Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Wildlife Bill, 1975 debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1976

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: " That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Up to now, statutory responsibility for nature conservation generally is not vested in any single Minister of State. The purpose of section 11 (1) is to give the Minister for Lands overall statutory responsibility for wildlife conservation and in subsections (2) and (3) to indicate specifically the main authority. The effect of subsections (2) and (3) will also be to provide a statutory basis for many of the Forest and Wildlife Service's existing game and wildlife activities, for example, providing grants, giving technical advice, conducting research, and so on.

Heretofore, the funds for these services were made available under subheads G, Game Development, and H, Conservation, of the Forestry Vote but the only statutory basis for the expenditure was the annual Appropriation Act. The general and specific powers in section 11 will enable these and various other activities to be developed and expanded.

Subsection (3) (b) is an important provision enabling the Minister, either directly or with others, to engage in publicity and propaganda aimed at educating public opinion and maintaining public awareness and concern for wildlife conservation. The success of a Bill such as the present one may well depend as much, if not more, on public education as on enforcement. The educational role of the Minister will thus be a very broad one, aimed at the public generally through the use of films, exhibitions, handouts, lectures, and so on. It will not be directly concerned with education in the formal sense; this will continue to be the responsibility of the Minister for Education.

On the whole it is a good section. I should like the Minister to be more forthcoming in subsection (1). I should like the subsection to read " It shall be the responsibility of the Minister . . . ". Admittedly his functions are defined in the definition section. I am not sure whether the definition in the definition section covers this. The definition section includes powers and duties to such an extent that you could interpret subsection (1) as placing a duty on the Minister. If that is so, it is not altogether unsatisfactory, but I would prefer to see a specific obligation on the Minister. I will consider putting down an amendment for the Fourth Stage.

I should like to endorse what has been said. This section cannot be judged in isolation. One must also think about section 13. The Minister has too many options under the section. There should be certain obligations on the Minister in this section and indeed in section 13. I know we will be discussing section 13 at a later date, but I would like it to be mandatory and incumbent on the Minister, in this section, and I hoped the Minister would agree to the inclusion of certain agencies, and that there might be specific reference to regional game councils and agencies which hitherto have done so much in this field. It leaves the whole area slightly too vague. I hope the Minister will accept that it would improve the legislation if we could harden this, by inserting the word " shall " in some areas. Even in matters of education, the Minister " may " either directly or indirectly proceed to promote the knowledge and understanding of matters. I think it would be more correct and more in keeping with the Bill to say " the Minister shall ".

Subsection 4 seems to me extraordinary:

The performance of a function assigned to the Minister by this section shall be subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance . . .

The Deputy will agree that that is a common provision.

In other words, it is a function of the Minister to secure the conservation of wildlife, and in order to perform that function he is subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance.

Subsection (4). One accepts in legislation that in so far as money is involved the consent and sanction of the Minister for Finance is required. Surely it would be ridiculous to say that the Minister for Lands in doing a normal thing under this legislation must get the consent of the Minister for Finance.

Subsection (2) says " give assistance or advice " it does not say " give financial assistance ". Surely it could not be incumbent on the Minister for Lands to ask the permission of the Minister for Finance as to whether or not he could give advice.

Or do anything. It is a function of the Minister to promote the conservation of wildlife and in order to do that the consent of the Minister for Finance is required. That is daft.

Deputies will be aware that the consent of the Minister for Finance is only withheld when really necessary where there is expenditure of money.

That is not what the thing says.

Well, leave it, and I will have a look at it.

Mr. Kitt

I would like to make a point in regard to what Deputy Tunney referred to as options.

Just to get this clear, does the Minister accept that as subsection 4 stands at the moment, the Minister could not do anything under this Act without the consent of the Minister for Finance?

No, I do not accept that.

What does subsection 4 mean?

It would mean that the consent of the Minister for Finance is necessary, but that that consent may be either in general or in particular.

But the Minister cannot do anything under this Bill without the consent of the Minister for Finance.

I understand that the same argument applies to other sections of the Bill. It is difficult enough to do anything worth while which does not involve the expenditure of money.

It is possible for the Minister to do a hundred thousand things under this Bill which would have nothing to do with the Minister for Finance. I would submit, with all due respect, that subsection 4 is a mistake, and I would appreciate if the Minister is prepared to admit that and say that it will be positively looked at with a view to confining the sanction of the Minister for Finance to financial matters.

