When this Bill was under consideration in the Dáil there were many expressions of surprise and disappointment that the Bill did not herald a new and expanded forest policy for this country and did not provide much wider powers for the Government to extend not merely the State Forest Service but also private forestry enterprises. I wish, therefore, to make it quite clear, in introducing the Bill to this House, that it is not the object of the Bill to pave the way for new forestry schemes nor to provide new powers for the Minister in charge of forestry. Forestry development is not a matter which is dependent on or concerned very much with legislation. The expansion of forestry in this country does not call for any pronounced reorientation of the existing law. The problem in forestry in this country consists in planning to secure, at the right time, in the right places, and in sufficient quantity, land suitable for planting; efficient technical and administrative staff; labour; plants, and fencing, tools and other equipment. Land is inevitably the biggest problem in a country in which there is not anything like enough land to meet agricultural and other needs, and in which much of the waste land not suitable for agriculture is unfortunately equally unsuitable for forestry.
There are many reasons against a solution of this problem by widespread compulsory acquisition, although, of course, compulsory acquisition must on occasions be resorted to. I will have occasion later to refer to this matter more extensively, but for the moment I merely wish to point out that circumstances are such that we must depend principally on the land which the State is in a position to purchase by the ordinary methods of negotiation and agreement for our forest needs, and that there is constant difficulty in securing an adequate and consistent supply of land by these means to permit of the expansion of State Forestry efforts on the scale desired and contemplated.
Technical and administrative staff and trained foresters have in recent years been available to the Department to an extent sufficient to meet current needs. The technical staff is being constantly expanded to keep pace with the expansion of the service within the limits to which other factors, notably land and supplies of materials and plants, permit. Unskilled labour presents no big problem. Seed and plant supplies and supplies of other materials, particularly fencing materials, which must be imported, have proved a serious setback to the forestry service during the war years, but with the resumption of normal conditions of international trade it is my Department's hope that such supplies will soon be available in adequate quantities to meet our needs.
These are the factors by reference to which the possibility of rapid expansion of our forestry service must be estimated and, as I have mentioned, suitable land and supplies of seeds, plants and materials are the main difficulties. The land problem is a difficult one, but I think, nevertheless, that very considerable progress has been made over the past ten to fifteen years and it is my hope that that progress will be sustained, and, in fact, accelerated.
In pre-war years it was the aim of the forestry service to achieve an annual planting rate of 10,000 acres and to maintain that rate until an ultimate area of 600,000 acres of productive forest land was attained. The area actually planted annually showed an increase each year, and in 1938-1939 approximately 7,600 acres were planted. Hopes of the achievement of the 10,000 acres a year programme within a few years were not realised because of the intervention of the war, and our difficulties in securing fencing materials under war-time conditions necessitated a severe limiting of planting activities. We are now again busy at the acceleration of our annual planting programme and, with the strengthening and expansion of the staff which it has been possible to effect during the emergency, I have good hopes that the target of 10,000 acres a year will be attained in a very short time provided that the expected improvement in the general supply position materialises.
That is all I propose to say about the Government's forestry policy, or about the anticipated future of Irish forestry. I repeat that it is not a future dependent in a real sense on legislation and regulations, but on practical factors. This Bill is concerned only with matters of detail which require settlement in the present statutes governing the conduct of State Forestry in Ireland. Those statutes are the Forestry Acts, 1919 and 1928, and, since the Bill proposes to repeal them in toto, it may be well to summarise briefly their main provisions.
The 1919 Act had two objects: it was concerned primarily with the establishment of the Forestry Commission which, so far as this country was concerned, took over the functions formerly discharged by the old Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in relation to forestry. The first positive step taken by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction was in 1904. In the decade preceding the first world war much useful work was accomplished in the establishment of State forest plantations, in an effort to counteract the very heavy clearance of Irish woodlands which had taken place over the previous century. A commencement was also made with the establishment of the Forestry School in Avondale on the provision of training facilities. In 1914 the war brought the forestry efforts of the Department of Agriculture practically to a standstill and the establishment of the Forestry Commission by the 1919 Act represented for this country, as well as for Great Britain, the laying of the foundation stone of a forestry service. The Forestry Commission's functions in this country have since devolved successively on the Department of Agriculture and on the Department of Lands which is now charged with the conduct of State Forestry but the forestry service is still based on the general scheme contemplated by the 1919 Act, although, of course, its virility has been very much strengthened and its activities considerably expanded.
The second purpose served by the 1919 Act was to provide a general legislative framework for the powers and duties of the Forestry Commission in relation to forestry. The commissioners were, inter alia, empowered to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily, utilise and manage land for purposes connected with forestry, make advances by way of grant or loan in respect of the afforestation of land not their property, establish or aid in the establishment of woodland industries, authorise entry on land adjoining forest land for the purpose of destroying rabbits, hares or vermin, and arrange for the compulsory provision of facilities for the haulage of timber from any forest.
