To develop further the question of rehabilitation of the lands on the Curragh, I want to point out that it would need considerable capital investment to rehabilitate the lands on the Curragh. I entirely agree that it is in the best interests of our country that all lands should be put into firstclass production by the use of fertilisers and the employment of whatever knowledge can be obtained from the Department of Agriculture and local committees of agriculture. Rehabilitation work is normally based on the principle that there would be a return for the investment made. In this instance that would not happen in present circumstances. If the sheep owners wish to increase the productivity of the grazing on the Curragh they should contribute towards the cost of rehabilitation. There is a difficulty that if the productivity of the Curragh is improved there is no power or authority to increase the number of rights for the grazing of sheep. Neither have we authority to create new rights. That is a point I wish to make. The rights spring from a mediaeval system of grazing and have legal status under the 1870 Act and the Act of 1961.
I would have no objection to proceeding with a scheme of rehabilitation and improvement of the lands on the Curragh but, as I have said, so far as the Department of Defence are concerned the primary use of the lands is for military purposes. One could not, in any circumstances, involve the State in capital expenditure on the lands without the expeotation of a fair return from the lands towards the capital cost.
I wish to deal with a number of other points. So far as the Racing Board are concerned, it has been pointed out by Deputy Sweetman that under the 1961 Act the board are the people responsible for the Curragh racecourse and that they got possession from the State of a certain area of the Curragh, fenced it in, and have improved the lands. There are no grazing rights on them. Such work is a credit to the people concerned. They are not responsible however, as we are, for public funds collected in taxation. At the time of the enclosure, there were a certain number of gallops on the Curragh incorporated in the racecourse lands. So far as I and the Department of Defence are concerned, we have always shown that we were prepared to accommodate, so far as we possibly could, the horse racing interests because of the fact that they are part and parcel of the economy of the country. They are part and parcel of it and are the people who are really developing racing in the country. It is State policy to do everything possible to encourage horse breeding in all its aspects, whether thoroughbreds, showjumpers or hunters are involved. I know it takes an expert to lay down a good gallop for horses and we must be careful not to damage the gallops. There are also ploughed gallops on the Curragh. We as a Government and as a Party have always given whatever encouragement we could to the racing fraternity to build up a good horsebreeding industry in this country because of the value of the exports and of the prestige it gives us abroad.
Deputy Sweetman raised the question of a site on the Curragh for housing. It is a small matter but, nevertheless, I wish to refer to it. In October, 1965, the Kildare County Council applied for a two-acre site on the Curragh for the purpose of erecting new, fully-serviced houses. The site was alongside William's Corner. The Department offered to sell the site to the council in July, 1966. The council did not proceed with the matter and notified the Department in June, 1968, that they were no longer interested. I am not able to say why; they did not give any reason.
In that connection I should like to add that in October, 1964, Kildare County Council applied for a site of about half an acre on the brown lands, being an unused part of the Camp sewage farm, on which to construct their own small sewage works to deal with effluent from a new council housing scheme to be undertaken at Tully East in the Brownstown-Maddenstown district, i.e. on council land outside the Curragh but about one mile west of the Camp sewage farm. In June, 1966, my Department offered the council a 99-year lease of the selected site of half an acre in the sewage farm grounds at a fine of £195 plus a rent of £1 per annum. The council took over the site in September, 1967. This enables the council to provide a sewerage service for up to 900 persons, including those in the ten to 30 new houses built or to be built at Tully East. I say this as an indication of the Department's and my willingness to facilitate the public authorities as far as we possibly can in the provision of amenities and other public services. I do not wish the Department to be regarded as an establishment which would keep unwanted property, provided it is satisfied that the property can be disposed of without any impingement on the military authorities' responsibility to maintain the armed forces.
In that connection also, Deputy Crinion raised the question of water for sheep—the provision of troughts. As I have already indicated, we do not get anything from the sheep owners but if they consider that they need to put down troughs for watering their stock, we are prepared to give them the facilities for wayleaves to enable them to do so.
I wish now to deal with the penalties provided in this Bill. Deputy Sweetman seemed to think that the penalties provided in section 6 are insufficient to deter persons from illegally grazing large numbers of sheep on the land. I am advised that it would be contrary to established practice to provide for a fine in excess of £100 for an offence or offences to be dealt with in courts of summary jurisdiction. The maximum fine under section 6 of the Bill is £100 for a continuing offence. It would, I am told by the law officers, suffice to have evidence before a court that a person contravened the provisions of the legislation on five separate dates to establish a continuing offence rendering him liable to the maximum fine of £100.
The penalties proposed in section 6 of the Bill are identical with those stipulated in section 16 (3) of the Curragh of Kildare Act, 1961, which will remain the operative penalties in respect of contraventions of such of the Curragh Bye-Laws, 1964, as are not affected by this Bill, e.g. removing sand, gravel or turf without permission. I think it desirable to maintain uniformity in these penalty provisions. Apart from this, I consider the penalties in section 6 of the Bill adequate at present; the defendants would also have to pay costs. No matter what maximum fine would be prescribed, it would not be mandatory on the district justice to impose the maximum. In the proceedings heard at Droichead Nua District Court in 1965, for contraventions of the Curragh Bye-Laws, 1964, in regard to sheep grazing, the defendants were convicted and although the maximum fine was £20 in each case, the district justice imposed fines of only £3 on each defendant. Accordingly, I propose to proceed with section 6 as introduced.
Deputy James Tully referred to the use of the word "Maor" to designate the person employed to look after the sheep. This is the Irish version which is used in the present bye-laws. The Deputy mentioned section 3 (5) which provides for three days notice by an owner of his intention to remove his sheep. This also is in the present bye-laws and it has never been the cause of any difficulty. It would never be harshly applied in, for example, blizzard conditions when sheep might have to be removed quickly — in such cases of emergency there would be no question of enforcing the requirement. After consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Kildare County Council, who are responsible for the prevention of sheep diseases, I am satisfied that there is no possibility that section 3 (5) would be enforced in such a way as to cause grave inconvenience to sheep owners. This provision has never been the cause of any complaint.
I assume that the Maor will act in a reasonable way when this Bill becomes law. I have no doubt that he will facilitate, as far as he can, the owners of sheep grazing on the Curragh. I have no doubt that in exceptional or emergency circumstances, such as the blizzards mentioned by Deputy Tully, the Maor would act in a reasonable way. He would know the people concerned and would appreciate that they were taking their sheep away to protect them from severe weather.
This question of the giving of three days notice before taking sheep away was commented on in an unfavourable way by some Deputies. The Maor, being responsible for a number of sheep and for their correct ownership, must be in a position to control the number of sheep and, therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable that he should be given three days notice as provided for in the Bill. He will know the owners of sheep; he will know all of the people who live around the area and he will know the people he can trust. In any business undertaking— and this is a business undertaking— people must be reasonable with each other in such matters.
The question of fencing the main and by-roads was raised. I shall have to approach that problem in the same way as I approached the problem of rehabilitation. There would be no return from this work and I have not asked anybody to estimate the cost.