Section 15 and section 16 run together. In section 15 the Minister is taking power to designate certain lands as nature reserves. These lands are already in his possession because the Minister already owns them or the State owns them. Section 16 deals with lands which private persons own. Both sections visualise the setting up of nature reserves, one on State lands and the other on private lands. Is that not the general approach?
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: " That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Why is it necessary for the Minister to lay down all those instructions to himself about managing lands which he already owns and possesses?
In so far as section 15 is concerned, as I told the Deputy, it is not correct to say that I own the lands and that I am in possession of them. Section 15 deals with lands owned or occupied by the State as distinct from a private individual.
We take it that the Minister does not need any powers in relation to the lands already in his possession as Minister for Lands because he can do what he wishes with them, but in so far as other Ministers or other State agencies have lands the Minister can come in and lay down certain provisions.
Yes, and I am advised that my powers in relation to existing lands even under my own control are limited.
The Minister's powers in regard to lands and forestry in his possession are limited, so he has to give himself certain powers?
I am so advised.
This side of the House want to give the Minister all the freedom he needs to be a great Minister for conservation. Why does he have to consult the Minister for Transport and Power in regard to his own lands?
I have been trying to emphasise that this is a conservation measure and that I am satisfied that it will only succeed as such if we bring public opinion with us, if we are seen to be reasonable, if we are seen not to be obstructing the activities of what I would call the bread and butter issues. That is why we have to consult other Ministers. I could introduce a Bill and put sections into it which would be perfect in so far as conservation is concerned but might obstruct the Minister for Transport and Power, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If I were to take such provisions they would not be effective.
The Minister keeps coming back to the argument that in order to bring the ordinary member of the public with him he must consult his fellow-Ministers. The Minister has made this point several times, and may we leave it at that, because we do not believe him? I do not think he will sway any great volume of public opinion to his side, by consulting, for instance, with the Minister for Finance. In fact, he will probably alienate large sections of the public by adopting that process.
I do not agree with the Deputy. The " giving " Ministers can only give but the " taking " Ministers can take.
The answer must be that the Minister for Transport and Power has control over the foreshore.
The Minister is taking it on himself to consult the Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries and Transport and Power as well as the Commissioners of Public Works. Presumably, these are the people who have land. The Minister for Defence has fairly large tracts of land, and I wonder why he is not included?
The Minister for Defence as a landowner does not operate to the same extent. For instance, I understand he has not responsibility for the Curragh.
The Minister for Defence is much more likely to do damage to wildlife habitats than any other Minister. For instance, he is the person who has responsibility for rifle ranges.
If the Deputy will refer to section 12 he will see there is a fair degree of control there.
We want section 15 to stand on its own because it is one of the most important sections. In this section the Bill refers to setting aside State lands as nature reserves. It will give the Minister certain powers over these lands. He has indicated that in order to exercise these powers he must get the goodwill of his colleagues by consulting them. Surely the Minister for Defence must be a very important man in this regard?
Very considerable thought has been given to this and there have been consultations between the various Departments. The Bill was circulated in the ordinary way and advice was taken. I have succeeded in drafting the Bill without providing for consulting the Minister for Defence. I understood the Deputy was complaining that I was consulting too many Ministers, but now he is saying that I am not consulting enough Ministers.
The Minister should not make these debating points. All I want is a good Bill, and if there is a gap in the section I am quite entitled to point it out and to ask why it is there.
I do not think there is any gap.
I do, and I think that most sensible people would consider that in this context the Minister for Defence should be consulted.
The object of subsection (2) is to consult certain Ministers with a view of curtailing my activities——
No. We were told it was with a view to getting their goodwill.
That would be the only point. I have been advised that it is not necessary to consult the Minister for Defence and I do not propose to consult him.
If there is a valuable piece of land being used for artillery or ordinary rifle practice—perhaps at Gormanston, the Glen of Imaal or some similar place—which by its nature is a habitat for important species of wildlife, most of us think it would be a good idea if the Minister had the goodwill of the Minister for Defence in the matter.
The answer is that although I am not obliged under the section to consult the Minister, if I were going to interfere with any of the territories mentioned by the Deputy I would consult him. I am not precluded from doing so.
So, it is an accidental omission from the Bill?
That is not so. I am not obliged to consult him but I am not precluded from doing so.
Why were the names of any Ministers inserted? Why was the Minister for Transport and Power included? Was it because his aeroplanes were flying over the place
The Deputy is indulging in debating points now. It is obvious that agriculture and wildlife are closely associated. By virtue of his responsibility for bodies such as Bord na Móna, the Minister for Transport and Power is involved.
The Minister for Defence is in exactly the same position.
Not to the same extent.
Subsection (2) refers to the Commissioners. Is the Minister satisfied that there is no ambiguity about that? Can it refer only to the Commissioners of Public Works?
Yes. It is defined in the definitions section.
Subsection (2) (c) (i) states:
in case the Commissioners have an interest in the land, the order shall be made by the Minister only with the concurrence of the Commissioners,
There might be a situation where the Minister has been consulting with the Office of Public Works in regard to certain areas. Does he not think it might be wise to provide there for an arbitrator? We are conceding that the Office of Public Works will have the last word, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister will have been able to convince the board that those associated with the conservation of wildlife believed that certain actions were necessary. It would not be unreasonable to ask the Office of Public Works or any other Department that they might submit themselves to an arbitrator.
I may be accused of repeating an argument I have made already that this is a measure to conserve wildlife. The Deputy refers to the provision of an establishment order. I can make such an order in the case of land in which the Commissioners have an interest only with their concurrence. I do not think it would be reasonable to have arbitration between two Departments of State.
