This is where we will have a problem. This is allied to section 60.
SECTION 63.
Question proposed: "That section 63 stand part of the Bill."
This is the one the Deputy referred to previously.
(Cavan): The first four subsections of this section group together certain extensions and amendments of the Forestry Act, 1946, with the overall object of unifying the Minister’s basic powers, under both that Act and the Bill, in relation to the acquisition of land, buildings and rights of way, extinguishment of easements, and the exchange, management and disposal of land and buildings.
The final subsection, subsection (5), amends "vermin", as defined in the Forestry Act, 1946, to conform with the new concept of vermin envisaged under the Bill, for example, unprotected wild birds and wild mammals.
Subsection (1) (a), in effect, enables the Minister to purchase, take or lease or otherwise acquire land, including buildings or works, or rights over land, under section 9 of the Forestry Act, 1946, not only for afforestation purposes but also for purposes of the Bill, for example, conservation of some wildlife value, or partly for both purposes.
Subsection (1) (b) similarly, applies the Minister's existing powers, under the said section 9, to sell, let and exchange land acquired under the various Forestry Acts, or to grant rights over such lands, or erect buildings and execute works on them, to similar functions arising in connection with the Wildlife Bill.
Subsection (2) is complementary to section 60 of the Bill, whereby the Minister can apply, under section 21 (1) of the Forestry Act, 1946, to the Lay Commissioners for the creation of a right of way required by him for the benefit of land acquired under that Act or under the Bill. Its purpose is to provide that, where the Minister seeks to have any such right of way expressed as empowering him to permit public all-purpose user of it, any notice served in connection with the Minister's application to the Lay Commissioners and their subsequent order creating the right of way must refer to the Minister's request for such empowerment. This is to highlight rights of way over which the Minister will grant public user—as distinct from those over which a much more restricted user, for example, for forestry activities, would apply.
My main concern with this section would be with subsection (2) which relates back to section 60. We are entering into fairly deep water in this section. It seems to me that the Minister will now be enabled to make orders which will grant public access over private lands.
(Cavan): That is right. Of course that is being done every day of the week for one purpose of another.
If I understand it, this is something which is causing a fair amount of agitation in Britain at the moment. It is a question of the rights of land owners in certain parts of the country vis-�-vis the rights of the general public who want to have access to amenity areas. One could understand that the Minister should have a right to create a right of way which would enable himself or his servants or agents to get back and forwards to their own lands. But this is a different thing altogether if the Minister can by a simple order admit the general public——
(Cavan): Not by a simple order. It is the usual long procedure.
——by a procedure be enabled to grant access to the general public over private property, over farm land. This is something we should look at very carefully. Have the IFA, for instance, been consulted about this?
(Cavan): The Bill has had very wide publicity and discussion. It has been on its rounds for a very long time. I point out it is not the Minister who makes the order here but the Lay Commissioners.
That is a distinction which I find extremely nebulous.
(Cavan): As the Deputy was Minister for Lands he would know it is far from nebulous. The Lay Commissioners act as partly judicial people and it is entirely a matter for them.
I remember a time when I was endeavouring to demonstrate that the pursuit of agriculture could be shown to be contrary to the spirit of this legislation and the Minister and other Members of either House said to me how important it was that we keep and maintain the goodwill of the agricultural community. I accept that, but I do not think we are going to engage or retain the goodwill of the agricultural community if under this legislation they realise that there is provision whereby the public can trespass on their land.
(Cavan): First of all, I would point out that this section in effect would be clear in the ordinary way. In the ordinary way surely there would not be any question of trespassing over these lands. I assume that if the right-of-way were created it would be a defined right-of-way and there are provisions for compensation. It is difficult to visualise where in the interests of conservation it will be necessary to allow the public in general to enter lands.
