Senator Duffy made some suggestions as regards propaganda and publicity and I had an amendment drafted to meet his point. I think the amendment should meet Senator Duffy's point of view.
Forestry Bill, 1945—Report and Final Stages.
Amendment No. 1. Government amendment:—
In page 6, Section 9, sub-section (1), after paragraph (j), to insert the following new paragraph:—
(k) disseminate, or aid in the dissemination of information likely, in his opinion, to arouse, stimulate, or increase, public interest in forestry or woodland industries;.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2. Government amendment:—
In page 8, at the end of Section 14, line 55, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) Where, in the course of the hearing of an appeal to the appeal tribunal under any section contained in this Part, any party to the appeal requests the appeal tribunal to refer a question of law arising on the appeal to the Supreme Court by way of case stated for the determination of the Supreme Court, the appeal tribunal shall refer the question to the Supreme Court accordingly, and adjourn its decision on the appeal pending the determination of such case stated.
Senator Sweetman and, I think, Senator Ryan and Senator Kingsmill Moore, made certain points on Section 14 in regard to an appeal to the Supreme Court. I found it very difficult to get an amendment or to rearrange the Bill so as to meet the wishes of Senators, but I think I have done so in this way. I think that should meet the Senator's point.
The form of this amendment completely meets the point I raised on the Committee Stage, and I would like to express appreciation of the manner in which the Minister has met this matter. The first draft was not satisfactory so far as I was concerned, but I want to say that I am completely satisfied with this draft.
Sir, I would like to say also that I am quite satisfied with the amendment introduced by the Minister. I have to thank him for the trouble he and his officials have taken in connection with the question of an appeal to the Supreme Court. I feel that this amendment will be exceptionally valuable in cases where it is desired that there should be an appeal from the appeal tribunal.
I concur with the wishes of the other legal members of the House in thanking the Minister for meeting the wishes expressed on the Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3. Government amendment:—
In page 9, to delete sub-section (1) of Section 16, lines 11 to 20 inclusive, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(1) (a) In any proceedings under this Part heard and determined by the lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal, the lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal, as the case may be, may direct that the costs and expenses of any party to such proceedings shall be paid by any other party thereto, and they may also, on the application of such first-mentioned party, issue an order for the levying of the amount (as taxed or measured in accordance with paragraph (b) of this sub-section) of such costs and expenses together with the costs of obtaining such order.
(b) Where the lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal direct, under paragraph (a) of this sub-section, that the costs and expenses of any party to proceedings heard and determined by them shall be paid by any other party thereto, the said costs and expenses shall be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court, unless both the said parties agree that the said costs and expenses should be measured by the lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal, as the case may be, in which case the said costs and expenses shall be so measured.
This question arose on Section 16. I assume that it fairly well meets the point raised in the discussion.
I would like to say that it meets the point of view which I and other Senators held on the Committee Stage in regard to this section.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4. Government amendment:—
In page 11, Section 17, sub-section (9), after paragraph (b), to insert the following new paragraph:—
(c) If any person (other than the Minister), who is liable to pay compensation under Section 20 of this Act, fails to comply with the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section, any person, who is competent to give an effective discharge for such compensation, may recover from such first-mentioned person such compensation and the interest payable thereon under paragraph (b) of this sub-section as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.
This particular section is affected by a later section. Senators Sweetman and O'Dea have raised the question of the possibility of a man who gave a right-of-way, or was compelled to give a right-of-way, for the removal of timber being unable to collect compensation which it was determined he should receive, because the particular contractor who was utilising the right-of-way might not be in a sound financial position. It is difficult to meet that particular case, but I am offering this amendment to Section 17.
I do not know if that quite meets the point that was made by Senators Sweetman and O'Dea in regard to the difficulty which they suggested is inherent in the particular section.
This amendment, so far as it goes, is a very good amendment, but it does not altogether meet the point made on the previous stage. The point might perhaps be met to some extent by my amendment, No. 6, but, after last week, perhaps it will be better to wait until we reach amendment No. 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5. Government amendment:—
In page 11, to delete sub-section (2) of Section 19, lines 55 to 59, inclusive, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(2) The Minister shall, immediately upon making an application for an extinguishing Order, do the following things:—
(a) publish the prescribed notice of the application in theIris Oifigiúil and in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situate, and
(b) serve a copy of such notice on the occupier (if any) of the land to which any easement to which the application relates is believed to be appurtenant and on every person who appears to the Minister to be the owner of any such land, if it is practicable to ascertain that person.
I think this will meet the point raised by Senator Sweetman in connection with Section 19, to delete lines 55 to 59 inclusive.
I am quite satisfied.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6.
In page 14, Section 20, sub-section (1), after paragraph (i) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(j) The lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal (as the case may be) may, if they so think fit, direct that the compensation payable under sub-section (4) of this section be paid before any Order made under this sub-section shall come into force and may further direct the applicant to give such security as may seem reasonable to ensure the performance by the applicant of any conditions attached to the said Order and of the requirements imposed by sub-section (5) of this section.
