Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 May 1957

Vol. 48 No. 2

Turf Development Bill, 1957—Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

While welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary to the House, I confess I would prefer to have the Minister here at the moment because I am anxious to go back on one point, especially, to which I addressed myself on the Second Reading. I do not mean the House to infer from what I have said that the Parliamentary Secretary would not be very capable of dealing with this matter. Like myself, he is a country man; I am sure he knows a good deal about bogs and, accordingly, ought to have some interesting views about their future development.

The Minister is asking authority for a capital sum for the purpose of further development of our peat bogs. I struck a note of interrogation on the Second Reading and I want to carry the point a little further now, arising out of a reply which the Minister made to me. In my judgment, the time has come when the Minister, whoever he may be, who has the responsibility of dealing with the development of our peat resources, should consider anew the prospects for the future and the policy which is the wisest to pursue.

That comment is not in any sense a criticism of the idea of utilising our peat resources for the development of electricity or against the notion that the Minister has embodied in the Bill of obtaining further capital for that purpose; but I think those of us who know the vast expanse of peat resources which we have in this country will agree that there is every possibility that, many years before these are exhausted in the production of electricity, new sources of power will be available to us.

The Minister, at column 51, Volume 48, of the Seanad Debates of 22nd May, 1957, said:—

"So far as the deep midland Bord na Móna bogs are concerned, I think it is far wiser to consider getting the turf off them when it can be done without cost by converting it into fuel rather than contemplating some very expensive reclamation process."

I would urge very strongly on the Government that the time has come for a new study of the better utilisation of our bogs. I do not accept the Minister's view that these midland bogs or the high bogs in the West of Ireland cannot be reclaimed and developed. The contrary has been proven. There are thousands of acres to be seen in the Parliamentary Secretary's own county and I am quite certain he has seen them. It is really a sight for the eye to go into that part of Ireland, and see vast, dreary expanses all round and, miles away, this great green area. At first, you wonder what it is; then you come close and you realise it is grass growing on thousands of acres of peat bog.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps 500,00 acres, of peat bogs will be left undeveloped when new sources of power are available to us. Certain areas to-day are being exploited for the purpose of the production of power. In that small pocket in Galway, great work is being done in this type of reclamation which Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann are proving is possible. I think it can be undertaken on a much more vast scale and I would feel that is the view of the future of our bogs which we ought to take now, or at least ought to contemplate taking. If they are to be properly and economically developed, the study should be made now as to the areas which are to be exploited for fuel resources in the future and those other areas to which we could look as a vast stretch of peat land which can be reformed and rehabilitated and developed into soils which, as I said here the last day, will support animal and man.

There is work being done in North Mayo. I have not seen it and do not know the extent of it, but from information available to me, I think good work is being done. I do not know that anything very new is being discovered, anything that was not known already. I want to urge strongly that, instead of the Department of Agriculture working in a watertight compartment in Bangor Erris, instead of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann working in another watertight compartment and the Turf Development Board working over the vaster area, a new study should be made of the whole picture. Then we could see how all the activities could be co-ordinated and correlated so as to get the best out of all the resources, which eventually will be developed by somebody.

I know the view is held—and I held it originally myself—that the only way to have reclamation carried out is to cut the peat off the top of the bogs. I saw that being done in Kildare, Offaly and elsewhere. What strikes me about it is that there will then be a vast drainage problem to be contemplated and undertaken. It may be that when we cut away the peat from the surface, we will be under the water level to such an extent that we must have power available to us to do the pumping, if this residue is to be available at all, either for the cultivation and development of crops or for forestry.

I cannot speak with any authority on this point as all these aspects form a many-sided problem. The information ought to be available to us. I do not know that the Minister or the Department or the country as a whole is trying to look at the picture in the light in which it should be looked, if the best is to be got out of our peat resources for all those who are operating them now and for the people of the country as a whole.

That is all I have to say, but I think it is time to say it now. I feel I am entitled to say it because, as I said on the last occasion, when others had much less faith in the Minister's proposals as originally introduced than they have to-day, I warmly and enthusiastically and cordially backed him in his proposals then. I watched what has been done with great interest and a degree of pride. In that sense, I think we should try to look into the future now and freshen our minds again by a new study, which I do not think has been undertaken.

I say that, in my judgment, the time has arrived when we ought to have enough confidence in the value of our peat resources to spend time and money on them and to get advice wherever it is available to us, so that this vast and valuable source of power and life will not be misused.

I rise to make an inquiry from the Parliamentary Secretary about the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 1. As I read it, sub-section (2) provides that the terms upon which moneys which may be borrowed under sub-section (1) of the section may include provisions charging the moneys and the interest upon the property of the board or upon any particular property. In that respect, I find no objection. It is a very proper provision.

However, it goes on to deal with the priorities of other charges which may already be made upon the property of the board and it reads:

"...in relation to charges in respect of advances made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to the board out of the Central Fund and such terms may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment, provide that any charge in respect of money borrowed under this section may rank before or equally with charges in respect of such advances."

That would seem to me to give specially favoured terms to the moneys borrowed under sub-section (1) of the section. It seems to me to prejudice the existing priorities in relation to charges already made in respect of moneys advanced to the board and that seems to relate particularly to moneys borrowed from the Central Fund.

