The purpose of this section is to exclude from the operation of sections 10 and 11 of the State Property Act, 1954, lands which are acquired by the Minister under the Bill. The background to this section is as follows: the State Property Act, 1954, had the principal effect of vesting in the Minister for Finance State land which up to then had not been vested in a State authority, that is, in a Minister of State or the Commissioners of Public Works. Sections 10 and 11 of the Act gave the State authorities, who had not hitherto had them, powers to dispose of State land held by them and to grant tenancies, lettings, rights and so on, over these lands. Lands acquired under the Forestry Acts from 1919 to 1946 were excluded from the operation of sections 10 and 11 of the State Property Act because the Minister for Lands already had powers under the Forestry Acts to dispose of land held by him or to grant tenancies, rights, lettings, and so on, over such land. The effect of section 64 is simply to add to the exclusion from sections 10 and 11 of the State Property Act land which the Minister will acquire under this Bill. It is purely a technical section because the Minister has under the Forestry Acts and under this Bill, all the authority he requires to manage land which he owns, to acquire and dispose of land and it is not necessary that sections 10 and 11 of the State Property Act, 1954 should apply. This section is put there to avoid overlapping.
SECTION 64.
We are concerned now with legislation which heretofore was regarded as forestry legislation. Are we extinguishing any rights which the Minister had under forestry legislation?
We are not.
On the other hand we are extending that. Will the Minister operate accepted forestry legislation?
No, but I will, of course, operate separate forestry legislation under the Forestry Acts. I am giving to the Minister for Lands the right to use lands which come into his possession under this Act or under the Forestry Act for either purpose.
Again, this is slightly at variance with what the Minister said last week.
I hope not.
I thought the Minister indicated last week that what was being done here was being done specifically for wildlife purposes?
To extend the rights which I have under the Forestry Act to lands which I acquire under this Bill.
To accommodate and provide for duties and responsibility which will devolve on you arising from this legislation?
I am satisfied that what I am doing largely is extending the acquisition procedure under the Forestry Acts to land which I want under this Bill and I am taking the right to use land which I have either for afforestation purposes or wildlife purposes or conservation.
The Minister does not see himself from now on acquiring land solely for afforestation?
I do. I see that I may very well acquire land solely for afforestation but could have second thoughts about it and use some of it perhaps for afforestation and some of it for the purposes of this Bill. The section that gives me this sort of freedom is section 56 which deals with management.
I understand the section gives the Minister power to let lands?
It is not the section we are dealing with now.
Can you use it for other purposes?
Section 64 with which we are dealing merely excludes State land from the State Property Act, 1954. That is all we are doing in this section. It simply clarifies the position.
Does it enable the Minister to use land acquired for this purpose for forestry?
No, I have that power under other sections.
I am still not clear as to what it enables the Minister to do.
This section does not enable me to do anything. It merely says that the effect of section 64 is to exclude from the operation of sections 10 and 11 of the State Property Act, 1954 lands which are acquired by the Minister under this Bill.
What do sections 10 and 11 of the State Property Act cover?
I dealt with that earlier. Sections 10 and 11 gave the State authorities who had not hitherto had them the powers to dispose of State lands held by them and to grant tenancies, lettings, rights and so on, over such lands. I already have that power in this Bill and under the Forestry Acts. That is why I am excluding them from sections 10 and 11 because it would be sheer duplication. I can assure the Committee that there is nothing else in this section; it is purely for the purpose I have stated.
I was wondering if this would be the appropriate place for the Minister to place some limitation on the time available to him, or which he regards as available to him, for holding the land without allocating it to the purpose for which it was originally acquired. One of the main complaints against the Land Commission and the Forestry Division at present is that land which is acquired is being let year after year and not used for the purpose for which it was originally acquired.
This would not be the section to deal with that. The Deputy's argument is more than relevant to Land Commission land. I do not think it would be reasonable here to put a time limit on land because the forestry section works in an ongoing way; it acquires land and can wait quite a long time to acquire another piece of land before planting.
It might be the relevant section under which to discuss one of the anomalies that confront us down the years and that is the lack of flexibility between Land Commission and Forestry in bringing about useful exchanges which can be effected from time to time where they have lands adjoining very often and where people would be in a position to exchange. This operation is not facilitated and is almost impossible to carry out. Those of us who have experience of the matter have found that one would almost think that the Land Commission and the Forestry Division were diametrically opposed in policy in that they do not facilitate each other in any way.
With respect, I suggest that what the Deputy is now saying—he may well have a point—is matter more relevant to the Estimate than this legislation.
As I see it, the purpose of this section is to avoid duplication. The Minister already has the power in the Bill and does not need those other two sections.
This Bill deals with the acquisition of land for a specific purpose and the Minister is taking power to do something outside the requirements of this proposed legislation. The Estimate is not the time for legislation——
Legislation is not necessary in that regard.
It is a matter of policy?
I should certainly like to see a provision enshrined in some legislation that would make the present position much more flexible.
The provisions of this Bill to a great extent introduce flexibility as to the use of land between the Forestry Division and the Wildlife Section.
This is a technical matter but I think it would be foolish for us to proceed unless we have been satisfied that every section at least is a section which is necessary. Obviously, if it were not necessary it should not be there. How would the Minister be inhibited from carrying out his functions under this legislation if this section were not there?
The first Schedule to the State Property Act, 1954 lists State lands which are excluded from the operation of sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Section 10 provides for the sale, exchange and leasing etc. of State lands and section 11 provides for the granting of tenancies, licences, rights etc. on State lands. The excluded properties are (a) lands acquired under the Forestry Acts, (b) certain State minerals, (c) lands held by the national airline, (d) the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park in Killarney, the subject of the special Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act, 1932, (e) the National Stud (The National Stud Act, 1945), (f) the Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Act of 1945 of that title), (g) specified lands at Dublin Airport, (h) specified lands held by the Minister for Defence, (i) specified lands held by the Minister for Transport and Power in Clare (Shannon) and Limerick (Foynes). Section 64 of this Bill extends this list to exclude land acquired by the Minister under the Bill. In other words, where land is already catered for it is not included in sections 10 and 11 of the State Property Act, 1954.
Garnish Island is not mentioned?
We dealt with that earlier.
I imagine it is a place that might be acquired as a sanctuary.