Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1981

Vol. 327 No. 2

Turf Development Bill, 1980: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I should like to join with previous speakers in welcoming this Bill and in complimenting the Minister on its introduction. It is positive proof that the Minister and the Government are fully aware of the need to utilise our bogs to the maximum benefit. There is an old saying that necessity is the mother of invention. An example of this is the fact that the world energy crisis is forcing people to seek new ways to conserve energy and to find new sources of energy.

Bog development and turf production are not new, but they are of vital importance to this country particularly at present. This Bill will provide a great incentive to owners of bogland to set about developing our bogs. I represent a constituency which has probably benefited more from Bord na Móna development than any other constituency in the country. I welcome the fact that this scheme will be administered by Bord na Móna officials because it is important that the board would be able to retain any tracts of bogland they might hope to develop. I hope the Bord na Móna personnel and their know-how in bog development will be fully utilised.

Deputy Bruton mentioned the difference in the amounts of the grants — 60 per cent for co-operatives as against 45 per cent to individuals. He said this was discriminating against the individual, but I doubt that. A great deal of our bogland is commonage and is held on a tenancy basis and I imagine the majority of applications under this scheme will come from such people. Therefore, it is essential that higher grants should be made available where the bogs are held on a tenancy basis by a number of applicants.

Coming from a county which has many acres of bogland, I have a great deal of experience in this area. I see this scheme as a great advantage to smallholders. The grants available are sizeable and, under the direction and guidance of Bord na Móna's personnel, I am confident excellent work will be done under this scheme. We have a number of bogs in west Offaly which could be developed under this scheme. This could create a number of jobs and it would mean that more turf would become available during this energy crisis. This scheme will help to minimise the effects of the energy crisis.

The introduction of the turf development scheme proves the Minister is aware of the importance of turf development. I can visualise many new jobs being made available and more turf coming on the market at significantly lower prices than those charged by Bord na Móna. Turf cut in a privately developed bog could be offered at a lower price than that being charged by Bord na Móna. This could be a great help to the poorer sections of the community, particularly old age pensioners, who mostly burn briquettes and would be very happy to avail of cheaper turf.

The Minister arranged for this scheme to be directed by the personnel of Bord na Móna and applicants will benefit from their expertise. Through the years it has been proved that these experts are world class when it comes to bog development and many people come from other countries to learn from them. They will administer this scheme and, in the long run, that will benefit the country as a whole.

I again compliment the Minister on introducing this legislation at a time when we are so energy conscious. It highlights the fact that the Minister and the Government are aware of the necessity to ensure that our turf resources are properly developed. I had thought that such legislation would have been introduced some time ago and perhaps the world crisis has given more urgency to the matter.

The Minister to conclude the debate.

At last.

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.

Except that absorbs power in its turn.

Yes, it does. One has to do the equation to see where the advantage lies. Deputy Kelly asked what was meant by the word "detrimental" as used in section 2 (3). I will try to deal with that in a little more detail on Committee Stage and also with the question about the provisions dealing with recovery of the grant. The Deputy raised a point, which he acknowledged was more grammatical than anything else, on section 7 (2) about the use of the phrase "comprised of". I have no strong views on that. We will see if we can meet his point if we do not offend the draftsman unduly.

Either it is right or it is wrong. There should be some authority somewhere to tell us whether it is right or wrong.

It does not strike me as being wrong. The Deputy suggested two alternatives and either would do equally well.

I noticed its usage creeping in, in the past few years. I think it is wrong.

I will have a look at it. Deputy John Ryan and a number of other Deputies spoke about priority for access roads and in particualr the need for liaison with county engineers. I agree with that, and I have made specific provision for it in the Bill. I envisage in due course a very considerable reliance on expertise in local authorities and county development teams by Bord na Móna. Apart from the fact that it would stretch Bord na Móna unduly if all these applications were to be handled directly by them, there is expertise available which could be used, particularly in areas where Bord na Móna do not operate, and even where they do operate that expertise and local knowledge can be more advantageous than the greatest expertise in Bord na Móna.

Deputy Ahern felt that access roads and drainage were the greatest priority. In many cases roads and drains do exist but have been allowed to fall into disrepair and need to be repaired or deepened. Grants can be made available for that purpose under this Bill. Deputy Ahern also made a valid point when she said people who were trying to form a co-operative and operate under this scheme were, in effect, groping in the dark. I know she has personal experience because she has been trying to organise something like this in an area in her constituency.

