There is one amendment on the Order Paper. Another amendment, which has just been circulated, was submitted by Deputy Cogan. It came in later, but as an identical amendment was submitted on the Committee Stage by Deputy Hughes and, owing to the alteration of the section by Ministerial amendment, it could not be moved. I am allowing Deputy Cogan's amendment to be moved now.
Forestry Bill, 1945—Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1, as on the Order Paper:—
In page 4, before Section 3 (2), line 23, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) Where the Minister or the Irish Land Commission publishes, under sub-section (1) of this section, in the Irish Oifigiúil a copy of a document, the Minister or the Irish Land Commission shall also publish a copy of that document in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land to which that document relates is situate.
I think it was Deputy Hughes who made the suggestion in regard to the publication locally of information usually published in Irish Oifigiúil. The amendment as it stood would prevent our publishing in Irish Oifigiúil. It is proposed now to accept the suggestion, contingent also on keeping the power to publish the information in Irish Oifigiúil.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 50, to delete Section 58 (i) (c).
During the Committee Stage, I drew attention to the severe injustice on a person whose land adjoined a plantation if he were compelled to rid his land of rabbits or vermin and, in the event of his failing to do so, he were compelled to allow the Minister to send in his employees to do the work and, having done it, if the Minister were to have power to collect from that farmer the cost of clearing the land. I was contending that, if this power were given to the Minister to recoup himself at the expense of the adjoining landowner for any expense he might incur in getting rid of the vermin, then the adjoining landowner should have the right to claim compensation from the Minister for any damage which foxes or other vermin on the State forests might do to the farmer. The Minister indicated that he would like to look into the whole matter. I also have looked into it and so far as I can see it would be very difficult to frame an amendment which would enable the landowner to recover compensation from the Department for the damage.
I can well understand the difficulty there would be in enforcing such a provision and, on reconsideration, I think that the only fair and just way out of the difficulty would be for the Minister to drop his particular sub-section and divest himself of the power to regain compensation. If that particular sub-section is dropped, I think the section will not be open to any serious objection by such landowners. If his lands are infested by foxes, vermin or wild animals, he will have two courses open to him—either to clear the land himself or allow the Minister's employees to do so. That is a reasonable proposition. There are two types of land adjoining plantations. In one case the farmer has fairly good fertile land with good fences and he would object to the Department's trappers coming in and damaging those fences. He will have the opportunity of doing the clearing himself. On the other hand, there are persons whose land is very extensive, poor mountain land, probably heavily infested with all kinds of wild animals, foxes, rabbits and so on. The cost of clearing it would be very high, so high that the landowner may not be able to face it himself, as he may not have the means. To that farmer, the cost might be so high that, if this sub-section were retained, the amount of compensation to the Minister might be as much as the land itself would be worth. That man would have the opportunity of letting the Department's trappers in on his land to clear it. In fairness, the Minister should agree to the deletion of this sub-section.
I had an amendment down on the Committee Stage to delete this sub-section, but did not get an opportunity of arguing it. The proposal is a most unjust one. One could understand it if a man were using his land deliberately to produce vermin, but I do not know of any farmer in this country who is anxious to breed rabbits and hares. Everyone looks upon vermin of that sort as a nuisance, and it is not by any means a simple matter to eradicate them completely. Very often vermin may not be confined to one farm. The infestation occurs over a pretty big district and a man's efforts to exterminate the vermin on his particular land, which may be adjacent to a forest, might not result in any measure of success because, in the course of a few months, the vermin might come in again from neighbouring farms.
I think if the Minister appreciates the problem he must realise the injustice of fixing a responsibility of this sort on any land owner. He is served with a notice to exterminate, but his efforts might prove a failure, no matter how anxious he was. Apart from the forest interest, he might have a personal interest in trying to exterminate the rabbits. I am aware of a number of farmers who suffered financially as a result of the infestation of holdings with rabbits and other vermin, and unless there is a general effort made all over the country to exterminate them it would be an unfair responsibility to put on any individual. I do not know why, because it happens to be a forest centre under the control of a State authority, they should claim exceptional treatment. A farmer might suffer severely through the infestation of a neighbouring farm. His crops might be ruined. It is not the individual who suffers as a consequence. Nationally we would suffer.
I am sure the Minister remembers that before the emergency we were paying a bounty of 3d. on rabbits to encourage their extermination. With the emergency the value of rabbits for export purposes appreciated considerably, and we were exporting huge quantities of them. The people engaged in the export trade, which became a valuable trade, thought that if we did not declare a close season for rabbits we might succeed in exterminating them. These people prevailed on the Minister for Agriculture to declare a close season, so that we would make sure that the rabbits would not be exterminated and, for the first time, the Minister did declare a close season. During that season the rabbits are given an opportunity to multiply. The Minister appreciates how prolific they are. With a close season every year, they are given an opportunity which prevents their extermination.
