andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Lands whether he has yet acknowledged the letter of complaint received by him from Mr. P.J. Gallagher concerning the alleged unauthorised cutting-down of thirty-two acres of trees on the Lissadell estate.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Felling of Trees.
25.
I understand that an acknowledgement of Mr. Gallagher's letter was issued by my Department on 16th November.
26.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Lands whether he is satisfied that the alleged unauthorised felling of thirty-two acres of trees on the Lissadell estate about which a complaint was lodged by Mr. P.J. Gallagher arose out of the Hurricane Debbie.
I have indicated in reply to a previous question the undesirability of the private affairs of a particular estate being made the subject of discussion in this House and I have further stated that I am satisfied that in this particular case the objectives of the Forestry Act, 1946 have not been violated. I do not feel called upon to comment further on the allegations made.
Does the Minister now seriously suggest that 32 acres of valuable spruce that have been knocked down or removed from this estate were knocked down as a result of a storm?
I did not suggest any such thing. I indicated in my reply that this is a private matter and, further, I have discovered on looking into the matter, that there is an action pending in the High Court of which one of the issues may concern these questions. I therefore suggest that this matter is sub judice.
That will not save the situation.
27.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Lands (1) the number of prosecutions carried out during the years 1962 and 1963 to date for failure to secure felling licences, and (2) (a) the maximum and (b) the minimum number of trees involved in which such action was taken.
In the year 1962-63, there were sixteen cases of illegal felling and proceedings were taken in 4 cases. From the 1st April, 1963 to date there have been nine cases of illegal felling and proceedings have so far been taken in two cases. The maximum number of trees involved in any of the cases in which prosecution was taken was 326 and the minimum 24.
The Minister has now told us that a prosecution was initiated in a case where 24 trees were involved and that it is within the law to take such action. How can he reconcile the fact that a prosecution takes place where only 24 trees are involved and where 32 acres of valuable timber are involved, no action is taken?
I have said that out of nine cases, in only two cases were proceedings taken.
The Minister says that the matter is sub judice.
I have said that there are 32 acres of timber involved.
The Minister now says this matter is sub judice.
The Minister says that but the questions are on the Order Paper. I take it when the questions were allowed, they were within the rules of procedure?
The Minister says this matter is sub judice and the Deputy should not try by a sidewind to discuss it on another question.
I do not wish to discuss it——
The Deputy has referred to it and has clearly tried to draw it into this question.
Then the Minister will not answer this question?
I shall not allow any further questions.
I maintain the people who got rid of 32 acres were not prosecuted while an individual who had 24 trees——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
The Minister is trying to avoid this by a sidewind.
The Deputy will resume his seat or withdraw from the House.
It will be brought up again.