable and in other parts of the country?

I appreciate what the Minister is doing at the moment and what Deputy Derrig did when he was Minister, for our part of the county in the South Kerry constituency. I appreciate what is being done at the moment in trying to establish extra forestry centres. At the same time, I would impress on the Minister, even under this legislation, the points I have put about the migration of smallholders and the adding to the area of land which he requires. I am confident that this Bill will be a success. It will need careful handling and it will take some time to work out the programme, especially in regard to the vast areas of commonages in mountain districts, but it is a step in the right direction. I hope the Minister will consider what can be done with the area I have mentioned, the seaport districts which up to now have been regarded as a problem in themselves, a problem that the Forestry Department was very slow to deal with. I conclude by wishing the Minister success in his effort to handle this problem. As far as we are concerned, we will co-operate in every possible way to make it a success.

Dr. Esmonde

I welcome this Bill and I feel, as I am sure many other Deputies feel, that it is long overdue. I cannot see why several Deputies who have spoken seem to have any fear that it will impose any particular hardship on any section of the community. After all, it is only a Bill to facilited the Forestry Department in acquiring land. There appear to be adequate safeguards in the Bill to ensure that no hardship of any sort will be imposed on any citizens of the State. They have the full resources of the law and the Constitution to protect them in any appeal they wish to make.

I also welcome this Bill as it deals with commonages and common grazing plots, as an earnest that it is the policy of the Department to move from the lowlands to where they always should have been planting timber-on the highlands. It is my experience in my constituency that great difficulties are met in trying to acquire land in mountainous districts, such as we have in that particular county. It is nearly always the case that these lands that are offered are owned, not by one person but conjointly by six, seven or even a dozen people. Under present legislation, it is impossible to acquire that land as needed. I think this Bill meets the case and that it is sound in that way.

I have personal knowledge of a plot of 500 acres which is at present offered to the Department, but which they are unable to acquire because of the numerous holders, who are held up, if even one person objects. I know of another case where there are ten holders, and two or three objectors, in which the Department is able to do nothing. This Bill should ease the situation and make available the right type of land for planting. In Ireland, we cannot afford to plant land that is arable. We have not got enough arable land as it is to give everyone a full and complete economic holding. even where land is divided up at a faster rate then at present, or even where it is acquired. It is absolutely essential that the Forestry Department keep off that land.

Another difficulty that often arises is that the Department may be offered a section in which there are hundreds of acres but which includes some 30 or 40 acres of arable land. I do not know if there is any legislation in this Bill to simplify that. I have not been able to satisfy myself clearly on that point. I know that where that set of circumstances obtains, we have the usual frustration and delay. There seem to be more title transfer difficulties existing between the Forestry Section of the Department and the Department itself, than there is actually in the deals they may have to make with outside bodies. So far as I know the position, if there is a parcel of land taken over, which contains 50 or 60 arable acres, that land has to be offered to the Land Commission. They have to inspect it and it seems from the interminable delays that the Land Commission have a different method of purchasing land from that of the Forestry Department, which leads to these indefinite and interminable delays. I would ask the Minister to consider that problem, and if he is unable to satisfy the House that such is not the case, he could bring in further legislation—we have a Forestry Bill before the House, long overdue—to make that point clear.

There is another thing that militates greatly against the furtherance of afforestation. There seems to be some idea—maybe a regulation; I do not know—in dealing with forestry that it is quite impossible to open a centre, unless it will be an economic proposition. Deputies on all sides know that we spend thousands of pounds in starting industries. From the speeches I have heard in this debate, it has been pretty heartening to know that most Deputies maintain that forestry is one of the most important assets we have that has not been fully utilised here. Why should we hesitate to set up forestry centres, unless they are economic?

I have had lands offered to me by people in my constituency. I recollect that at one time a certain constituent came to me who had 50 acres that was fit for nothing but planting, that required nothing but planting. It did not even need draining or cleaning and it was 50 acres on which timber had been cut down and sold. This has happened, not once, but on several occasions. He was prepared to transfer that land to the Department, but they would not take it because of some obsolete regulation under which, if it was more than a certain distance from the nearest forestry centre, it would not be economic. That seems to be a matter to which the Minister could give his attention. If there is any doubt in his mind in relation to this, I am sure the file could be found in both these cases I have mentioned and it could be shown the Department had refused to accept land which was suitable for that purpose, and no other.