I do not understand the necessity for establishing such a priority in respect of moneys to be borrowed under sub-section (1) and I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate the necessity for this provision, which would have the effect, if it were implemented, of wiping out the priorities already existing. It seems to me to be a bad principle and it seems to run contrary to normal practice—that where any person has a charge upon any property, a subsequent charge on it can acquire prior right. That seems to me to be contrary to normal practice in relation to charges upon property and I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate the reason for this provision and the justification for it.

Gním comhgháirdeachas leis an Seanadóir Baxter as ucht a thogha mar Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I feel impelled to say that if any other Senator should feel inclined, when Senator Baxter is in the Chair, to emulate his example and make a Second Reading speech on the Committee Stage, I do not think Senator Baxter would permit him to do so. Therefore, Senators should not follow his example too closely. On the Committee Stage, I do not think it would be proper for me to attempt to make any outline of policy other than what was made by the Minister himself on the Second Reading. However, let me say on my own behalf and in the name of the Minister, that we have no adverse comment to make on the opinions which the Senator has just expressed.

I would remind the Seanad that this is not a Bill to outline general turf development policy, or even a Bill to expand capital. It is a Bill to enable Bord na Móna to get moneys from sources other than those from which they have been getting them heretofore. It enables them to exercise powers such as have been vested in the E.S.B. I do not think this is a suitable occasion, on the Committee Stage of a Bill, to alter the method of getting their finances, on which I might be expected to add, or could usefully add, anything to what the Minister said on the Second Stage. I suggest, therefore, that we proceed with the Committee Stage.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question put by Senator O'Quigley?

Yes, but should we not take them seriatim? I understand Senator O'Quigley dealt with sub-section (2). I do not know exactly what order is followed in the Seanad on the Committee Stage, but I take it that the same procedure is followed as in the Dáil, and that section after section is taken.

The discussion is on Section 1 of the Bill.

On a point of order, a Chathaoirleach, I think there is some confusion, because the question was put by Senator O'Quigley on sub-section (2) of Section 1.

The whole section is under discussion.

I am sorry; I was not aware of that. It will be noticed in regard to this matter of priorities that there are enabling powers given and I do not think the Senator is entitled to rush to the conclusion that the priority of charges such as he has outlined is the one that will, in fact, be applied. This type of phraseology in relation to financial provisions in other Acts is more or less sterotyped and of a stock character and it is being followed here now. If the Senator will indicate to me that there is some fundamental departure from the usual procedure, I certainly will be willing to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for further consideration. He has not indicated that any fundamental departure from the usual procedure is being followed.

I may say that I am not sufficiently familiar with these provisions in other Acts to say that this is a stereotyped procedure which is being adopted in regard to the establishment of priorities. From my own knowledge of the position with regard to charges upon any property, it does seem to me that this is a departure from normal procedure. It was for that reason that I spoke on the matter and inquired what was the justification or the need for it. I am not entirely satisfied that this is justified. It seems to me that it has been incorporated in this Bill because of the circumstances of its introduction, namely, that Bord na Móna is being entitled under the Bill to borrow moneys from sources other than those from which it was customary or previously entitled to borrow. It seems to me that it is for the purpose of attracting capital from this unusual source that this special provision has been incorporated, so that these new sources which may be lending money to Bord na Móna will be assured that their loans are being protected. That seems to be the purpose of the section— to give assurance to these new lenders that they will have a first charge.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it does not necessarily follow from what is contained in the sub-section that existing priorities will be disturbed, but the power is none the less there. The power may be exercised not by virtue of any regulation or Order which this House or the other House of the Oireachtas will have an opportunity of commenting on, but merely by virtue of some terms or prospectus that may be issued by Bord na Móna, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

It seems to me to be going very far to say, despite anything in any other enactment to the contrary, that, by virtue of the publication of terms, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, existing priorities could be wiped out and priority given to the lender of money under sub-section (1). It seems to me to be a very radical departure and it is certainly a departure from the established law with regard to ordinary charges on any kind of property. It is a matter upon which I think the House would be entitled to more information from the Parliamentary Secretary and he might be able to give an indication that such information will be forthcoming at a later stage.

Does the Senator state that priorities already established can be wiped out?

They can be put into an inferior position.

On the question generally, is it not so that a lender of large sums of money will acquaint himself with the conditions under which he is to lend the money and assure himself on the points raised by the Senator? As the Seanad knows, the board has received a loan of a considerable sum from a commercial firm. This Bill will secure the repayment of that sum. I take it that that commercial firm satisfied itself that the conditions of repayment would be reasonably satisfactory and I am quite satisfied that, in any further negotiations, they will also take similar precautions to see that loans are safeguarded. After all, the State is the pillar upon which the activities of this board rests, the same as many other similar boards. I think the experience and history of these boards have already established a considerable degree of confidence in the lending public in regard to their integrity.

I do not know exactly what detailed degree of guarantee the Senator wants. It seems to me that the same type of phraseology has been used here as is used in similar financial sections and I think it should be satisfactory to all concerned. However, I will have the Senator's remarks on the matter brought to the Minister's notice.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 and 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

We must meet next Wednesday to deal with two Social Welfare Bills. If that is so, could we not do the other stage of this Bill then in case this point requires further clarification, as the Parliamentary Secretary has promised? I take it, Sir, that there is no complication in that?

It is not so urgent.

I have not been advised that it is so urgent that we cannot wait until Wednesday next. I have no objection.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5th June, 1957.
Barr
Roinn