There is legislation providing for two opposing interests, and the best way to arrive at a proper decision would be to refer it to an independent arbitrator. If the Minister thinks he is better off without that provision——
I am. It would not be appropriate to have an arbitrator to arbitrate between two Departments.
Subsection (7) states:
The Minister shall, as soon as may be after it is made, cause a copy of an order under this section to be sent to the Commissioners and to any planning authority within whose area the land comprised in the nature reserve, or any part thereof, is situate.
Under the Planning Bill which will become law any day, there is a proviso for the establishment of special amenity orders for the preservation of flora and fauna. How will these orders fit in with the Minister's establishment of nature reserves or with this Bill generally? Secondly, under the new planning legislation we are to set up an independent body which will be an appeals board. Does the Minister think it would be advisable to have his orders made available to this very important new body?
I assume that the appeal board referred to by the Deputy would determine appeals having regard to all relevant matters, and the order visualised in this section might well be a relevant matter, and I am sure the new board would take note of it.
The subsection states " to any planning authority ". That is a very important safeguard, and it would be equally important that orders made under this legislation would be extended to the planning authority.
It occurs to me that it would be the business of the appeal board to make themselves aware of all statutory provisions which might affect decisions——
That argument would apply also to planning authorities.
The only difference I see is that the appeal board would be responsible for the whole country but the planning authorities would be responsible only for their respective areas of jurisdiction.
It is therefore all the more important that the appeals board would be brought in.
I will have a look at this when it comes before the Dáil.
Might it not be too late?
I cannot anticipate legislation that is going through.
It will be law by next Tuesday. It comes to the Dáil because of an amendment made in the Seanad.
My experts will have a look at it.
There could be a conflict of interests.
The Minister gives himself the power to make establishment orders. It seems to me that on the question of amending an establishment order the Minister is unduly restricting himself. Subsection (5) states:
The Minister shall not amend an establishment order unless he considers that the objectives, as regards which the relevant nature reserve was established, require revision because of changes in the features or characteristics of the reserve or in any other circumstance which affects the reserve.
The last few words are wide enough.
Why does the Minister deem it necessary to restrict himself at all in amending establishment orders?
If the Minister makes such an order he does so in the interests of conservation, as set out in subsection (5).
That deals only with the reserves. There might conceiveably be circumstances arising which would make it desirable for the Minister to amend the order which would not be strictly arising out of the reserve itself. Why is it necessary to be so restrictive?
(Cavan): In the interests of the maintenance of an establishment order and the maintenance of conservation.
Conceiveably the Minister might wish to amend an order in some desirable way.
What does the Deputy have in mind?
Mining in an area, for instance.
I could think of many. The Minister is restricting himself. I am in favour of subsection (6) but there are the words " the Minister shall not ". There might be some very pressing and desirable social purpose which would necessitate the Minister revoking the establishment order, but here he is prevented from doing so.
The intention of the section generally is to give the order a sense of permanence. Subsections (5) and (6) together are wide enough to enable the Minister to revoke or amend an order for any valid reason. Deputy Brennan made the point about mining taking place.
What about housing?
Subsection (6) would be wide enough.
I do not think it would be. It states " the Minister shall not ". It could be that although it would be desirable to retain a nature reserve, housing interests, for instance, might take priority, and in these circumstances the Minister would be prevented from amending the order. I am sure some such words as " is no longer practicable or desirable " might meet it. There could be a situation where it would be both practicable and desirable to retain the reserve but the local authority might say: " We want it for housing ".
It is the Minister's own land.
As I say, I just want to point out here what is involved. It seems to me that subsection (6) as framed is absolutely cast iron and, even though there may be some very desirable social purpose involved, one could not revoke the establishment order unless it is neither practicable nor desirable to retain the nature reserve as such. The difficulty would be where it is desirable from a conservation point of view to retain——
I repeat that subsection (5) and this together give the Minister ample power.
At what stage would commercial interests outweigh the desirability of retaining the nature reserve?
That would be a matter of a decision by the Minister, and each case would have to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances.
All we are concerned with here is making sure these particular provisions do not end up in court.
I agree.
It seems to me subsection (6) as framed certainly involves a person taking an action against the Minister if he decided to revoke an establishment order for housing.
The Minister as Minister for Lands has certain powers under the 1965 Land Act to allocate land for housing, has he not?
That would be under——
The Minister's other hat.
As Minister for Lands, I could, through the Land Commission. I know the Deputy has a valid point, but I am satisfied.
It seems to me that, if the Minister revoked an establishment order under subsection (6) to permit a local authority to build houses on some of his land a very good action would lie against the Minister by somebody who could point out it was both practicable and desirable to retain the nature reserve on these lands.
I can only say I believe the court in reasonable circumstances would decide in favour of the Minister
Haw, haw!
This is one of the most important sections in the Bill. It is quite loosely worded and depends on the goodwill of a great many people. It could be the plaything of constitutional lawyers. Would the Minister take a look at some of these sections again to ensure that they will stand up in the various situations one could envisage?
The Deputy may take it this discussion will be carefully read and considered between now and the next stage of the Bill.
That is a consolation.
The words of advice given will certainly be considered, but I do not want to go through the Committee Stage giving undertakings with regard to every section.
Oh, no—that is the democratic process.
I do not think it is necessary.
All we ask is that the Minister will look at these subsections again and consider them.
I will do that.
We are all a bit unhappy about subsection (6).
And the one in relation to planning—subsection (7).
I have said I will have a look at them.
There could be a conflict of interests there with the Planning Bill because it makes provision for certain preservations and taking account of conserved areas.
The Minister for Defence is not included, and we have serious doubts about subsection (6) and we have no idea where the provisions of the new Planning Bill fit into this particular section. On the whole, we look askance at it.
Question put and agreed to.