Bear in mind that that is the attitude of the Minister, the man who is responsible for the welfare of agriculture. We have another Minister trying to counteract that by fixing a responsibility and a severe penalty on an individual if he fails to comply with the idea of the Minister for Lands. It is a wonder there would not be some co-ordination between the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture. Both Ministers appear to be pursuing different policies. I advise the Minister for Lands to try to reconcile his policy with the policy of the Minister for Agriculture. There ought to be some Minister responsible for the use and the disposition of land here. If we had that we would not experience such a wide difference in policy between the two Departments.
I advise the Minister to accept the amendment. I think it would be grossly unfair and unjust otherwise. I think the Minister, with his practical experience of rural Ireland, will realise the difficulty a farmer might experience, not because rabbits could be found on his holding, but because his holding could be infested from neighbouring holdings. It would be grossly unfair and unjust to compel him, under this sub-section, to do things that it might be almost humanly impossible for him to do. He has no control over the land outside his own farm and even though he might make continual efforts year after year, he might fail in his attempt to exterminate the vermin. If the Minister acts as a countryman and ignores the advice of the civil servants in his Department, I believe he will, without any hesitation, accept the amendment.
I wish Deputy Hughes would not always try to drive a wedge between the civil servants and the rural community.
I am not doing anything like that.
After all, the civil servants generally come from the rural community. I am accepting the amendment.
I would like to say that I am not trying to drive a wedge between the civil servants and the community, but I appreciate that the civil servant in a case like this is obsessed with the idea of preserving the forest at all costs, regardless of what the people around might suffer.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I am sorry I missed the opportunity of moving an amendment which was moved for me but was not accepted. There is one thing I object to in this measure, and it is on the question of fixing compensation. There are two parties interested, the man who owns the land that is to be acquired for forest purposes, and the Land Commission. We are providing here that the Land Commission are to be the judges of what is a fair measure of compensation. In principle, I think that is unsound, unfair and unjust. If there is a dispute as to what is fair compensation between the two parties, one party hardly can be expected to act in a strictly impartial manner in fixing the compensation. The Minister may say that the Land Commission are already doing that in the acquisition of land for the purposes of division. They may be doing that, but it is no answer to my argument and in this instance it is not justifiable. I believe we should go outside the parties interested to find an arbitrator, who should be a man with no interest in the contract. Here we are giving authority to an interested party to fix compensation. That is contrary to any ideas or principles of justice. It is the one thing in this measure I take exception to.
I must express regret that the Minister did not see fit to accept the amendment that I submitted. It would ensure that in a dispute between the two parties—the Land Commission proposing to acquire land for forestry purposes being one, and the owner of the land the other—there would be an outside tribunal to fix a fair measure of compensation. Because one party to the contract is a State organisation is no earthly reason why it should be authorised to act as arbitrator in the matter of fixing compensation. I believe it will not give any confidence to an individual that he is going to get justice and fair play. The Minister possibly may say it was in the original legislation, and that it is embodied in this Bill because it was part of our forestry law. If we are consolidating the law and trying to improve it, then a fundamental matter of that sort should get the attention of the Minister. While I agree that the Minister ought to have power to go ahead with forestry, that is an aspect of the measure which, as it stands in its final form, I do not like. So far as the Bill is concerned, I think that the Minister ought to have ample power to go ahead with afforestation and to increase the annual amount of land that is going to be planted.
I want to refer to the question that I raised on the Committee Stage, the provision giving the Minister power to fix the maximum price that he will pay for the land that he acquires. That, in effect, is giving notice to the commissioners that there is a price provided for them in the Bill that the Minister will not exceed. With that provision before them, they will approach this question of the valuation of land with the knowledge that, unless the price they fix is within that amount, the land will not be acquired. Therein lies the danger that these men may feel biased to give an owner less than what his land would be worth. They may think that it would be worth more than the maximum price which the Minister has the power to give, and for that reason they may feel justified in taking the land at less than its value. This is not a question of taking over an estate, a demesne or a large tract of land on which there may be certain redemption charges under the Land Purchase Acts.
We are dealing here with the taking over of land from a farmer or an owner of land. Therefore, in my opinion, the person to fix the price of that land should be some person independent of both the owner and the Minister. I think it would have been wise on the Minister's part if he had accepted my proposal with regard to that. It is very difficult to appreciate why he did not do so. I referred to this before in dealing with the administration of the law, and pointed out that not only must the law be just but that it must give the appearance of being just. It is important to give to the citizen the idea that the administration of the law is just. I realise quite well that the men who will fix the price of land in these cases will be, perhaps, perfectly honest about it, but border-line cases will crop up where the question at issue may be £1 or £2 an acre, the difference, say, between £4 or £6 or £7. The commissioners, acting as the valuers or arbitrators in the matter, will know perfectly well that they must bring the price down to the £4 or under because otherwise the Minister will not take the land. There is that danger, that quite unconsciously they may do an injustice to an owner in fixing the price. I think that even now it would be wise for the Minister to accept a proposal to have this question of price decided by some outside body. I take it that under this measure a good deal of land will be acquired. Therefore, the owners should be convinced that the price of their land is being fixed by an impartial body of persons who will hold the scales independently and fairly, and do justice to both sides.
