Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 31, subsection (1) (b), line 37, to delete " or a designation order " and substitute ",a designation order or an agreement under section 18 of this Act".
In accordance with your ruling I will discuss amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together. They deal with two very small points. Section 39, as it stands, seeks to provide for nature reserves—sections 15 and 16—and refuges for fauna—section 17—the type of protection against damage by fire as is at present afforded to forestry plantations under section 61 of the Forestry Act, 1946, which is being repealed. It also extends the Forestry Act provisions to fire caused by acts of gross negligence.
The purpose and effect of these amendments will be to extend the protective provisions of section 39 to lands which are the subject of special management agreements under section 18 of this Bill. Those formal agreements would be made with landowners who are willing to manage their lands in a way that will conserve particular wildlife values on their lands and in the circumstances I consider, on reflection, that such lands are as worthy of those special protection provisions as are nature reserves and refuges for fauna.
This is the position in respect of both amendments.
The purpose of the amendments, as I understand it, is to bring it into line with section 18.
It is really to afford the same protection to lands which are the subject of special agreements under section 18 of this Bill. The amendments could be said to be purely for consistency purposes. It would be unwise to exclude lands that are made subject to section 18 agreements from the protection.
Could we speak generally about the section?
Can I take it that amendment No. 17 is agreed?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 31, subsection (1) (ii), line 45, to delete " or a recognition order " and substitute ", a recognition order or an agreement under the said section 18".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: " That section 39, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
What is the position regarding lighting of fires close to lands and especially woodlands at the moment?
It is illegal. The purpose of section 39 is to extend, with some modification, to State and private nature preserves—sections 15 and 16—and refuges for fauna—section 17—the type of protection against fire damage, that is, the mile limit proviso and requirement to notify Garda, at present accorded to forestry plantations under section 61 of the Forestry Act, 1946. To avoid confusion and inconvenience to the public the latter section is being repealed and replaced by the new composite provisions in section 39 of the Bill. This section embraces plantations, nature reserves and refuges and extends its scope to fires caused by acts of sheer negligence.
Forest fires, caused mainly by inexperience or carelessness, are costly in themselves, depending on the commercial loss involved; fires which would destroy valuable haunts of fauna and flora could represent a serious aesthetic loss by eliminating an irreplaceable heritage, for example, a vital bird haunt or a native sessile oak wood. The position is that it is an offence to light a fire within one mile of a State forest without first having notified the forester and notified the Garda. Roughly speaking, we propose to extend those provisions to the nature reserves and refuges mentioned in the Bill.
In other words, this is an extension beyond the State forests. There could be flora in a certain area which might not be forest land at all.
It could be a private nature reserve. It only applies to special protected areas. We will deal with general burning and destruction of vegetation in a later section.
Would that not be a restriction on turbary owners and turf cutters should the particular bog area be in the immediate vicinity of this restricted area? Anybody who is accustomed to work in turbary areas knows it is necessary to light fires to cook meals. Would that not be considered to be exempt where a turbary is located adjacent to the restricted area referred to?
Yes. It is a restriction, and it is meant to be a restriction. There is a restriction at the moment, and has been for many years back, on the right of a person to light a fire within one mile of a State forest, the object being that it is highly dangerous to light a fire in weather like this within a mile of a State forest. It could spread to the State forest and cost thousands upon thousands of pounds, and if a person intends to burn he must notify the Garda and notify the foresters. Now this existing statutory regulation in regard to lighting fires adjacent to forests is being extended but only in relation to special nature reserves and so on with a special high wildlife value.
It is provided in subsection (2) of section 39 that the Minister or any other person to whom the notice is given may within three days serve a counter-notice. Would this cause a certain amount of confusion to people?
That would apply to a private owner. The provision in subsection (2) says: "Where notice is given under subsection 1 of this section, the Minister or any other person to whom the notice is given may . . .". If the Deputy looks at subsection 1 he will see that:
A person shall not burn any vegetation growing within one mile of—
(a) a wood which is not the property of such person, or
(b) land to which an establishment order, a recognition order or a designation order relates,
unless such person has, not less than seven days or more than thirty-five days before burning such vegetation, given notice of his intention to do so in writing to both the sergeant in charge of a Garda Síochána station in the Garda Síochána district in which the wood or land is situate and to—
(i) in the case of a wood, the occupier of the wood,
(ii) in the case of land to which an establishment order or a recognition order relates, the Minister together with, in case the Minister is not the owner of the land, the occupier,
We are dealing here not alone with land owned by the State but land owned privately and the subject of a preservation order. In regard to the reference in subsection (2) to notice given to the Minister or any other person, that notice is given in accordance with the previous provisions of the section.
Could you envisage a situation where a man would have to notify maybe the Minister and the guards?
I would not think so. He would have to notify the guards in all cases and either the Minister or the private owner.
Would it not be better to notify just the Minister?
Then the Minister would have to get in touch with the private owner.
Section 61 of the Forestry Act of 1946 does similarly.
We are repealing that and substituting this for it.
So there is no duplicating?
It is a tidying-up operation.
In regard to offences, again I am concerned how this is going to be administered, and for the life of me I cannot see how people who offend under this particular section are going to be brought to justice. You will have the two types of offenders. You will have the person who wilfully—I think we did have such a case before the Public Accounts Committee some years ago where somebody went out to set fire to a wood, a person who was not mentally well, but I think this is aimed at the careless person, the holiday maker, the day tripper, who starts a fire accidentally. I know it is not the Minister's responsibility but how can such people be brought to justice?
Since I became Minister I have had many files before me in cases where people either maliciously or wantonly or carelessly lighted fires within a mile of State forests and many of them in my short time as Minister have been successfully prosecuted before the courts. What happens is the fire is started. The local forester has an idea who did it. The guards are notified and they investigate in the ordinary way. They approach the man who did it and question him, caution him——
Would this be post factum? This is some days after the fire has occurred.
I would be hoping that if a fire occurred, a forester would not be concerned immediately as to who did it but as to how he might stop it.
It might be a week afterwards.
However, if the Minister is happy——
I am not alone happy that it will work but I am happy it is working.
I accept that, where the forester discovers who did it, but I am sure that you have many accidental fires, that is fire caused by somebody who unwittingly throws away a match or a cigarette——
There is a provision in the section here for damages to be paid by a person who is negligent in that regard.
I appreciate that, but my concern is how can we be happy that that type of person is going to be found or detected?
Local knowledge is a great thing and local knowledge will usually bring offences like this to the surface.
My little bit of local knowledge in these matters makes it very difficult for me to imagine how anybody is going to locate the person who when passing a wood threw away a cigarette end or match and unwittingly caused a fire.
Section, as amended, agreed to.