I am quite prepared to tell the Committee that I will have a look at subsection 4 before Report Stage and if I am not doing anything about it, it would be up to the Deputy to put down an amendment.

I do not want to put down an amendment because this deals with administrative practice. It would be better to have a ministerial amendment. The Minister must agree that subsection 4 should be confined specifically to the consent of the Minister for Finance where finance is involved.

I would have to have a look at this in relation to other Acts of a similar nature which have passed. I will undertake to have this particular matter looked into before Report Stage.

If you look at subsection 2 (d) in relation to making grants or loans to further projects or activities, it could be justified, but as a counter to that if one looks at subsection 3 (b)

promote the knowledge and understanding of matters to which the functions assigned to him under this Act are related.

it cannot be justified.

There are a number of ways of doing that, but the only way that I can think of, that would not cost money, is by prayer.

Supposing one of the Minister's officers were in consultation with some community group such as the Game Council, it might require the Minister writing to the Game Council in the matter of wildlife. In respect of that exercise, does the Minister suggest that it could not be done without the prior sanction of the Minister for Finance? My concern here is that we capitalise on the voluntary effort that has been made to date, and surely if we talk now about doing nothing without the consent of the Minister for Finance, we are excluding and possibly alienating that voluntary effort which has been there to date.

As the Deputies know, other Departments act under the Department of Finance, in a general sort of way.

This Bill is placing statutory responsibility on the Minister to secure the conservation of wildlife and that statutory responsibility is stillborn by subsection 4. The Minister cannot begin to exercise that function without the permission of the Minister for Finance.

It is stillborn if the Deputy assumes that the Minister for Finance will not allow me to operate it.

No Minister should have to seek the consent of the Minister for Finance in discharging a statutory obligation, except where money is concerned.

This is quite a common provision. I have given an assurance that I will have the matter looked into carefully. I will go further and say that I will not put down an amendment. I invite the Deputy to do so.

I do not want the inspector of taxes to be running around the country chasing hares.

Mr. Kitt

I want to refer to the options that the Minister left open to himself. The only definite thing the Minister said was that formal education will not be his responsibility and that it would be the responsibility of the Minister for Education. In trying to indicate the beauty of fauna, flora and conservation generally, to school-children, what is the Minister's function?

I would see the Minister for Lands co-operating with the Minister for Education in the promotion of knowledge to the schools. I would see the Minister for Lands providing the personnel in lectures and that sort of thing. We are doing that already in another way by making forest walks available and by also making available, literature in relation to them.

Mr. Kitt

Where is this referred to? It is not in the Bill.

It is not in the Bill.

Subsection 5 is another brute of a subsection which more or less puts the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries over the head of the Minister for Lands in this context, too. Subsection (5) says the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would take precedence over the Minister for Lands. I can readily appreciate that there would be demarcation disputes between the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in this area, but surely if the Minister for Lands is to do a good job in the conservation of wild life, there will be times when he will have to say to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries: " You cannot do that " or " You must change this." Subsection (5) is very flatfooted. It says anything the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries can do at the moment, he will be able to continue to do. That is the meaning of subsection (5). Does the Minister not see a problem there? We all know, for instance, that some of the real polluters have been piggeries and effluent from silage. Is it not obvious that certain activities of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries could run counter to the Minister's policy in regard to the conservation of wildlife? In subsection (5) he has given the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries complete authority. There is no question of consultation or discussion or anything like that.

The object of this Bill as outlined in subsection (1) of section 11 is broadly to secure the conservation of wildlife. In my opinion, this Bill will be a success, and those objects will be secured, if we can sell it to the public, if we can bring the public with us. We will have to have a fair balance between conservation and sporting activities on the one hand, and agricultural interests on the other. I am as convinced as I could be about anything that, if we go out on a limb with a big stick to enforce this Act when it becomes law, or run contrary to bread and butter issues—that is not to say bread and butter issues will take precedence over this—or if we interfere with a man's living, or with the development of an estate, or an industry, or agriculture in an unreasonable way, this Bill will be stillborn as Deputy Haughey said. We will not have the people with us. Deputy Haughey said this subsection was a monster, or words to that effect.

The father of all brutes—or perhaps not the father but one of the antecedents of all the brutes—is contained in section 9 (1) of the Forestry Act, 1946, which says:

Subject to the consent (either general or particular) of the Minister for Finance, the Minister may do all or any of the following things—

Then it goes on to say what he can do. Apparently section 4 was lifted out of a Bill passed in 1946.