We are giving some thought to how we can get across to people who want to avail of this scheme information, whether by way of leaflet or otherwise, and keeping it as simple as possible. I will have a look at the situation Deputy Ahern was talking about and we might be able to use it as a pilot scheme to discover what is the best method of communicating the information to the people concerned as to how to go about the whole operation of forming a co-operative, getting the plan prepared and submitted, and applying for the grant in the most effective way.

A number of Deputies expressed fear that the requirement to submit a plan might involve a degree of red tape and sophistication which would offset the scheme. Certainly that is not our intention. The larger the scheme and the more complex the work that has to be done, the more detailed and sophisticated the plan will have to be, I suppose. Subject to that, it is my intention to keep the plan and the applications as simple as possible and not tie up the whole operation in red tape. That is not the object of the exercise.

The real purpose in requiring a plan has been approved of by any Deputy who has adverted to this matter, that is, to try to ensure that we do not allow bogs to be despoiled, or turf to be wasted, by piecemeal and unplanned development. There are a considerable number of examples of this. This resource is much too valuable to allow that to happen. It is essential that any work we assist by way of grant should be in accordance with a development plan which will not waste the resource. That is the only reason for that requirement. I want to ensure that it is kept as simple and as unsophisticated as possible.

This is a simple Bill designed to try to get the scheme off the ground as soon as possible. I indicated — and a number of Deputies adverted to this — that there are questions in regard to title, commonage and various aspects of title which will present problems in certain areas. This Bill does not attempt to deal with those problems. They are complex and, if I waited to try to deal with them, the Bill would be delayed for a very long time. There is plenty of bogland where we can go ahead this year without those problems.

That is not to say the other problems are to be forgotten. It is important that we should tackle them. They do not relate solely to the development of bogland. They arise in various other areas of agricultural development, in drainage and in different aspects of life around the country.

In so far as this problem relates to the development of bogland, one suggestion made which I think is worth while and which I will be examining is that Bord na Móna can acquire bogland compulsorily where such problems exist. What the Deputy had in mind is something along the lines of the old Land Commission operation: the Land Commission took on the burden of sorting out complicated title afterwards with claimants. That enabled the land to be divided up.

An alternative is the action Deputy O'Malley took two years ago in the Mineral Development Bill.

That is a possible approach and there may be others. From the point of view of bogland development, the solutions will take time. We must go ahead with the Bill as it stands but I will be examining other problems and if I can find some reasonably satisfactory solutions I will be coming back to the House with other proposals. I have no doubt that this Bill will require amendment, apart from the question of title and so on. It will require amendment, I would say within two years at least. The Bill is experimental, it is approaching the problem in a particular way and from experience we are bound to learn better ways to tackle our problems. I have no illusions that this is the last word on it: it is simply a start and we will be making changes in due course.

Deputies spoke of liaison with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and referred to somewhat similar problems in regard to the Land Commission. It is important that there should be liaison between the Department of Energy and the Land Commission and I shall try to ensure that that will be established. Contrary to what some Deputies said, my understanding is that the Land Commission try to ensure that people who want it will get access to turf banks. I will check on that position and try to ensure that there will be adequate liaison between the Department of Energy and the Land Commission when their activities overlap.

I want to make it clear to Deputy Leonard, who referred to it, that unlike the position during the Emergency, as we called it, under this Bill there will be far more use made of machinery. During the war years there was reliance on hand won turf, outside Bord na Móna operations, but there will be substantial reliance on machinery in this scheme. Deputy Leonard's suggestion about pilot schemes and exhibitions in areas like Monaghan where Bord na Móna do not operate is a worth-while one which I will examine carefully. I met Deputy Leonard and a deputation during my tour in regard to an area of 2,000 acres in north Monaghan near the Border. We are following it up and hope to have a Bord na Móna inspector there to give advice on the best method to develop that substantial local resource.

In one guise or another, various Deputies adverted to the possibility of ascertaining the extent and the nature of the resources we have in the form of privately owned bogs. Some Deputies thought we do not have this information at all and that we should use the local authorities to get it. Deputy Filgate is under the impression that Bord na Móna have all that information. Neither is correct. We have a good deal of information about a great deal of privately owned bogs, but we do not have all of it, and Bord na Móna are engaged in a survey to complete the compilation of outstanding information and they expect to have it completed within a year. In the meantime there is a great deal of information already available in Bord na Móna on bogs that will never be used by them.