This debate started by the Minister has covered a fairly wide area, dealing with afforestation as a whole. As this Bill is generally intended for the furthering of afforestation, I think it would be no harm to mention the fact that the State are not the only people who can afforest. It is the duty of the State to aid and assist, in any way they can, private enterprise. For the past 20 years, in spite of the rising cost of labour, the rising cost of trees to be bought in the nurseries and the material to protect the trees, the State subvention to people who plant privately has remained the same. Surely the Minister and his officials must realise that there is no encouragement for any private individual to plant any land he may have in the amount he will receive at present from the State. I may be wrong, but I think the amount is £10 an acre.

Mr. Blowick

Ten pounds an acre of a free gift to their own plantation.

Dr. Esmonde

Does the Minister seriously say that £10 20 years ago has the same value as £10 to-day?

Mr. Blowick

I did not say that.

Dr. Esmonde

Does the Minister believe that this £10 is of any assistance whatsoever in encouraging people to plant trees? In my opinion, it is only an insult. The Minister knows perfectly well the results he is getting from that £10 and I ask him to consider that.

There is another point. In Wexford, where we have a certain amount of afforestation, and in other parts of Ireland such as I have seen, we always seem to concentrate on the one type of tree. At one time, we had the Douglas Pine—the Forestry Department seemed to be extremely keen on Douglas trees, and nothing else.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Bill is entitled an Act to facilitate acquisitions of land for the purposes of the Forestry Act, 1946.

Dr. Esmonde

With respect, I sat here for two days and listened to other Deputies and the Minister dealing with exactly what I am dealing with at the moment. If you say I cannot deal with it, I cannot go on.

An Ceann Comhairle

No Deputy dealt with the variety of trees and the kinds of trees that could be planted.

Dr. Esmonde

The Minister did but the ruling is with you. You are in the Chair. If you say that I am out of order, I will not go on but I think I have equal rights with any other Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not being denied any right that any other Deputy got.

Dr. Esmonde

Then I will go on, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The variety of trees that could be planted does not come within the scope of this Bill.

Dr. Esmonde

The Minister mentioned it. Perhaps the Chair would like to refer to the Minister's speech and see if I am right or not The Minister mentioned it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am ruling only in respect of what is in the Bill. It is a Bill in respect of title. That has nothing whatever to do with the kinds of trees that will be planted.

Dr. Esmonde

If you acquire land you use it for certain purposes, for afforestation, do you not? Is not is in order for a Deputy to express his view as to how that land should be used? Other Deputies have done so. I am only asking for the same as other Deputies got.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am ruling that there is nothing in this Bill to restrict or enlarge the types of trees you will plant. The title is "An Act to facilitate acquisitions of land for the purposes of the Forestry Act, 1946."

Dr. Esmonde

I am ruled out of order and I must protest that I am ruled out of order for speaking on a matter on which other Deputies were allowed to speak, so I will sit down.

Mr. O'Connor

I have been anxious to hear a discussion on forestry since I came into this House last May. Prior to that I took a very deep interest in the value of trees in our country. Back in 1926 we endeavoured to induce the then Government to embark on a policy of afforestation. I think the Minister's records could prove that.

In dealing with this Bill what I have to say will be very different from what other Deputies have stated. It will be a litany of facts and they will not reflect very great credit on the Forestry Department.

In March, 1953, an officer from the Forestry Department came to the area where I live. By mere concidence he called on me and asked if I would be able to give him information in regard to a particular area of 1,120 acres. I was glad of the opportunity. I asked him how it came that he was in the area and he replied that it was as a result of an old resolution which came to the Department in 1926. I asked him if he had any later communication from that particular body and he said he had not. I told him that I was a member of a deputation in 1931 which sent a resolution to the Forestry Branch in connection with the same land. There was no record of that. How the 1926 one came to light is beyond me.

We had the ordnance sheets and we examined them and I was able to point out to him the type of land it was, its suitability for forestry purposes. He gave me a number of consent forms and I was to go around to do a lot of canvassing and to get the consent forms forwarded to the Department. I had not time to do that. I did not do that but I heard no more from this officer.

When I was elected to Dáil Eireann I had in mind that I would be able to render some service to my constituents with regard to afforestation. I put down a question seeking information in connection with this visit to our part of the country. I was unable to elicit any information. I wrote then to the Forestry Branch in connection with the matter and received a reply dated 30th July, 1955.

Debate adjourned.