This amendment takes the position a little further in regard to temporary rights-of-way than the Minister proposes to take it in regard to permanent rights. What is worrying me is that a man getting a temporary right-of-way may prove to be a man of straw. The possibility is that under the sub-section, as it is phrased at present, compensation would not be payable until the temporary right-of way has been used. The owner of the land might in theory have the right of redress in law, but he would not have that right in fact because the person who removes the timber is a man of straw.
The section makes it clear that if a road is laid for the removal of timber, it must be taken up and the land put back in proper condition for agricultural purposes if that is required, but again, that cannot be done until the whole job is finished and the person removing the timber has got away with what he wanted, collected his profit, and cleared out. My amendment suggests that on the hearing of an application for a temporary right-of-way, the lay commissioners or the tribunal, as the case may be, would have power to direct that compensation would be paid before the right was used or that there would be some form of security required. It would be undesirable to make the provision rigid, and all I am asking is that discretionary powers should be vested in the lay commissioners so to decide on the matter if they consider that the facts warranted it.
One reason for the nonacceptance of such an amendment would be the fact that, in most cases, the Minister would be the grantee. He would be the grantee in practically all cases. In certain cases the person to whom the compensation was payable might not, again, be easily found. There might be various rights over the land. That would be a difficulty. The number of people likely to be concerned is small and they would have to run the gauntlet of the lay commissioners, who would be most unlikely to grant a right-of-way through any man's land to a person who was obviously incapable of meeting the compensation. I cannot foresee any necessity for the amendment, so I resist it and I do so particularly as there may be a good deal of difficulty in finding the people to whom the compensation would have to be paid.
The point is a small one and I do not propose to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7. Government amendment:—
In page 15, to delete sub-section (6) of Section 20, lines 55 to 60, inclusive, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(6) Where the land, over which a right-of-way is granted by an Order under sub-section (1) of this section, is registered under the Act of 1891, the Land Commission shall send a copy of the Order to the registering authority under the Act of 1891, together with a certificate as to the date on which the Order came into force, and the said registering authority shall register the said right-of-way as a burden affecting the said land during the period for which the said right-of-way is exercisable.
I think this meets Senator Ryan's point.
I am quite satisfied that it meets the point I made.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 20, Section 23, sub-section (14), to delete the words "two years" in line 52 and to substitute therefor the words "twelve months".
The Minister and I had some considerable discussion about this on the last occasion. I had an amendment down then suggesting that the period of two years during which an Order would remain in force and during which a man's land would be tied up, be reduced to six months. I do not propose to weary the House by going over all the arguments again. I have put this amendment down in the hope that, as I have given halfway to the Minister, he may give halfway to me.
The whole reason for asking for the two-year period is the complexities of ownership. I think I made it quite clear, on the last occasion I was in the Seanad, why we had to have the two years. There may be a number of owners or people having rights on a particular piece of land which the Forestry Section wishes to acquire for forestry. As I pointed out, we will have to secure almost 100 per cent. of the land we need for forestry by agreement. We cannot have compulsion in the ordinary sense, because of the goodwill needed for forestry development. The type of land we have to acquire is generally mountain and moor land, which might be regarded as waste land and which will not carry the disabilities Senator Sweetman mentioned on the Committee Stage. It is land unlikely to be improved by any expenditure made on it, land on which buildings will not be placed, land which practically in no case will find any alternative market. It is sold to the Forestry Department only because it is suitable for no purpose but theirs. Senator Sweetman's point of view is that, when we ask for a two-year period of control before we acquire, the owner of the land may have got an alternative or a better offer or may have the idea of improving the land or utilising it in some way. On account of the type of land it is, occasions of that sort are most unlikely to arise.
While asking for the two year period, there is no reason to suppose that the Land Commission would not complete the deal much inside even the twelve months for which Senator Sweetman is asking to-day. It is only in cases where a number of people have rights over the mountain—which is generally held in common and is the type of land we propose to acquire—that the delay may occur. As it would be impossible to secure proper rights or title from all those people, in a few occasional cases we ask for the limit of two years. Normally, I expect that, where we are-dealing with one or two persons—or even more, when they are living in the locality or in Ireland—not alone will we not take two years but we will be able to finish the deal in less than twelve months. It is not agricultural land or land likely to be used for any other purpose and, therefore, the difficulties Senator Sweetman foresees are not likely to arise.
In view of the Minister's undertaking to endeavour to push the cases through in less than twelve months, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 Government amendment:—
In page 26, Section 32, sub-section (3) (b) (ii) (II), line 3, to insert after the word "allocate" the words "in accordance with the respective priorities of the mortgages,".
Senator Sir John Keane raised this matter of respective priorities of mortgages, and while I assured him that the normal practice would be followed in this particular case, we thought it better to put in an amendment which, I think, meets his point.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, with amendments, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On the final stage I want to say only that it was pleasant to be able to discuss this Bill in the atmosphere in which it was discussed and to get the Minister to meet us in the way he did. I am sorry I will not be able to say the same thing when the Land Bill comes back again to this House, but as he did meet us on this Bill I think it is only right to say so.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill, with amendments, be returned to the Dáil.