The Minister has made my case for me and confirmed me in my view that in section 11 it should be mandatory on the Minister to employ agencies which are operating in this field already. The Minister said we must sell this to the public. We must encourage people who are already interested in it. Section 11 puts no obligation on the Minister to utilise the facilities which are available and to avail of the assistance which has been given to date by voluntary bodies. Would the Minister not accept that it should be obligatory on him to avail of this assistance? He is leaving the option there but he is accepting the obligation so far as the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is concerned. He will do nothing which may be prejudicial to him. When we were discussing the subsection referring to the Minister for Finance I thought we were covering the operation of the Office of Public Works in respect of drainage and matters like that. If you make a case for giving exclusions to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, you can make the same case for excluding the interests of the OPW in the matter of arterial drainage, or the Department of Local Government. Subsection (5) says:

Nothing in this section shall restrict, prejudice or affect the performance by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of any function which could have been performed by him immediately before the commencement of this section.

Does not the success of the Wildlife Bill depend on the goodwill of the farmers?

At certain times there might be an obligation on me to sacrifice that which might be deemed agriculturally beneficial in the interests of wildlife.

We have to have a happy medium.

There is no medium here at all. The Minister is giving an absolute right to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to prevent him doing anything at all in the interests of wildlife.

I am sure he is not.

I should like to bring Deputy Tunney back to section 11 (1) where he will find the core of this whole Bill. It says:

It shall be a function of the Minister to secure the conservation of wildlife.

A function.

Subsection (2) says:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the Minister may in particular do all or any of the following:

I dealt with subsection (4) which was written into an Act in 1946. Subsection (5) says:

Nothing in this section shall restrict, prejudice or affect the performance by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of any function which could have been performed by him immediately before the commencement of this section.

We know all the things the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries can do at the moment and that is the safeguard, that is the authority, we are giving him.

" Nothing in this section shall restrict, prejudice. . . . "

What would happen in the case of a fishery board under the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries which pays a bounty for the destruction of an otter? The Minister for Lands will be conserving otters. What will happen in that case?

Exit the otter.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is not doing anything positive. He is giving a bounty, or a subsidy, or a bonus, or a deontas, to somebody who produces an otter to him, but when this Bill is passed it will be an offence to kill or hunt an otter except in certain circumstances. Therefore, it would not be possible for a person, without violating the law, to kill an otter.

What Deputy Daly says is right. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in pursuance of his policies can do all sorts of things which are absolutely contrary to the conservation of wildlife and about which the Minister for Lands can do nothing.

I have no doubt that that provision would not enable a person to shoot or kill an otter without his being in contravention of this Bill.

This is not the point raised by Deputy Daly. We can all think of hundreds of instances in which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in pursuance of his objectives would run immediately counter to what the Minister for Lands is endeavouring to do under this section.

The Deputy is aware that a subsequent section of this Bill obliges any Minister or State-sponsored body to consult in circumstances in which they may contemplate doing anything which may interfere with habitats.

But consultation is all that is required.

I put it to the House with all the seriousness I can command that if we were to write into the Bill provisions which would impede or obstruct in any way the ordinary and reasonable pursuits of agriculture or industry or tourism we would be doing something which would defeat the very objectives set out in subsection (1).

If that is the Minister's approach he might as well take the Bill away and burn it. What he is saying is that the Bill will be worthless.

I am not saying anything of the sort.

There is no point in having statutory provision if we must rely on the goodwill of the Ministers for Finance, for Agriculture, of the tourist board and so on.

There may be an oversensitivity and a misrepresentation in regard to the attitude of the farmers, for instance. I am confident that a farmer would accept the presentation of a case to him that that which has obtained up to now might necessarily have to be restricted to some small extent in the interest of wildlife. What concerns me is that in relation to subsection (5) the Minister is saying that we cannot have any change from that which has obtained to date, that we can do nothing which in any way would restrict the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. To use the word " nothing " here renders the provision useless. I could accept some such wording as " that the exercise of the section shall have due regard . . . ".

All I am saying is that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries may continue to do all the things in relation to agriculture which he could do prior to the coming into operation of the section.

Even if they are detrimental to the preservation of wildlife.

It is very easy to argue this in several ways. If the Deputy wishes to pursue this line I suggest that he tell us what exactly he has in mind in relation to what the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is doing and which the Deputy thinks he should be prevented from doing.

One instance which comes to mind and of which I have personal experience is that of the giving of grants for piggeries which result in the contamination of waters.

The Deputy knows that the erection of piggeries is a matter which is subject to planning permission.