The Act of 1928 amended the provisions of the 1919 Act in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land, principally with a view to bringing those provisions into alignment with the land purchase code. Otherwise, the only real changes which it effected in legislation concerned with State forestry, as distinct from private enterprise, were minor ones—a provision enabling the Minister for Agriculture, who was at that time charged with the administration of the forestry service, to obtain requisite information from sawmillers and timber exporters in regard to timber handled by them, and the provision of safeguards against damage to any forest by fire originating on adjoining land.
The main purpose, however, with which the 1928 Act was concerned was the control by the Minister of the felling of trees on lands in private ownership. It had become clear that the more rapid denudation of Irish woodlands during the 1914-1918 period had reduced the native timber stocks of the country to a critically low level and that it would be necessary, in order to restore and maintain a safety margin of timber resources, not merely to accelerate the programme of State forestry to the maximum possible but also to provide the Government with power to restrict the wholesale felling of the remaining timber stocks in private ownership, and power to require that trees felled on privately-owned lands would be replaced by fresh planting. The 1928 Act provided those powers; it enabled the Minister for Agriculture to restrict by prohibition and licence the felling of trees in private woodlands and it empowered him to require persons whom he authorised to fell trees to plant other trees in replacement of the trees so felled.
I have already mentioned that this Bill proposes to repeal the 1919 and 1928 Acts. That proposal is made because a number of minor amendments in their provisions which are necessary can be effected more simply by consolidating the two Acts with the amendments necessary in a new statute. Its purposes briefly are:— First, to modernise, improve and elaborate the provisions of the existing Acts in relation to the Minister's general powers; second, to provide more satisfactory machinery for the compulsory acquisition of land for forestry purposes; third, to improve the provisions of the 1928 Act in regard to the restriction on the felling of trees on lands in private ownership in the light of the administrative experience gained since 1928, and to rectify flaws in those provisions which have become apparent; and fourth, to confer certain additional powers on the Minister in relation to extinguishment of rights over land held by him, the creation of rights-of-way necessary for the proper management of State forests, the prevention of damage to trees and tree plants by hares, and the prevention of damage to forest land by fire originating on adjoining uncultivated land.
The Bill does not introduce new principles nor confer new powers in any major sense and, strictly, it is scarcely necessary for me to say any more about its provisions at this stage. It may, however, help Senators towards consideration of the Bill on the Committee Stage if I avail of this opportunity to give a general summary of the scheme of the Bill with an explanation of the significance of its various provisions.
The Bill is divided into five parts. Part I contains routine provisions concerned with expenses, prosecutions and other matters which call for no comment.
Part II is concerned with the general powers of the Minister in relation to the promotion and development of forestry. Section 9 re-enacts, with certain amendments in detail, none of which is significant, the provisions of the 1919 Act from which the Minister for Lands derives his principal powers relating to forestry. It sets out what the Minister may do within the ambit of his responsibility for the promotion of forestry and allied matters. Section 10 continues another provision of the 1919 Act enabling the Minister to establish a consultative committee to advise on matters relating to forestry, and Section 11 repeats a provision in that Act in regard to the power of officers appointed by the Minister to enter on land for purposes of inspection, etc.
Part III deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, the extinguishment of easements over State forest land and the creation of temporary and permanent rights-of-way appurtenant to forests. It is divided into three chapters.
The first chapter requires little comment. It contains definitions and incidental provisions of a necessary nature in relation to proceedings before the lay commissioners of the Irish Land Commission and the appeal tribunal under Part III of the Bill. Section 15 provides that, in the assessment of the value of any interest in land or the fixing of compensation under this Part by the lay commissioners, the standards of value settled by Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, shall apply. Section 16 empowers the lay commissioners and the appeal tribunal to award costs in proceedings before them. Sections 17 and 18 settle the procedure to be followed in the actual disbursement of compensation, and provide for the payment by the Minister, or whoever else is required to pay compensation, of the costs involved in the production of title for the purpose of claiming the compensation. The machinery adopted is based on that of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to the prior discharge of debts due to the State by any person to whom compensation is payable.
The second chapter deals with rights over or appurtenant to forest lands. Section 19 enables the Minister for Lands to apply to the lay commissioners of the Land Commission for an order extinguishing easements in or over land held by him. Its object is to provide an avenue for the extinguishment of any rights to which land was subject at the time of acquisition, and which prove a hindrance to the utilisation of the land for forestry purposes. The powers to be given by the section will also be used in some instances to obviate recourse to the more complicated provisions of Part III in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land.
Where, for instance, the Minister desires to acquire a particular piece of land, and one person entitled to some right or other over the land which would seriously interfere with its utilisation for forestry purposes is not willing to negotiate with the Minister for the extinguishment of his right, but all other persons interested in the land are prepared to dispose of their interests to the Minister, the Minister can acquire the interests of those other persons by agreement, and avail of the provisions of Section 19 to deal with the recalcitrant party. In the absence of Section 19, the only course open to him would be to institute compulsory acquisition proceedings. The institution of compulsory proceedings in a case such as that I have mentioned would be rather like using a shotgun to exterminate a mouse. Reasonable safeguards are provided to ensure that the powers given by the section will not be abused. The Minister will not have an absolute power to extinguish any rights which he may desire to terminate. He is only empowered to apply to the Land Commission, and it will be for the Land Commission to consider as an independent impartial body whether or not the right is to be extinguished. An application to the Land Commission by the Minister will be heard in the first instance by lay commissioners, and an appeal will lie to the appeal tribunal. Extinguishment of a right under the section will impose on the Minister the obligation of paying compensation which will fall to be assessed, in default of agreement, by the lay commissioners, subject again to a right of appeal to the appeal tribunal.