Apart from the differential in the grants, Deputy O'Toole said that the 60 per cent grant is not generous. There is no grant there at the moment and it seems to me to be quite generous; in any language a 60 per cent grant is substantial. Whatever about the 45 per cent, which I regard as adequate and appropriate in the cases to which it will apply, the 60 per cent grant is quite an inducement.

Deputy O'Toole suggested a pilot scheme for building access roads to bogs and he compared the cost of having the work done by private contractors with that done by local authorities. He applied the same comparison in relation to drainage. This point was raised in one form or another by several Deputies and I want to make it clear that if a local authority are willing to do so they may provide access roads to bogs, they may provide the work force and the expertise by arrangement with the applicant, whether that is a co-operative, a company or an individual, and the grant will be payable anyway. In other words, if the local authority are willing to do this work as an agent I will welcome it, but we are not limiting those operations to local authorities.

I should repeat that we will get experience as the scheme goes ahead. At the moment people seem certain that unless we make allocations direct to local authorities for the full cost of access roads the scheme will not work. That is not correct. I think the scheme can work but let us see the scheme working and if we have to amend it we will consider doing it.

Deputy O'Toole asked about the amount of money being provided. It is difficult to estimate the cost until we have had experience, but £1 million will be made available this year.

An important point that was raised by a number of Deputies was whether account would be taken of the time spent in carrying out work. The short answer is yes, people will be allowed for this but the longer answer is that what I envisaged happening is that for a certain amount of work there will be a rule of thumb method of assessing what it would cost and a grant will be paid based on that cost irrespective of how the work is done but, of course, providing it has been carried out satisfactorily. In effect, if people can do the work themselves their effort and work will constitute part of the cost.

Deputy Callanan spoke of the need to plan the use of cutaway bog and I agree with him fully. This is another reason for insisting on a plan being submitted with an application, using the expertise of Bord na Móna in dealing with it.

They will not get much from that inadequate inter-departmental report on the subject. An inter-departmental body considered the question of the uses of cutaway bog and in the end they came out with a six page report. They were of the opinion that it could not be used.

We can discuss those matters at a later stage.

I do not think Deputy Kelly's version is quite accurate — at least it is not one with which I would agree.

Perhaps I telescoped it somewhat, but it was very depressing reading.

I will advert to the matter under another heading. Deputy Fitzpatrick raised the question of the danger of this Bill reducing the amount of turf that will be produced this year because of a hold-up by the CDC in grants until this Bill is passed. There might have been some grounds for this fear before but I took steps to deal with the matter and I understand it has been cleared up. However, if Deputy Fitzpatrick or any other Deputy is aware of this happening I would be glad to hear about it. I do not wish it to happen. My understanding is the CDC will carry on as normal until this Bill is passed but if there is any evidence that this is not happening I should like to know about it.

On the question of grants for machinery, I want to make it clear that the basic idea here is that grants under this scheme are intended to assist the production of turf. There are some machines that can be used on the drainage of bogs or in the making of bog roads but they can also be used for other purposes. It is not the intention to devote money under this scheme to machinery used for other purposes. As far as possible it is intended to confine grants for machinery under this scheme to machinery that is either exclusively usable for turf development or is primarily usable for that purpose.

Deputy Conaghan asked that we include cases where there is no established ownership. I mentioned the problems in regard to ownership and I am afraid that I cannot do anything about it under this Bill. As I have indicated, I hope to be able to do something about it later. The Deputy expressed a fear that there would be a concentration on areas where Bord na Móna operate because they are the areas they know well. The Deputy instanced Donegal but he did not confine his remarks to that area. I can give him a full assurance that that is not intended and I have no reason to believe Bord na Móna would operate in that way. He also urged the establishment of a briquette factory in Inishowen to serve the local area and also the city of Derry.

What about Sandyford?

Deputy Kenny wanted a factory in Bellacorick in County Mayo. I think Deputy Conaghan and Deputy Kenny might have a better case than Deputy Kelly.

I will take the Minister on a tour of south Dublin any time he wishes and show him some bogs there.

I am afraid they would not be suitable for the purpose. We will have the proposals examined but there is a lot of money involved. Having regard to the demand and to the availability of supplies of turf in both areas there may be a case for doing what the Deputies have urged but there are other considerations also. However, they will be examined. Because of something Deputy Conaghan said, I want to make it clear that the only case in which the Minister for Energy has any role under this Bill in reviewing a decision by Bord na Móna is what I might describe as the conflict of interest case. That is dealt with in the Bill and we can discuss the matter in more detail on Committee Stage. In all other cases discretion rests entirely with Bord na Móna and the Minister has not got a reviewing role in the matter.