That is not so.

Not under the original Act but that situation has been changed in recent years.

There are many instances we can think of whereby the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries can act in ways that are immediately counter to the preservation of wildlife.

We must not forget the question of goodwill.

What we are concerned with here are the statutory provisions of this measure.

I am prepared to be a realist in regard to this provision. I am prepared to put the Bill before the Committee in a realistic manner. The object of the legislation is to conserve wildlife, but if in pursuit of this objective we should interfere unreasonably or obstruct the bread and butter issues in this country we would have failed even before we had begun.

Under this Bill the Minister for Lands is being charged with the responsibility of the preservation of wildlife but is it not the position that, for instance, he will not be empowered to take any action in relation to pesticides and other chemicals which are known to be harmful to bird life and so on?

I can have research carried out into the effects of these various chemicals and can draw the conclusions to the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and others.

That is all the Minister can do.

This Bill is not a big stick with which to give conservation precedence over all else.

If it is merely a pious aspiration with no reliance on statutory provisions the Minister might as well have written out the Lord's Prayer for us.

These voluntary organisations who have studied the Bill and who have contributed a lot to its contents know that it is far removed from what the Deputy says. They know it is a very worth-while attempt to conserve wildlife and to conserve the habitats of wildlife. When the Deputy comes to the next section he will realise that there must be consultation with the various bodies and that that various State bodies must take steps to minimise risks to the conservation of wildlife.

The Minister must know the mind of the civil service. Civil servants are not creatures given to carrying out tasks which are not required of them. There is a pious aspiration here that the civil servants in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will consult, but if there is no such obligation on them that is the end of the matter. The Minister must accept that it can be shown that the interest of agriculture is not necessarily the interest of wildlife. In some instances these interests can be in conflict with each other. Unless in relation to certain areas farmers are obliged to have regard to the conservation of wildlife we cannot expect co-operation from them. The trends in agriculture towards intensification, amalgamation and so on are detrimental to wildlife.

If the Deputy thinks that I will write into the Bill a provision whereby farmers cannot remove ditches or hedges he is wrong.

That is unworthy of the Minister. We are talking about the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

I am sorry if the Minister's imagination does not allow him stray beyond one isolated example. He knows that in some areas the interests of the intensification of agriculture are in conflict with the interests of the conservation of wildlife. In those circumstances there should be some safeguard written into the Bill.

The Deputies should have regard to reality. Deputy Tunney referred to the fact of fields becoming larger. That has been the trend during the past 30 years and I have no intention of making any provision which would prevent the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries from giving grants. I agree that there may be a conflict of interests but I also know that farmers are as proud of our wildlife as any other section of the Community.

Ninety-nine per cent of farmers love wildlife and are as keen as anybody else for the preservation of our wildlife. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries performing certain functions. I know what has happened here. Subsection (5) is the result of an inter-departmental or Ministerial dispute between Lands and Agriculture. Agriculture finally won their way and got this subsection (5) included. I know enough about Government affairs to know that this happened.

There is much more consultation now, Deputy.

There may be, but that is why this subsection is here. The Minister for Lands is giving total supremacy to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in this context. You may have to do that in Government circles but we do not have to do it in this Committee.

If this debate were taking place in the House in the presence of the Press would Deputy Haughey——

I hope the Press come here. Chairman, I am not accepting that from the Minister. The public and Press are entitled to be here.

I am a realist. A lot of the people on whom we will be depending to implement this Bill will have a dual interest. I am convinced that the methods which we are adopting are the right methods.

I should like to see subsection (5) redesigned to make it clear that the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries are equal partners in this area. Any reasonable person on this Committee must accept that subsection (5) says: " We have had it ".

We have had it and there is no amendment on it. Naturally, everything that has been said by Deputy Haughey will be considered.

The purpose of this Committee is for us to try to persuade the Minister to accept our bona fides. It is preferable for us to persuade the Minister to put down his amendment than for us to put down ours.

Is it the view of the Minister that he is not going to listen to any case we make unless we put down an amendment? We are hoping that the Minister has an open mind and that any suggestion from this side will be considered on its merit.

If I can put down an amendment, you can put down an amendment.

We welcome the Minister for Lands acceptance of this responsibility. It is a very welcome step forward. I want to avail of this opportunity to pay tribute to the Forest and Wildlife Service of his Department. The idea of giving that section a special name was brilliant. The giving of additional powers and duties to this section of the Department has our total support.

I share the Deputy's views.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share