Section 20 replaces a provision of the Forestry Act, 1919, under which the Minister at present is empowered to make an order requiring an owner or occupier of land to afford facilities for the haulage of timber from any wood or forest to a road, railway or waterway. The section proposes to take this power out of the hands of the Minister and to allot it to the Land Commission. Where an owner of timber requires facilities, in its extraction, for its haulage over land adjoining a wood or forest, he may apply to the lay commissioners for an order granting him a right-of-way exercisable for a specified period, which may not exceed 12 months. The decision of the lay commissioners on the application will be open to an appeal to the appeal tribunal. Compensation in respect of any temporary right-of-way granted by an order made by the lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal under Section 20 will be payable to the owner and the occupier of the land over which the right is exercisable, and such owner or occupier may require the person to whom the right is granted to restore the land over which the right is exercisable to its original condition on the expiration of the right. Compensation will, in default of agreement, be assessed by the lay commissioners subject to appeal to the appeal tribunal.
Section 21 is concerned with the creation of permanent rights-of-way appurtenant to State forests. Where the Minister requires a right-of-way over land in the vicinity of a State forest for purposes connected with the management, etc., of that forest, he may apply to the lay commissioners for an order creating the required right-of-way. The lay commissioners will have the widest possible discretion in regard to their decision on his application, subject to suitable appeal to the appeal tribunal. Compensation will be payable in respect of rights created under the section, and will, in default of agreement, be assessed by the lay commissioners subject to appeal to the appeal tribunal. The distinction between this section and Section 20 is that Section 20 applies to woods and forests in private ownership as well as to State forests, but provides only for the grant of temporary rights, while Section 21 has reference solely to State forests, but provides for instances in which a permanent right-of-way is necessary.
The third chapter in Part III deals solely with the machinery to govern the compulsory acquisition of land for forestry purposes. The existing procedure as provided by the 1919 and 1928 Acts is being replaced by a procedure retaining the requirement that the concurrence of the Land Commission be obtained as a necessary preliminary to compulsory acquisition, but availing of the machinery of the Land Commission to settle compensation questions instead of providing for their settlement, as at present, under the Lands Clauses Acts. The new procedure proposed is intended to permit of the assessment of compensation in advance of the final acquisition of any particular lands. This particular feature of Chapter III is intended to meet the peculiar requirements of the forestry service. Compulsory acquisition in the normal course of State or local administration is not subordinate to considerations of price. Usually where a Government Department or local authority requires land for its public undertakings, a particular site must be obtained irrespective of cost, and the relevant statute provides power for the compulsory acquisition of the land and the settlement of all compensation issues afterwards. The question of price must, however, be given more significance in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land for forestry purposes. The forestry needs of the country demand that, ultimately, a certain minimum forest area be created but there is not the same immediate need for the acquisition of any one particular estate or holding as there may be where that particular site is suitable for an aerodrome or some other similar immediate purpose. If a particular estate or holding can be acquired at a reasonable cost, that is, at a cost which will permit of its economic development as a forest unit, then its acquisition is desirable. If, however, the compensation payable is likely to prove excessive, it is the better policy to look elsewhere for land for forestry. It is, therefore, desirable that, before the Minister finally proceeds to acquire any particular piece of land, he should know the total amount of compensation which he will have to pay.
In regard to the detail of the provisions of this chapter, I do not think much comment is necessary. Section 22 provides necessary powers for the investigation of title to any land which the Minister proposes to acquire compulsorily. Under its provisions, the Minister will be enabled, where he considers it desirable to acquire land, to require persons having an interest therein to furnish particulars of their interests.
Section 23 enables the Minister to apply to the lay commissioners of the Land Commission for an order,—an acquisition order—authorising him to acquire compulsorily any land which he desires to acquire and is unable to acquire by agreement. An acquisition order may not provide for the acquisition of land which is required for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house, is the property of a local authority, has been acquired by a corporation or company for the purposes of a public undertaking, or is the site of a national monument owned by the Commissioners of Public Works. Subject to this condition, the lay commissioners will have absolute discretion to decide whether or not to grant an acquisition order in respect of any particular land which the Minister proposes to acquire. Their decision will, however, be subject to an appeal to the appeal tribunal.
The provisions which I have just outlined differ from those of the existing law in two main respects. First, under the existing law, the acquisition of land which forms part of any park, demesne, garden or pleasure-ground or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or the acquisition of any land required for the purposes of relieving congestion, is prohibited. These prohibitions have been removed but the Land Commission will now have full discretion to grant or refuse an acquisition order, whereas, under the provisions of the 1919 Act as amended by the 1928 Act, the Land Commission had no discretion. Provided any land which the Minister desired to acquire compulsorily for forestry did not fall into one or other of the categories of land the acquisition of which was precluded, the Land Commission had to grant the order authorising acquisition sought by the Minister. They will now have full power to consider each application on its merits and will, of course, be in a position to have regard to any representations made to them in regard to the possible desirability of devoting the land to other purposes, utilising it for the relief of congestion, etc., or to any plea made by the existing owner or occupier of the land to the effect that its acquisition by the Minister for forestry purposes would deprive him of his means of livelihood.
