Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1969

Vol. 238 No. 9

Curragh of Kildare Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

The main purpose of this Bill is to enable my Department to have more effective control of sheep grazing on the Curragh and to ensure that only those persons entitled to do so shall graze sheep on the Curragh and that legal proceedings instituted against persons contravening the law will be successful.

I had already stated the objects of the Bill, but I think it well to reiterate them lest there be any misunderstanding in that regard. There has been apparently a practice on the Curragh in connection with sheep grazing where the owners of the rights rented those rights to other people or allowed other people to use their rights for a given period of time. It is not proposed to interfere with that practice. We know that such a practice obtains, and in the future it will be a matter for the renter to satisfy the Maor on the Curragh that he has the authority or the permission of the legal owner of the right to put sheep on the Curragh. That makes the position perfectly clear to anybody who is interested in the matter.

Many matters have been raised on this Bill that one could say had no real bearing on the Bill, but when one considers the general picture in regard to the user of lands on the Curragh, it is no harm whatsoever to have an open and full discussion on the matters that have been raised. The primary interest which the Minister for Defence and his Department have in the Curragh is the military purpose for which the lands are used. The history of the Curragh is well known in relation to the blue lands, the green lands and the brown lands, and the uses to which those lands are put.

Deputy Sweetman pointed out that the brown lands are, in fact, the military establishment and are in the exclusive use of the military authorities. There are certain rights that have come down from mediaeval times for sheep grazing on the blue lands and the green lands, and the military authorities have the right to manoeuvre and exercise and train troops on all the lands. In so far as the military use of land is concerned it is the genral policy in respect of all lands occupied by the military to grant as far as possible, the use of the lands for other purposes. Practically all our lands are let to local farmers for grazing. In this case the lands are not let; the Department of Defence get no income, not even one sixpence, from the sheep owners who have rights that are attached to the lands they occupy or own.

I agree the Department of Defence were paid nothing, but was the annuity not fixed bearing in mind the value of the rights?

That could be. The sheep owners pay something in rates to the local authority——

And pay through annuities as well.

In so far as the use of military vehicles, tanks and so on, on the grazing lands of the Curragh is concerned the military authorities inform me that there is very little use of these vehicles on the grazing lands. They train their tank drivers on the brown lands and blue lands. We would not consider it fair to abuse, by heavy vehicles, the grazing lands that are used for the sheep or the gallops that are used by the horse trainers on the Curragh. The question of the development and rehabilitation of the land of the Curragh has been raised here by Deputy Sweetman, Deputy Crinion and——

Deputy Clinton.

——Deputy Farrelly, and this question has been examined previously. Deputy Sweetman referred to the fact that an inter-departmental committee sat and examined it. It is true that that committee was set up at the request of the Minister for Finance at that time, Deputy Sweetman.

This committee sat for a length of time and produced a draft report. It did not sign the report, and I do not know if I am at liberty to place a report of that nature on the Table of the House. The purpose of the committee was to examine how improvement in the quality of the lands might be effected and financed without ultimate cost to the Exchequer. The committee held a number of meetings and produced a draft report. As I have said, that report was not signed by the members of the committee and the activities of the committee just phased out. One of the principal recommendations made by the committee was that to do anything effective on the Curragh in relation to the rehabilitation and improvement of the lands one would need to extinguish the grazing rights that were on the Curragh either compulsorily or otherwise.

That is not "on".

I indicated that I felt that Deputy Sweetman would not agree at all with that recommendation.

The Minister is quite right.

I assumed that Deputy Sweetman would not agree with it.

Why did they not sign the report?

I am not able to answer that question. I was not Minister for Defence at that time. There is no record of why they did not sign it. I cannot give the Deputy any explanation whatever because I have not got one. I assume from looking at the record that when the 1961 Act came, it altered the situation. I have no other explanation to offer, and that is my own interpretation after having read the file.

That is very odd.

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.

It would be fantastic.

It would be fantastic. I had thought of writing to the Racing Board to inquire what their fencing had cost. It was suggested here that we could put cattle grids along the by-roads. That is doubtful. There is also the problem that a person who has the right to graze even one sheep is entitled to let that roam through the whole Curragh and we have no authority to confine it to a particular part of the grazing lands.

The Minister knows there are cattle grids in the Phoenix Park.

In the Phoenix Park, I am sure the Office of Public Works are keeping within their rights. Incidentally, in connection with the improvement of the land in the Phoenix Park, which the Deputy raised last night, the grazing system there is on a different basis from the Curragh.

I know that.

Deputy Crinion raised the question of conciliation for the staff employed—for the Maor and his three assistants. This matter will be considered in conjunction with new legislation which is at present being prepared by the Minister for Labour. When that legislation is enacted the position of these employees will be analogous to that of industrial civil servants.

Can the Minister say how he is going to recruit them?

I have not gone into the question of recruitment.

There was a time when the Phoenix Park had nothing but Cavan men in it.

(Interruptions.)

I hope we are not going to see Meathmen coming to Kildare.

Deputy Crinion also inquired whether sheep grazing rights expired 99 years after they were granted by the 1870 Act. The position is that the rights were granted under that Act without limit as to time.

In fact, the rights were not granted by the Act, they were only confirmed.

They were confirmed by law. They were rights that existed.

That is quite right.

I know that.

I am glad to know that the Minister as a Meathman knows that.

I understand the position all right. I do not think any other points were raised.

Would the Minister further consider whether he will be able to table the draft report?

I will consider that.

If the Minister is not able will he at least be able to give it to the Deputies for the constituency?

I will consider that. There was another question which was raised and that was in regard to the date of the branding of sheep. That is not in this Bill and it is a matter I can look at. After consideration and consultation with the Department of Agriculture I can make up my mind whether it is feasible and proper to alter the date for branding.

I do not think the Minister dealt with penalties——

——but I will have amendments down.

Question put and agreed to.

Whenever the Deputy wants to have it, I am prepared to facilitate him. I did not know whether he would be bringing in amendments or not.

I am so overcome by the Minister's courtesy, compared with some of his colleagues, that I will agree to any day the Minister likes.

In my view the drafting of amendment to this Bill will not be so easy. Would the Deputy like to have the next Stage in a week or in two weeks?

I should like sufficient time for the Sheep Owners' Association to read the debates which they will hardly get before next week as they will not be printed until Friday or Saturday. Say Tuesday week. We might circulate a copy of today's debate with this column marked to some of the Minister's colleagues.

Some of his more difficult colleagues.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4th March, 1969.
Top
Share