Deputy Kenny mentioned Údarás na Gaeltachta and its possible overlapping with this scheme. The intention is that this scheme will not interfere with existing schemes administered by Údarás na Gaeltachta but any grants available under such schemes would be taken into account in determining the amount paid under this scheme. It is clear there should be liaison with Údarás na Gaeltachta to establish who does what and I will be making arrangements for such liaison.

Deputy Kenny spoke about the 12 western counties being disadvantaged and having a higher rainfall. He suggested that a higher level of grant should be paid to everybody in those areas, whether co-operatives or individuals. All I can say is that we have substantial areas of bog that represent substantial amounts of wealth these days. They did not in the past but they do now and people should be grateful for having those resources that we are now trying to develop, hope fully to their advantage as well as to the national advantage.

Deputy Kenny and others expressed some apprehension that Bord na Móna who would be administering the grants scheme would, in effect, be asked to give grants to people who would be competitors of the board. I do not think there should be any worries on that score because, as was made clear under another heading, there is a shortage of turf and particularly briquettes. Demand far outstrips the supply. People producing more turf will find an ample market. They will not be in competition with Bord na Móna but will rather supplement the supply by Bord na Móna. Most of the production of Bord na Móna is milled peat for the ESB rather than for the general public. It is not realistic to fear that Bord na Móna will be unduly influenced by the fact that they are asked to pay out grants to competitors.

Deputy O'Donnell asked about the total capital cost, not merely State contributions, involved in the private development of bogs plus Bord na Móna. It is not possible for me to get an estimate of the total cost because that would include an estimate of the extent and pace of bog development. It is clear that it could be several million pounds over three to five years. I cannot put an accurate figure on it. Deputy O'Donnell also raised the question about financial help from the EEC. The EEC have given some assistance with regard to certain experiments in relation to alternative energy but on a very limited scale. We are seeking assistance in regard to this scheme but I believe, because turf is not a commodity that is widely available within the Community, there might be objections to it on the ground that it would primarily be of benefit to us and not to other people. It might be more helpful if the Community were to spend considerably more money on alternative energy sources rather than produce reports which are trying to push us into the nuclear age, whether or not we want to go in that direction.

With regard to what Deputy Keegan said, I want to make it clear that the procedure adopted by Bord na Móna in regard to the acquisition of bogland for their ordinary purposes is not the subject of this Bill; that is where compulsory acquisition is involved. However, I will draw his remarks in this regard to the attention of Bord na Móna. In regard to his remarks about the distribution of briquettes these are based on sales in the year when they were last freely available. When there is a shortage and there has to be an effective form of rationing I believe it should be based on that. People who have come into the business later either do not get supplies or get very little. It is unfortunate that should be so but there has to be some way of dividing them out. That is not an unreasonable way to approach the matter. Deputies will be aware that plans are under-way for a substantial increase in the production of briquettes. In my introductory speech I referred to the factory at Littleton in County Tipperary, which is coming into operation shortly, and, subsequently, another factory which is being built in Ballyforan. The net effect of this should be to more than double the supply of briquettes on the market between the two factories.

I am not sure about Deputy Taylor's suggestion that we go in for retraining through AnCO for people cutting turf. I do not believe it will be necessary but if it is we will have a look at it. I certainly do not contemplate it at the beginning. I explained, in relation to the question of grants for equipment, the distinction between those which are usable for other purposes and those which are not. Deputy Taylor felt that equipment invented for use in turf cutting for attachment to a tractor should be given a grant. I want to make it clear that such an attachment would qualify for a grant but the tractor would not.

Deputy Ciaran Murphy expressed concern about the topography of Wicklow in particular and the countryside in general as a result of the work that will be done under this scheme. I agree with him and I feel a good deal can be done to tackle this problem. I propose to have further discussions with Deputy Murphy in this regard because it is a matter of considerable importance. I believe we can take some precautions which in the case of his constituency and some other cases are of concern to tourism but also of concern to those of us who live in the country.