This Bill proposes much more limited powers of compulsory acquisition than are normally provided in statutes dealing with State projects for which the acquisition of land may prove necessary, and even the limited powers of compulsory acquisition which are proposed in the Bill will be rarely utilised. Compulsory proceedings will never be instituted where it is reasonably contended that the land concerned is more suitable for, and should in the interests of the community be devoted to, sheep grazing or some other purpose. Afforestation cannot be conducted in this country on the basis of compelling the owners of land to hand it over to the forestry service against their wishes.
That principle must be upheld, no matter how difficult it may be to acquire an adequate area of land for the fulfilment of a national forest policy. If the owners of land or persons entitled to grazing rights on land strenuously, and in all good faith, object to parting with their land or rights, my Department will not proceed to acquire their land compulsorily. To do so would be to court lasting trouble and loss against which there could be no adequate safeguards. Compulsory powers of acquisition are required mainly to facilitate the acquisition of land for forestry where there is general agreement that the land should be devoted to forestry, and that the locality would benefit by the establishment of a forest centre, but the Minister and the parties who own or have interests in the land fail to reach agreements about the price, the allocation of the purchase money, or some other such matter. Compulsory proceedings will also be resorted to in cases where land is subject to interests of so complicated or extensive a nature that purchase by agreement is not practicable. There is much mountain land in this country devoted to rough grazing and held in commonage by local smallholders, which would be suitable for forestry purposes, and the devotion of that land to forestry would benefit everybody. Its acquisition for forestry by the ordinary method of negotiation and agreement is, however, not infrequently found to be a hopeless proposition. The provisions of Section 23 of the Bill are designed to permit of the operation of the machinery of compulsory purchase in such cases.
An acquisition order made under Section 23 will remain in force for a period of two years from the date on which it comes into operation and, at any time during that period of two years, the Minister may, under the powers which Section 26 proposes to confer on him, make a vesting order vesting the lands in him in fee-simple. Sections 28 and 29 should be read with Section 26. They contain necessary provisions relating to the entry of the Minister into possession of land vested in him by a vesting order made under Section 26.
Sections 24 and 25 provide for the assessment of the value of any interest in land the subject of an acquisition order, the provisional apportionment of annual sums to which land the subject of an acquisition order is liable in conjunction with other lands, and the assessment of the value of the part of any such annual sum so apportioned to the land the subject of the order. The assessment, etc., will be effected, on the application of the Minister, by the lay commissioners, subject to an appeal by either the Minister or the person enjoying the right, or entitled to the annual sum concerned, to the appeal tribunal. These sections will enable the Minister to have the values of all interests in land which he proposes to vest in himself, in accordance with the authority given by an acquisition order under Section 23, assessed before he proceeds to acquire the land by making a vesting order under Section 27. Sections 30 and 31, which provide for the payment and assessment of compensation in respect of land compulsorily acquired by the Minister, contain provisions under which the amount of compensation in respect of any particular interest or interests in the land will, in default of agreement, be assessed by the lay commissioners, with an appeal to the appeal tribunal, but will be subject to the overriding maximum of any value assessed on the interest or interests concerned under Sections 24 and 25. Section 32 contains necessary provisions as to the allocation of compensation in respect of mortgaged interests and as to the effect of such allocation on the relations of the mortgagor and the mortgagee under the mortgage.
Sections 27, 33 and 34 require little comment. Section 27 is concerned with the apportionment of State annuities to which land being acquired compulsorily is subject in conjunction with other lands. Section 33 provides specially for the more expeditious fixation and payment of compensation in respect of small parcels of land and Section 34 provides for the non-application of the Lands Clauses Acts, except for certain provisions of those Acts made applicable by other sections.
Before passing from this part of the Bill, I would like to refer again to the fact that, under these provisions, compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of land for forestry, the extinguishment of easements over land held by the Minister and the creation of rights-of-way appurtenant to woods or forests, will, in default of agreement, be assessed by the Land Commission instead of being assessed under the machinery provided by the Lands Clauses Acts. There was some criticism of this proposal when the Bill was under consideration in the Dáil because it was contended that the Land Commission, being associated with the Minister for Lands, could not consider compensation questions impartially. This is a contention which I cannot accept. Except in matters reserved to the Minister under the Land Purchase Acts, the Land Commission is, and must necessarily be, independent of Departmental control and that independence will, of course, apply equally to the consideration by the Land Commission of questions to be referred to them under this Bill.
