I take it the main purpose of this section is to give the Minister power to bring reserves already voluntarily reserved or provided by individuals under the terms of this legislation?
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: " That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Or organisations?
Yes. Broadly speaking, it is proposed to apply section 16 to lands not owned by the Minister by agreement.
What particular benefit would recognition have?
We will see as we go through the Bill.
This is new.
There are stricter requirements in regard to protection and more severe penalties for offences committed in such areas.
Would this cover areas like sloblands?
The Wexford sloblands are partly State-owned. It is done by a management agreement.
Does it not mean I could have a recognition order made of my lands and have the protection of a recognition order?
Provided the Minister agrees.
Of course. I am not going to ask for something the Minister does not agree with. What particular benefit would that recognition order confer?
It would provide more severe penalties.
On whom?
On persons guilty of wilfully offending against the Act on lands which are the subject of an order.
In other words, if I wanted to preserve my lands there would be no sense in the words " Preserved Lands " but a recognition order would help me to do that?
It will expose people in breach of the Act to most severe penalties.
And Deputy Haughey would not have to employ game-keepers. It would be taken over by the Department.
Is that the only benefit a recognition order confers on private lands?
It also might carry certain obligations. The Minister will have power to regulate access to the lands and the use of the lands.
Let us be practical. The Minister is bringing in here section 16, which is running side by side with section 15. Section 15 deals with State lands and the Minister declares certain State lands nature reserves and he will have power to manage them, and so on. It seems to me that, side by side with that, it would be very desirable if private citizens were to enter in to agreements with the Minister to provide that private lands would become nature reserves, but what benefits or attractions is the Minister holding out to private persons who enter into an arrangement under this section?
As I stated, the purpose of this section is to give formal recognition to similar lands in private ownership. The general picture regarding nature reserves is contained in my brief on section 15. Some private individuals and organisations make a very worthwhile contribution to wildlife conservation by devoting their lands as nature reserves — sometimes at considerable financial cost. Two such nature reserves, both in County Cork, have already been given ministerial blessing by attendance at a special dedication ceremony. Up to now this was as far as official recognition could go. Under section 16 it would be possible to give statutory recognition to such lands. The qualification of lands as a private nature reserve will be similar to that of a State reserve (paragraph (a), subsection (1)). The remainder of the subsection is intended to ensure that the tenure of the land and the competence of the holder thereof are such as to warrant recognition of the reserve by the Minister subject to specific consultation with other relevant State authorities.
All that just amounts to the fact that in certain circumstances the Minister makes a recognition order. I do not want to be insistent about it, but what particular attractions and allurements is the Minister holding out to individuals to come along to him and agree with him to have a recognition order made on them?
There will be much stiffer penalties for offences committed on such land. Under section 59 the Minister can, with the consent of the owner, make regulations regulating access to certain lands.
That does not seem to be a great attraction to private landowners.
It is done by agreement. Section 74 states:
Where a person is guilty of an offence under this Act, not being an offence mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) of this section, subject to the said subsection (3), such person shall be liable on summary conviction—
Subject to subsection (3) such a person shall be liable to summary conviction.
Is that, then, what it amounts to?
Yes. That, roughly speaking, is what it amounts to.
The preservation of the lands will be strengthened.
Yes, and will be enforced.
That is just leaving the private landowner having recourse to the law, which is a very useless and expensive operation.
Subsection (5) says that when you make one of those recognition orders you also send it to the planning authorities and the commissioners. I do not know where the commissioners come in here. I think that got in here because subsection (5) was cogged from subsection (7) of the other section. I do not see what the commissioners have to do with private lands.
The commissioners are the Commissioners of Public Works. It is necessary that they, as Commissioners of Public Works, should know particulars of land in respect of which special orders have been made.