With regard to Deputy Deasy's plea for the south-east. I assure him that the south-east and the mountainous areas there, where bogs exist, are included in the Bill and qualify the same as areas in the midlands or the west of the country. There is no reason for the exclusion of the south-east. He made the point, somewhat similar to that of Deputy Jimmy Leonard, that advice and help should be given, particularly in areas where there is not a great tradition of turf cutting, and especially where Bord na Móna have not operated. I agree with that and I believe demonstration projects might be helpful. I will be examining those possibilities. I will examine with Bord na Móna the suggestion by Deputy Filgate that the CPS section in Bord na Móna be re-established. I will also examine the transport problem which was referred to by Deputy Filgate and Deputy Deasy.

Deputy Bruton referred to decisions on land use and said they should not be made by the Department of Energy alone. As far as I am aware the only conflict that arises at present in this regard is between energy use, the use of cutting turf on the one hand and tree planting on the other, not agricultural development. I cannot see any substantial agricultural development on bogland, although I can see it on cut-away bog. In any event the decision is not made by the Department of Energy but by the owner or developer of the bog. It is different when we are talking about cut-away and the inter-departmental committee, to which Deputy Bruton referred, have reported. An interim report was published in 1979. It certainly did not give an answer to the problem to which Deputy Bruton adverted and about which Deputy Paddy Lalor was particularly concerned, the depth to which the bog should be cut. Since the experts who got together on it did not give an answer I am afraid I cannot undertake to give an answer here. I can, however, point out, as was pointed out in the interim report, that there is no single answer to this. Physical conditions that obtain vary quite a bit from one part of the country to another, one type of bog to another. What may be appropriate to one place may not be appropriate to another.

To the depth of about six European units of account.

That is a typical non-bogman approach; that is the Dublin slang.

Is it not more appropriate to put the question as to the amount of bog that is to be left above the bed-rock?

The Minister for Energy should be permitted to get on with the bogs for the present. We are getting bogged down.

We cannot give any specific answer to that but in so far as we can, or could do so in the future, it will be controlled by the giving of grants. In other words, it can be made a condition of the grants that the bogs in question will not be stripped down to bedrock. A certain amount will have to be left above it. If we knew the amount that should be left we could provide for that. Up to now, and in the future, where a grant is not involved — there will be a good deal of work going on where grants are not involved although Deputy Lalor seems a little doubtful — we do not have any control at all and it is up to the people concerned as to what they are going to do.

There are many bogs working away valuably producing the equivalent of £47 million worth of oil, the amount we are getting from private production of turf. Those people are operating away and do not need grants to do so. If they wish to develop further they qualify for grants but as they are operating at present they do not need grants. There is a substantial operation in progress at present which will not be subject to any control as far as we are concerned in relation to the depth they go.

That is too bad.

It is, but one might get a little more worked up about it if we knew what we wanted them to do but at present we do not. The experts cannot tell us.

Is that question not likely to be affected by the litigation which the board is entangled in at present about whether the board is legally entitled to acquire and hold on to what is left behind after the turf has been taken off?

I do not think so. I do not wish to get involved in a discussion on the litigation but I am referring to the amount of turf that is being produced privately, non-Bord na Móna production. I believe the Deputy has Bord na Móna production in mind.

I was glad to note that Deputy Cowen agrees with the different rates of grants we propose. When the scheme is in operation we will, as he said, have turf more freely available than at present but I have some doubt — I hope he will be correct in what he said — that because it is more freely available it will be cheaper. I would like to think that that will be so but I would not like to guarantee it. I should like to thank all Deputies who participated for their contributions. If I have not adverted to all the points raised it does not mean I have overlooked them. Any which require to be dealt with in greater detail may be dealt with on Committee Stage. I appreciate the approach Deputies took.

When speaking yesterday I had not understood that the co-ops envisaged by the Minister were ones which would only now be set up for the purpose of taking advantage of the scheme. If that is what he has in mind I can see the point, but I should like to know if the Minister has thought of asking the co-operative movement to advertise the scheme in their own right as being a way in which the co-operative idea can, take hold in circumstances and in districts where they were never heard of before? I am sure they would be anxious to.

I have given some thought to that and I had preliminary discussions with groups on those lines. The Deputy is correct in thinking that they are anxious to help and they feel they can do the job. I also mentioned that I was giving thought to producing a simple leaflet explaining how to go about this. In case the Deputy is under any misapprehension I should like to make it clear that I am not saying that the co-ops envisaged under the scheme will be those which will be newly formed for this purpose because I cannot confine it in that way. I envisage such happening on an extensive scale.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 3 March 1981.
Top
Share