The proposal to utilise the Land Commission machinery to settle compensation questions has been put forward solely because the Land Commission is the most competent body to assess compensation in respect of the type of land with which we are here concerned or in respect of rights of way or other rights relating to lands. By no other means, apart from the utilisation of the machinery of the Land Commission, could such a competent body be obtained for arbitration purposes—a body with the background of knowledge and experience gained from constant association with, and implementation of, the Land Acts and with the added benefits that the decision, in the first instance, will rest not on one arbitrator but on a group of arbitrators, namely, the lay commissioners designated to deal with matters arising under the Bill, and that there will be an appeal to a higher body, namely, the appeal tribunal, which is also eminently competent to deal with such matters and which will have had no previous knowledge of, or contact with, the issues under appeal. The appeal tribunal consists of a judge of the High Court and of two land commissioners to whom, in the ordinary course of their duties, questions or cases that are appealable are never referred before the appeal is taken.
Part IV of the Bill deals with restrictions on the felling of trees on lands in private ownership and allied matters, and replaces the corresponding provisions of the 1928 Act. The scheme of control devised by the 1928 Act has proved in general satisfactory and adequate to meet its purposes and is easily workable. The provisions incorporated in the Bill will merely continue the scheme, with alterations in detail and elaborations the necessity for which has become apparent from experience. This Part of the Bill is, however, necessarily complicated in its provisions and it may be desirable to summarise the significant features of each section.
Section 35 contains definitions for the purposes of Part IV. None of these definitions is significant except that relating to exempted trees, the purport of which I will explain in relation to Section 40. The section also provides specially for certain cases in which it is necessary to treat with the Land Commission instead of the owner of land, where the land has passed through the hands of the Land Commission, and trees standing thereon have been reserved to the Land Commission, and for cases in which land is vested in the Land Commission and it is desirable to treat, not with the Land Commission who still retain the legal ownership of the land, but with a tenant-purchaser or purchaser who is the equitable, though not the legal, owner of the land.
Section 36 enables the Minister by Order to exclude any particular species of tree from the provisions of Part IV, or from any of those provisions. There is a similar saving clause in the 1928 Act.
Section 37 is the important basic section on which the scheme of control depends. It provides for the giving of a felling notice in relation to trees over ten years old which it is proposed to uproot, or trees of any age which it is proposed to cut down, except in the case of certain trees which are being excluded from its operation. As under the 1928 Act, the felling notice will be given to the sergeant in charge of the nearest Gárda station, who will be responsible for transmitting it to the Forestry Division, and the notice must be given not less than 21 days before the tree is uprooted or cut down. The provision differs from the corresponding provision in the 1928 Act in so far as a notice will remain effective only for a period of two years, whereas no time limit existed under the 1928 Act, and a notice must be given by the owner of the tree. The limitation of the life of a felling notice to two years is proposed mainly for reasons of administrative convenience in order to obviate the need for keeping records of felling notices given in perpetuity. The other change, that is, as to the person who is to give the notice, is a more important one to which I will refer later.
The exceptional cases in which a felling notice need not be given in respect of the uprooting or cutting down of a tree, as set out in sub-section (4) of Section 37, include the categories of tree which were excepted from the requirement that a felling notice be given under the 1928 Act, and certain additional categories of tree—trees standing in a county borough, etc., or within 100 feet of a building—in respect of which a felling notice must be given under the present law, but the felling of which the Minister may not prohibit, and certain other trees such as trees being cut down by a local authority in connection with road construction, trees dangerous to road traffic, or which constitute a danger or obstruction to telegraph or telephone wires.
Section 38 is a corollary to Section 39 dealing with the prohibition by the Minister of the felling of trees in respect of which a felling notice has been given. The Minister's power to prohibit the felling of trees under Section 39 is limited to the extent that he may not prohibit the felling of a tree in respect of which it was stated in the relevant felling notice that it was intended to uproot or cut down the tree for the purpose of transplantation. Section 38 contains necessary provision that, where it was stated in a felling notice that it was intended to uproot a tree for the purpose of transplantation, the tree may not be cut down in pursuance of the notice, or if uprooted in pursuance of the notice must be transplanted and may not be used for any other purpose. In the absence of this provision it would be possible to evade the restrictions of Part IV of the Bill on the uprooting or cutting down of trees simply by stating in a felling notice that it was intended to uproot a tree to transplant it. Since that statement had been made the Minister could not prohibit the felling of the tree and, as soon as the statutory period of 21 days elapsed, the tree could be cut down or uprooted and sold to a saw-miller or used for any other purpose. Section 38 will prevent such evasion of the Act.
Section 39 provides that, within 21 days after the date on which a felling notice is given in relation to any tree, the Minister may make a prohibition Order prohibiting the felling of the tree, and the tree may not then be felled unless the Minister subsequently grants a limited felling licence under Section 40 authorising the cutting down or uprooting of the tree. The purpose of this provision is to enable the Minister to place a stay on the felling of a tree in respect of which a felling notice has been given where he considers it desirable to have an inspection made by the Department. If the inspection, when made, makes it clear that the felling of the tree may be permitted then the Minister will grant a limited felling licence under Section 40; otherwise he will refuse to grant the licence and the prohibition on the felling of the tree imposed by the prohibition Order will automatically be absolute.
