I should like to thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate, not only for their contributions but also for their welcome for the Bill and the kind things they had to say. They are very much appreciated. To advert to what Deputy Bruton has just said, it is of considerable interest to know of the wide spread of interest in the development of our bogs and in the scheme outlined in the Bill for the development of private bogs. The number of Deputies from both sides of the House who contributed to the debate attests to that interest, which was also exemplified quite clearly in the course of my recent tour of the country in connection with energy saving. There were discussions in relation to bogs and it is quite clear that there is a widespread interest in this matter, which was reflected in this debate. A number of points were raised and I shall endeavour to deal with them. If I fail to do so, they can be raised at the next Stage.
The most persistent criticism which has come from the Fine Gael side relates to the differentiation in the level of grant between co-operatives and individual or company undertakings. The rate of grant proposed in the Bill is 60 per cent for co-operatives and 45 per cent for the others. One of the reasons for the higher rate of grant for the co-operatives is to encourage several people to share one machine. We should bear in mind that at present these machines are quite costly. For example, there is what is called a "Lilliput" machine which costs between £50,000 and £70,000. Even adaptations of other general purpose farm machinery can cost substantial sums of money. It will be agreed, therefore, that it is desirable that such expensive machines should be as fully utilised as possible. If we can encourage a number of people to share those machines, apart from sharing the cost, the likelihood is that the machines will be used more frequently than if owned by individuals.
Perhaps more important is the point which Deputy Cowan has made. While there will be some substantial stretches of bogland in private ownership being developed other than by Bord na Móna, the bulk of the bogland about which we are talking is likely to be developed by smallholders or small groups where the turbary rights extend only to small areas of bog. To go back to a point made by some Fine Gael Deputies, particularly Deputy Fitzpatrick, the purpose of the Bill is to try to get more turf produced and therefore we should not be concerned about who produces it as long as we get more. That is a point of view with which I would not quarrel unduly. But, having regard to the realities of the situation and the preponderance of owners of small segments of bog, we must encourage them to participate and not rely simply on a small number of individuals or companies. We want them too, but if we are to get the major effort required we must involve the smaller people. The only way to do so is to encourage them to form co-operatives so that it will be worth their while to work together on the development of their various stretches of bog and extract useful amounts of turf from such a conglomeration of turbary rights.
These are the primary reasons why there is a discrimination, if one wants to call it that, in favour of co-operatives. In practice I do not think it will work to the detriment of anybody. An individual or a couple of people forming a company would be dealing with a fairly substantial stretch of bogland which would require fairly substantial investment and a grant of 45 per cent would be quite sizeable. Given the price of turf at present and the rising price of fuel, we can take it that such people can be sure of a reasonably substantial return on their investment and that a grant of 45 per cent would be a very worth-while inducement to them to enter such a business. In the case of people with relatively small sections of bogland available there is not such an incentive, but a grant of 60 per cent should be an inducement to them to co-operate with their neighbours. We want them to get into the business.
Deputy White raised the point as to whether the co-ops would have to be formal co-ops and that if they were there would be a requirement for registration, production of accounts and certain restrictions on their activities. The Deputy had in mind the scheme in the Department of Agriculture where two or more farmers can share a machine, buying it together and getting a grant. This arose from the EEC farm plant scheme. It is a very loose and almost uncontrollable type of scheme. I recognise that there are some difficulties and an historical and traditional reluctance to form co-ops but for long-term investment, long-term commitment for bog development and for long-term returns which may be what is involved here the obligation to form a co-op is not excessive if we achieve what is at stake here. The definition sections says:
"qualified society" means a society which is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and—
(a) in respect of which a certificate has been issued under section 3 of the Agricultural Co-operative Societies (Debentures) Act, 1934, or
(b) has for or amongst its purposes or objects the provision of turf for fuel.
There is a specific provision in the Bill for registration and the formal setting up of the co-op. There is no need for a frighteningly formal requirement. There are many small co-ops which are not unduly burdened with paper work or formalities. When I am talking about co-ops I am not talking about major co-ops. I envisage a number of small co-ops being formed in order to exploit privately owned bogs under the provisions of this Bill. I will give some further consideration to the point raised but my attitude at the moment is that the balance of advantage lies in favour of formal co-ops.
Deputy Leonard and Deputy Kelly raised a point in regard to the production of machines here. Some of those machines are produced here and there is a growing interest in achieving more production of machines. Also there is at least one machine from abroad suitable for use on small scale operations which is being tried out here and if suitable for our conditions it is likely to be manufactured here by a State company for use by people availing of grants under this scheme. In fact, a number of people have been devoting their inventive abilities to the production of machines suitable for the cutting of turf and the draining of bogs in Irish conditions. They are to be encouraged and are being encouraged.
Deputy Leonard made a point about having an exhibition of suitable machines and their use, particularly in areas where Bord na Móna have not been operating. This is a good point and I will follow it up to see what we can do in that regard.
Deputy Ahern referred to the planting of virgin bog by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and some other Deputies raised a similar point. It is a valid point and in so far as there is a conflict here we must try to resolve it on a practical basis. There is liaison between my Department and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to try to ensure co-ordination. The Department of Forestry have in the past acquired a good deal of bogland and have planted it although over the years much bogland has not been planted and they have undertaken to co-ordinate with my Department in regard to future activities.
Some of the Deputies who quoted from my introductory speech quoted one sentence and overlooked the next. I said that it was estimated that there are available in non-Bord na Móna bogs about 1.1 million hectares, that is the best part of three million acres but I went on to say that it was also estimated that about 50 per cent of this was suitable for development for the production of turf as fuel. Some Deputies overlooked that and were calculating on the basis of 1.1 million hectares. Allowing for the fact that we are talking only about half of that we are still talking about something in the region of one and a half million acres. It is important that the development of this, particularly where it comes within or may come within the interest of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, should be co-ordinated having regard to the potential use of the land for the production of fuel.
Deputy Kelly raised a point in relation to section 6 (2) (a) where Bord na Móna were considering acquiring bogland. Deputy Kelly thought that this was a vague expression and I would not disagree with his criticism but I would make it clear that it is intended, in connection with establishing whether or not Bord na Móna were considering the acquisition of certain boglands, that it will be a question of fact and that the board will be obliged to show concrete evidence of consideration. I find it difficult to believe that the board could show without documentary evidence that they had been considering the acquisition of boglands. While I have the greatest faith in Bord na Móna, in their achievements and in their good faith, it is necessary to reassure other people who will be dealing with them. For that reason I want to make certain that there can be no question of stretches of bogland being tied up virtually permanently because Bord na Móna said they were considering taking them over. That would be unsatisfactory. In any case where it was stated that Bord na Móna were considering taking over the bogland there would have to be concrete evidence that they were doing so. While I am not ruling out the possibility that that could happen without any documentary evidence, I am saying I would find it difficult to believe it could be established without documentary evidence from Bord na Móna.
With regard to the point made by Deputy Kelly about the constitutionality of the difference in grants — I know he did not push it very far; I think he said he was merely putting it on the record that he was raising the point — I doubt that there could be any substance in it, especially as we are talking about grants which are, by definition, subject to discretion. It is open to the Government for policy reasons to give different levels of grants in the kind of circumstances I have outlined.
The Deputy also referred to the use of waste. I do not want to go off on a tangent, but I just want to point out that the corporations in Dublin and in Cork are considering at present the setting up of plants for the utilisation of waste. The latest thinking in this area is tending to move away from that and towards the production of briquettes from waste as a more economic way of handling the problem.