I desire to support the view that, whoever is appointed to value the land acquired under this measure, will have a real knowledge of the value of such land, and what I mean by that is a close knowledge of the manner in which such land has been worked, and of its value to the particular farmer. For example, mountain land may be of little value in itself, but, regarded in conjunction with a small holding, it might be of exceptional value to its owner as a means of carrying on a particular type of farming. The same consideration would apply to rights-of-way and easements. Compulsory powers are being taken to give compensation in regard to these matters. It is essential that the persons who are ultimately to decide these questions should know all these problems, as well as the particular circumstances in which the farmers in question have to live. They should be prepared to take into consideration not only the value of the land proposed to be acquired, but should put a proper valuation on the amount of inconvenience that may be caused by their action. I hope that in cases where compulsion is exercised, and where grazing lands are acquired from farmers, the question of inconvenience and disturbance will be taken fully into account, because it is possible that a farmer might receive the full market value of the land acquired from him, and still suffer a considerable consequential loss by reason of having lost land which, used in conjunction with the rest of his holding, might be of very great value indeed to him.
It may be good legal theory, of course, that it is far better to have the appearance of justice than it is to do actual justice, but I do not think that the people with whom we have to deal in the country with regard to the acquisition of land would be quite satisfied that camouflaged justice would suit their bill. The amendment which was proposed on an earlier stage did mention an official arbitrator. I think that, in doing so, the proposer of the amendment should have gone much further and made the necessary provision in his amendment for the appointment and duties of an official arbitrator. I pointed out that, in fact, there is no such person as an official arbitrator in any of the Land Acts. An arbitrator may be appointed when, for example, the Department of Defence is acquiring a barracks or something of the kind, but, in regard to land, the Land Commission is completely independent of the Minister in matters of this sort, and therefore of the Government, and must be regarded as the real official arbitrator. I think we are dealing quite fairly with the people. I pointed out during the debate that compulsion under this Bill was not compulsion in the ordinary sense. If we are to have forestry, we must have good will. We cannot go into the country and take land from farmers compulsorily without having a very great measure of agreement. Otherwise, forestry being open to a good deal of damage, which could be simply done if we had not local good will, we could not have forestry. I do not think there is any point in the argument that the Land Commission is not a competent and impartial body. Deputy McMenamin mentioned one example in regard to the acquisition of land and the fixing of prices. I stated then that hard cases do not make good law. At the same time the case was not by any means as hard as Deputy McMenamin made out. In fact, he had not the facts correctly. If he went to the officials, they would have given him a good deal of information. I think the Land Commission has been quite reasonable in meeting individuals. Official tribunals are independent of the Minister, and the officials have full knowledge of the type of land to be acquired. They are, therefore, the most suitable instrument by which land may be acquired.
Some other matters were raised by Deputies during the debate. Deputy Roddy referred to the appointment of a foreign expert. I said that there was no real reason for such an appointment. Those in charge of forestry here are not only abreast of all modern information in regard to forestry, but because of the peculiar conditions that exist in Ireland, they have much more information on the subject of what we need than is held elsewhere. There is hardly any natural regeneration of forestry here as in other countries, consequently those in charge in Ireland have to be concerned with a particular type of forestry code which is not known in Europe. They are, therefore, much better fitted for this work than any foreigners, who are used to conditions other than those obtaining in Ireland. At the same time, if there is need at any time to call outside assistance or advice, it would be possible to have such experts appointed on the consultative council. I think that would meet the Deputy's case. In the meantime, there is not the least necessity to secure any advice beyond what we have. Deputy Cogan raised a question about a holding that might be uneconomic if all the land other than the arable land were acquired for forestry. There again the question of compulsion arises. We could not compel such a man to surrender a portion of his holding if by doing so it would be made uneconomic. We would be running counter to the Land Commission's activities and views there. The work of the Land Commission is to make holdings economic and a State Department like the Forestry Department could not run counter to the main work of the Land Commission, by making a holding uneconomic. The Deputy can be assured that such a position will not arise in any activities of the Forestry Department.
Deputy O'Donnell raised a question about the iniquity of delaying a felling licence for 21 days from the date on which an application was made. At one time, when we had not a spate of such demands, a notification was sent back as quickly as possible to the applicant, possibly within ten or 12 days, but during the past few years we had such a spate of applications that it was impossible to deal with them in that fashion. Therefore, we had to adopt a 21 days' system. It does not seem to me to be very hard on the applicants. Where it turns out that it is a question of not giving a licence they get immediate notification. I gave the Dáil a list of the applications submitted during the last few years, a list of the permits issued, as well as a list showing that no great inconvenience was suffered by anybody. Deputy Cogan also referred to the possibility of including in this Bill some provision for dealing with roadside trees. The Minister for Defence gave some notification regarding that matter, as it affected defence purposes. It does not concern the Forestry Bill nor is it one for the Forestry Department.
Question put and agreed to.