Section 40 empowers the Minister to grant a limited felling licence authorising the felling, during a period of 12 months, of any tree in respect of which he has made a prohibition Order. The power is discretionary except in the case of a tree belonging to one or other of the classes of exempted trees set out in the definition of exempted trees in Section 35. Under the present law the Minister may not make a prohibition Order in respect of these exempted trees. It is considered, however, that the Minister should have an opportunity of satisfying himself by inspection or inquiry that trees claimed to be exempted are, in fact, so exempted. That is why it is now proposed to permit the making of a prohibition Order in these cases but to provide that where the Minister satisfies himself later that the tree is in fact exempted he may not refuse to grant a limited felling licence. The limitation of the authority conferred by a licence to a period of 12 months is a departure from the present law proposed in the light of considerations already mentioned in relation to the same point as regards felling notices. The licence will be granted to the owner of the land on which the tree stands instead of the owner of the tree as heretofore. This is an important change designed to restrain land owners from escaping replanting obligations by selling trees before applying for a licence, thus placing the Department in the position that the licence had to be granted to a sawmiller or whoever else purchased the trees and who, not being the owner of the land, could not be obliged to replant.
Section 41 empowers the Minister to attach to a limited felling licence, which does not relate exclusively to exempted trees, either replanting conditions or a preservation condition or conditions, or both. Both replanting conditions and preservation conditions will be binding on the licensee and on his successors in title to lands specified in the conditions, and the particular obligations of preservation and protection will in each case be binding also on any other person who may at any time be in occupation of the land. Where the authority to fell trees conferred by a licence is not fully availed of, the Minister will have discretion to modify replanting conditions or preservation conditions attached to the licence.
The attachment of replanting conditions to a limited felling licence will not represent a new departure. Such conditions could be attached to licences granted under the 1928 Act. The scope of the conditions which will in future be attached to licences is, however, being widened to express better the intentions of the provision and to ensure that trees planted in compliance therewith will be properly planted and preserved until they are old enough to come within the restrictive provisions of Section 37. The licensee will be required to plant specified trees on specified land in his ownership within a period of not less than 12 months or such extended period as the Minister may allow, and to preserve and protect the trees so planted until they are at least ten years old, and may, if the Minister so thinks fit, be specifically required to fence the area on which the trees are to be planted as a measure of protection.
Preservation conditions represent a new departure. They will require the licensee to preserve and protect for a period of 11 years trees which are growing, or which in consequence of natural regeneration may grow, or which may be planted, on specified land in his ownership, and may, if the Minister so thinks fit, require the licensee to fence the specified land as a measure of protection. Preservation conditions will only be attached to licences in occasional instances in substitution or part substitution for replanting conditions where the interests of national forestry are likely to be best served by requiring the licensee to preserve properly an existing plantation.
Section 42 empowers the Minister to attach to any limited felling licence, to which he has not attached either replanting conditions or a preservation condition or conditions and which does not relate exclusively to exempted trees, a contributing condition requiring the licensee to pay a specified contribution towards the expenses of State forestry before felling any tree under the authority conferred by the licence. The contribution which the licensee will be required to pay will be assessed having regard to the expenses which he would have had to incur in compliance with replanting conditions attached to his licence, if the attachment of replanting conditions to the licence had been practicable and if the Minister had, in fact, so attached replanting conditions. The power to attach a contributing condition to a licence is intended to cover rare instances in which, having regard to the number and type of trees which the applicant for a licence proposes to fell, the Minister is of opinion that grounds exist for the attachment of replanting or preservation conditions to a licence and where the Minister is reasonably precluded from attaching such conditions to the licence because of the nonpossession by the applicant of land suitable or properly usable for forestry purposes, or because the applicant reasonably desires to use the only land available for replanting for other purposes and the Minister concurs in the applicant's view that it should be so used or for other abnormal reasons. The 1928 Act established the principle that an owner of land on which trees were standing, who desired to fell the trees, had in respect of those trees an obligation to the community which he should be required to discharge by establishing a fresh plantation in lieu of the trees felled by him. This provision is based on the same principle and will provide a means of requiring a licensee to discharge his obligation to the community, where he is not himself in a position to undertake replanting. His obligation to the community will be discharged by his contributing towards the cost of the establishment of plantations by the State.
Section 43 provides for the suspension or termination of a limited felling licence where the Minister is satisfied that its terms are being abused. No such power of suspension or termination was given to the Minister by the 1928 Act, but it is necessary and reasonable that there should be such a power.