This is a terribly important matter. I know a farmer in County Wicklow who is a prominent journalist as well and at weekends his farming becomes practically impossible because of the invasion of Dublin city people onto his lands. As matters stand he can exercise some control over a section of the people. Subject to the same invasion he can exercise some control in asking people to get off the lands and behave in a reasonable way. If the Minister—or the Lay Commisioners since he makes that distinction between himself and them—can give access to the public to ordinary farmland, that is very serious.
(Cavan): First of all, I have in previous sections taken power to curtail this sort of thing and to restrict the right of people going to the foreshore. What is envisaged here is a right-of-way, not the right to go in and through a person’s land. They will not be crossing anybody’s land unless we have land adjacent to it that we want for some purpose to let them in. This would be a rare occurrence.
Not at all. I can take you to an area where there is a lake on property which is surrounded by farmland and which at the moment is invaded every weekend by trippers. Under this there is nothing to prevent us giving express statutory powers to permit them going back and forward to that lake. I am not saying it will not happen. It is not likely. If you let the public have access to a piece of land you cannot control them. Assuming they have meals, there is litter all over the place. You cannot confine them to a narrow track when they are spread all over the place.
The Minister himself has said that he does not visualise this taking place to any great extent. It is for that reason that I would say as an emotive land-owner that I would much prefer circumstances where the Minister could show to me that is was necessary to do this. I would prefer to have the right to say to the Minister, "Yes, you may do it", rather than the realisation of knowing that the Minister had this power to do this any time he likes.
God knows we farmers are hard enough put upon.
Surely the opposite is the position. Experience is that any member of the public who would be constrained to trespass would be more likely to be confronted with a double-barrel shotgun than have himself welcomed to the land. The incidence of trespass on farmlands by members of the public in County Wicklow in some areas can be terrible but the incidence of trespass in Ireland by members of the public——
It is wholesale.
It is not. There is more depredation done by dogs not kept under control.
If the Deputy had a valuable yearling how would he feel?
I can say if one would go to that journalist in County Wicklow it is not a paper he would be faced with. I know whom Deputy Haughey is talking about.
The Deputy should know. It is a serious matter.
(Cavan): There is no question of allowing hordes of people to cross somebody’s land.
Once you allow the public you allow hordes.
(Cavan): I can see that argument much more in the reverse. I have seen much more objection being taken to excluding the public from seaside places.
Which is invariably the practice of certain gentlemen we are talking about.
(Cavan): What I am doing is taking powers to grant access subject to regulation.
Has the Minister asked any farming organisations about this?
(Cavan): The Bill has been cleared in the various Departments. Every Department of State, including the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, has cleared it.
The Minister is inclined to confuse the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries with farming organisations. He has not had the experience I have had.
(Cavan): I cannot see the point in having a sensitive wildlife area if I have not the right to gain access——
I am perfectly prepared to give the Minister all the advantages.
(Cavan): ——or if I have not the right to allow others enjoy them in a reasonable way. If I have the right to make regulations I have the right to amend those regulations.
I think I express the general view of this Committee. If the Minister wants the general public to have access to wildlife conservation places and to provide amenities for them, he should buy the land. He should not give rights-of-way to the general public over private farmland.
(Cavan): If I bought it I would have to pay the market value.
Surely Deputy Haughey is aware of the concern from the environmental, recreational and educational point of view with regard to our lakes and rivers? Ordinary Irish people, whom the Deputy professes to represent, are debarred from access by farmers who put up barbed wire over a stretch of ten yards. That is the party of republicans over there.
I do not profess to represent people; I do represent them, very adequately and capably.
Will the Minister look at the section?
(Cavan): I have to look at it. May I suggest that we have another sitting this week, on any day convenient to the Committee?
We have an EEC Committee meeting tomorrow.
There is a Public Accounts Committee on Thursday. If we guarantee to finish this Bill on the next occasion, on next Tuesday?
(Cavan): If I get that assurance I am quite satisfied.
We will do our best to finish it next Tuesday.
The Committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3.45 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd November, 1976.