Would the Minister like to give us a broad statement on the section?
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: " That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
Three areas of special importance for wildlife have already been provided for:
(1) Nature reserves on State lands (Section 15).
(2) Private nature reserves given a statutory recognition by the Minister (section 16); and
(3) Refuges for fauna established by the Minister (section 17).
Section 18 is aimed at a fourth category, i.e., areas which may be made the subject of " management agreements ".
The object of this section is to permit of formal agreements being made between the Minister or other persons or bodies and land owners for the management or use of land in the interests of wildlife conservation. If agreed between the contracting parties, these " management agreements " may be so drawn up as to bind successors in title to the land—" covenants-in-gross " There is a similar provision for covenants-in-gross in section 38 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, relating to corresponding agreements between planning authorities and landowners.
It rules out certain previous provisions.
There is provision made for other organisations in the agreement, including associations, clubs and so on.
I suppose the most important provision is that the Minister may make a payment.
Either a lump sum or periodic repayments.
It highlights the deficiency in section 16 which is no longer with us. The Minister mentioned that the agreement could be binding on the successors in title.
It will not bind the successors in title unless the agreement provides for it. The owner of the land could seek to bind only himself for his life or for a shorter time, but if he wants to bind his successor in title there is provision for it.
There can be a straightforward agreement, with provision for termination?
There is provision with regard to the management of the land, which is very important. Land which becomes the subject of this agreement might not be worked, cultivated, except in accordance with what is in the agreement. There may be provision in the agreement to prevent the owner from, say, growing oats?
That might be precluded. There might be provision in regard to hedges not being cut.
Could this not be a disincentive to co-operate?
It is on the basis of an agreement, voluntary, not compulsory.
Once it is agreed, the land carries that right through to any successive ownership?
Not unless that is specified in the agreement.
This is a very interesting provision because something might possibly have to be done in a positive way by a successor. It is quite a novel thing to have such a statutory provision—that there would be continuity of good work.
It is a compulsory burden.
It is a burden which the owner for the time being voluntarily enters into. He can elect to bind himself for his life or for a shorter period or to impose a burden on the successor. It means the land is protected for posterity.
Subsection (7) deals with management and is as follows:
In this section " management " in relation to land means use of the land for agriculture or forestry, the carrying out of works on, in or under the land, the making of any change in the physical, topographical or ecological nature or characteristics of the land and the use of the land for educational or recreational purposes.
They are things which the management committee may deal with.
They would be entered into by agreement—there is no compulsion applied in the acquisition. With that assurance I would not have any great quarrel with the section, but I cannot understand why if the owner is in agreement with all these things it is necessary to write them in.
It is necessary to write them into the agreement in order that the owner can bind his successors, if he so desires.
The Minister has said his successors would not be bound by it.
He can bind his successors if he so desires.
Question put and agreed to.