Section 44 is concerned with a particular type of case in which it may be desirable for the Minister to refuse to grant a limited felling licence, that is, the case in which an owner of land desires to fell trees the preservation of which is necessary for the purposes of preserving scenic beauty. Section 11 of the 1928 Act endeavoured to deal with this matter by empowering the Minister to pay compensation to the owner of any tree the felling of which he refused to authorise solely with a view to the preservation of scenic beauty. That provision was inadequate and unsatisfactory. The Minister was empowered to compensate the owner of the tree for the restriction of his power to dispose of it, but the Minister was given no power to ensure the proper preservation and protection of the tree. After compensation had been paid the owner of the tree could cease to take an interest in it and perhaps wilfully bring about its death or decay. He would be particularly liable to do so if he wanted to clear the tree or trees concerned off his land. In the amended provision in this section it is stipulated that the Minister may not refuse an application for a limited felling licence solely for the purpose of preserving amenities unless the district planning authority, within the meaning of the Town and Regional Planning Acts, within whose planning district the tree is situated, consents to that refusal. Where a licence is so refused the owner of the land on which the tree stands may require the district planning authority to acquire the site of the tree subject to the right of the planning authority to acquire also other land in his ownership in the immediate vicinity on which there are standing other trees the preservation of which appears to them equally necessary for the preservation of amenities, or which is required for the purpose of affording protection to, or ready access to, trees being preserved. Compensation will be payable by the district planning authority in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as modified for the purposes of the Public Health Acts.
Sections 45, 46 and 47 must be taken together. Section 45 provides that, where it was claimed in a felling notice that a tree is an exempted tree, that tree may not, when felled, be used for any purpose contrary to that claim unless the Minister has authorised its use for a specified other purpose by the grant under Section 46 of a utilisation (exempted trees) Order. Section 47 provides that a tree, the use of which for a specified purpose has been authorised by a utilisation (exempted trees) Order, may not be used for any other purpose. Provision is made in Section 46 for the attachment of replanting or preservation conditions to utilisation (exempted trees) Orders in the same way as such conditions may be attached to limited felling licences. These three sections are together intended to close a loophole by which the provisions of the Act might be evaded. In the absence of these provisions, it would be possible to escape replanting or preservation conditions by claiming in a felling notice that it was intended to use trees for a purpose which would exempt them from the Minister's power to attach either replanting or preservation conditions to a limited felling licence, although in fact it was intended to use the trees for commercial purposes. Section 45 will prevent any other such use of the trees except under the authority of a utilisation (exempted trees) Order and subject to replanting or preservation conditions.
Section 48 is concerned solely with ensuring that, where replanting conditions have been attached to licences under the 1928 Act, the licensees will fulfil the obligations of replanting properly. It provides that the existing conditions attached to 1928 Act licences will be replaced by new conditions of like extent but expressed in the more detailed terms which will be used in future replanting conditions under the provisions of Section 41. The new conditions so attached will not be more onerous than the existing conditions were intended to be, and they will not impose any fresh obligations upon the licensees apart from obligations in relation to the proper planting of trees and their preservation and protection implied in the existing conditions but not expressly stated therein. The new conditions will be binding in like manner as replanting conditions attached to future limited felling licences, and the Minister will have like discretionary power to modify the conditions if the licensee does not avail in full of the authority to fell trees conferred on him by the felling licence.
In considering the replanting, preservation and protection conditions mentioned in the Bill and already referred to by me it has to be taken into account that the Department is prepared to make a grant of £10 for every acre of replanting done to the satisfaction of the Department in the same way, and on the same conditions, as the payment of the grant applies to fresh plantations.
Section 49 provides for the grant of general felling licences similar to the general permits for which provision was made in the 1928 Act. General felling licences may be granted where an owner of woodland, who is managing his woodland in accordance with the proper practice of forestry, desires to fell trees in the course of thinning operations or in the course of clearing land with a view to replanting, without having to give a felling notice in respect of each individual tree felled. The general felling licence will convey an omnibus authority to fell trees for the particular purpose contemplated during a definite specified period without the giving of felling notices. When a licence authorises the clearance of land with a view to replanting there will be attached to it afforestation conditions imposing a statutory obligation on the licensee to replant. A wide discretion will be left to the licensee in regard to the type and number of trees to be planted in compliance with afforestation conditions, but he will have to carry out the planting in accordance with the practice of good forestry.
Section 50 needs no comment. It is concerned with the statement in licences, etc., of conditions attached thereto.
Section 51 is intended to prevent a circumvention of the earlier provisions of the Act by making it an offence to remove timber from any tree otherwise than in accordance with the practice of good forestry or for the purpose of preventing grave damage to crops, or to take any action in relation to a tree calculated or likely to result in its death or decay. In Section 35 the expression "cut down" in relation to a tree is defined in order to prevent ill-disposed persons from cutting through the trunk of a tree to such an extent as to render the tree liable to fall under the influence of natural agencies. The definition of "cut down" given in Section 35 would not prevent the cutting of a trunk of a tree at a height of more than six feet from the ground or the wholesale removal of branches therefrom, and this section is therefore necessary to preclude the wholesale cutting of trees at a little over six feet from the ground surface or the destruction of trees so as to render them exempt. The provisions of Section 51 will, of course, not be utilised to prevent people removing branches from trees because they are obstructing paths, etc., or for the purposes of providing cart-shafts or anything of that nature necessary to agricultural pursuits. Such removal of branches would not be contrary to the practice of good forestry. The section is intended to prevent deliberate evasion of the Act in wholesale fashion, and its provisions will be utilised for that purpose and that purpose alone.