I will not press the point, but the Minister will not convince me that he just lifted subsection (7) out of section 15 and put it into section 16. That is not my real point. It seems to me that the benefits which a private landowner will get from having one of those recognition orders made regarding his land are minimal. Is there any benefit in the fact that the Minister will have to give one of those recognition orders to the planning authorities? Section 16 (5) stipulates that the Minister will have to provide a copy of one of those recognition orders for the planning authorities. Is there any consequence of that? Does it mean that the planning authority will have to take some cognisance of that recognition order in their planning?
The order visualised under section 15 will only be made with the consent of the owner. It is true to say that the object of sending the order to the Commissioners of Public Works is that they will have notice of it and if they are operating in the locality they will be aware of the fact that there is a special nature reserve there and that the same rule applies to the planning authority.
I am desperately seeking in this provision some benefit to the private owner in having one of these recognition orders made on him. Is there any benefit to him in having one of those orders sent to the planning authority? Will they have to take cognisance of that and perhaps not run an arterial road through his land?
Yes, and if somebody in the immediate vicinity, not necessarily on this man's land, but some neighbour, proposed to change the use of his land and use it in some way that would be very detrimental to the reserve that is something that the planning authority would take into consideration in considering the planning proposal.
The Minister could put that into the Bill.
It is not necessary to put everything in the Bill.
This is a very important matter. The Minister is providing in subsection (5) that one of those orders must be deposited with the planning authority. One assumes from that that the planning authority should take some cognisance of that fact, but there is no obligation on them in the Bill to take any cognisance of it.
There is no obligation on them, but the planning authority, in giving a decision on planning proposals, have regard to all relevant matters.
Would it not be a simple and desirable provision to add to subsection (5) a proviso that in drawing up a development plan for the area the planning authority shall have regard to the existence of such an order?
No. I do not think it is necessary to write that into the Bill in order to get the planning authority——
The Minister does not know planning authorities.
I do not think it would be right to write it into the Bill so that they would have knowledge of it and consider it.
I find it an exasperating exercise trying to persuade the Minister to take reasonable precautions.
The Deputy will not convince me that I should make this a big stick. I do not propose to do it.
Section 16 is a very desirable section. The thinking behind it is excellent. We want to persuade private people to enter into agreement with the Minister, as the Minister responsible for conservation, to have recognition orders made and have private lands turned into nature reserves. As the section is framed at the moment it is nothing but a lot of pious eye wash because there is no practical advantage of any sort accruing to a private individual to enter into some agreement with the Minister.
For the record, I pointed out that the advantages come later on in the form of the penalties. I have also pointed out that if I was to write into this section that the planning authority shall not grant planning permission within the vicinity of this land for any proposal I would be going much too far. I am going far enough when I draw the attention of the planning authority to the existence of the reserve.
I asked the Minister to put in a simple proviso that they should take cognisance of the fact that such a reserve exists, that such an order exists, in drawing up a development plan. I also suggest that there should be other incentives in this section to the private individual to attract him into the provisions of this section.
With all respect, we will have to agree to differ on that. I accept Deputy Haughey's bona fides and the point put forward by him but I think it is not necessary to make the amendment which he proposes. I do not think it would be in the interests of the spirit of the Bill to do it.
How does an area like the Burren in County Clare come in?
We will come to that in a later section dealing with flora.
Mr. Kitt
In the borders of Galway and Roscommon a number of farmers came together and because they considered there was too much shooting in the area they turned a lake which bordered the land into a nature reserve for wild duck.
I should like to know how this section will help them. If it happens in the future would it be the intention of the Minister to take over the reserve?
No. The Minister would not take it over as a matter of form. He would consider taking it over if asked and he would make an order accordingly if he thought it desirable. Each case would be considered on its merits.
There are many such areas in my constituency also.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Esmonde, John G.
- Fitzpatrick, T. J. (Cavan)
- Hogan O’Higgins, Brigid
- Kenny, Enda
- Pattison, Séamus
Níl
- Brennan, Joseph
- Daly, Brendan
- Haughey, Charles
- Kitt, Michael P.
- O’Leary, John
- Tunney, Jim.
Question declared lost.
Section 16 deleted.