Section 52 is an elaboration of the restrictions already in existence. It provides that where a person precluded the Minister from imposing on him replanting or preservation conditions by breaking the law, and is convicted of his illegal act, the Minister will have power to make a replanting Order imposing a replanting obligation on him. A person who complies with the law by giving a felling notice and, in the event of a prohibition Order being served on him, does not cut down his trees until he receives a licence will be liable to replanting conditions by way of their attachment to the licence, and he cannot escape those conditions; even if he neglects to comply with them and is convicted of an offence for such neglect, the obligation to replant remains. It continues no matter how often or how heavily he is fined for non-compliance. It would be inequitable that the more serious offender who completely ignores the Act would be liable for a single fine and be free from any obligation to replant.
Indeed, instances might occur in which an owner of woodland who desired to use the land for some other purpose, perhaps of no benefit to the community, or even to let it lie derelict would cheerfully face the prospect of being fined for breaking the law by felling the trees without authority. He might regard the fine as a good investment in so far as he would then be free to do with the land whatever he wished. In such cases the provisions of Section 52 enabling the Minister to make replanting Orders will have a restraining influence.
Section 53 deals only with the limitation of certain penalties in relation to offences affecting large numbers of trees where the offences were due to bona fide errors. Section 54 is concerned with the registration in the land registry of burdens on land arising from the attachment of replanting or other conditions to licences, etc.
Sections 55 and 56 continue provisions in the 1928 Act relating to the reference of objections to a panel of referees. The functions of the panel of referees established under the 1928 Act were confined to the examination of objections to the refusal by the Minister to grant felling licences. The provisions in the new Bill will enable, not only objections to the Minister's refusal to grant a limited felling licence, but also almost every conceivable objection which an affected party might have in regard to the Minister's actions under Part IV of the Bill, to be referred to a referee. The Minister will consider every report made by a referee on an objection referred to him and must furnish a copy of the report to the person who raised the objection. He may take any action which he may consider appropriate in the light of the referee's report to meet the objection raised.
Section 57 does not require comment. It merely contains transitory provisions necessary to link up proceedings initiated under the 1928 Act with the provisions in the Bill itself.
I have yet to deal with Part V of the Bill, which is concerned with miscellaneous matters.
Sections 58, 59 and 60 are concerned with the prevention of damage to woods due to the depredations of rabbits and other vermin and of hares. Section 58 deals with rabbits and vermin other than hares. It continues a provision of the 1919 Act empowering the Minister to take steps to prevent damage to trees or tree plants by reason of the presence on any land of rabbits or vermin. When the Minister is satisfied that such damage is taking place, or is liable to take place, he may serve a notice on the occupier of the land drawing attention to the damage and urging him to take steps either to destroy the rabbits or vermin or otherwise to prevent the damage, and if the occupier of the land does not comply with the notice the Minister may authorise entry on the land to destroy the rabbits or vermin.
Section 59 and 60 are concerned with the destruction of hares which are causing damage to plantations. Section 59 deals with the State forests and has the effect of relieving the Minister and his agents of the obligation of compliance with the provisions of the Game Preservation Act, 1930, in so far as these provisions would restrict the destruction of hares on the State forest lands. Section 60 confers on the Minister power in the first instance to authorise an owner of planted land, or of land adjoining planted land, to destroy hares thereon, the presence of which on that land is causing or likely to cause damage to trees or tree plants growing on the planted land, notwithstanding the provisions of the Game Preservation Act, and also confers power on the Minister to authorise entry on land adjoining planted land for the purpose of destroying the hares thereon where he has first given an opportunity to the owner or occupier of the land to destroy the hares and where the owner or occupier has failed to do so.
Section 61 proposes to continue a provision of the 1928 Act designed to minimise the danger of fire started on land adjoining a wood spreading to the wood. It requires that any person proposing to burn vegetation on any land within one mile of a wood not his property shall serve notice of his intention on the owner of the wood and on the sergeant in charge of the Gárda Síochána station nearest to the wood. The owner of the wood may serve a counter-notice objecting to the proposed burning, and where injury is caused to a wood by the burning of vegetation on adjoining land the person who burned the vegetation will be liable for damages in respect of such injury if he failed to give the required notice or, having done so, received a counter-notice.
Section 62 empowers the Minister to authorise entry on uncultivated land to destroy vegetation growing thereon within 150 feet of any wood where he is satisfied that the wood is liable to be damaged by fire originating on uncultivated land, and where the owner or occupier fails to comply with a notice served on him requiring him to remove the vegetation.
Under Section 63 the Minister will have power to obtain statistical information from sawmillers and timber exporters, dealing with timber in the rough or round state. A similar power was given to the Minister by the 1928 Act.
Section 65 proposes to transfer to the Minister for Agriculture powers at present exercisable by the Minister for Lands under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts. The powers concerned relate to insects and pests destructive only to forest trees and timber. It is considered preferable that the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts should be administered by one Department. There will, of course, be co-operation between my Department and the Department of Agriculture in relation to the control of insects and pests which represent a danger to timber or timber trees.
I feel sure that the members of the Seanad would like the destruction of one particular kind of pest, especially since they had to listen to all that I have read. I thought it better to give the House the fullest information I could about the Bill, so that Senators would have everything they would need to know about it when they came to deal with the Bill in Committee.
