Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Special Committee Wildlife Bill, 1975 díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Jul 1976

SECTION 43.

Question proposed: " That section 43 stand part of the Bill."

Section 43 deals with land drainage schemes and I will give a brief explanation of it. An earlier section of the Bill, section 12, imposes certain restrictions on other Government Departments, public bodies, and so on, whose activities might interfere with important wildlife areas which have been set up in various ways under the Bill. An exemption was given under the section for arterial drainage work carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works but, as I have indicated previously on section 12, this matter would be dealt with as a separate item under this section. The object of section 43 is to require the Commissioners of Public Works, when undertaking future drainage schemes, to take all practicable steps to safeguard nature reserves, refuges for fauna, and lands the subject of management agreements. Wetlands, for example, fens, callows, turloughs, saltmarshes, and so on, are important habitats of wildfowl and wading birds, including migratory species to this country. In the past some important wetlands in Ireland have unfortunately been destroyed as a result of drainage operations carried out without full regard to the ecological consequences. However, this type of problem, in the context of the conservation of the natural environment generally and of wetlands in particular, is by no means confined to Ireland.

The object of this section is to impose on the board of the Commissioners of Public Works the obligation to minimise damage to these valuable areas. However, this section does not intend to interfere to any serious extent with essential drainage schemes aimed at improving large tracts of land which might otherwise remain unproductive. It may be important, in some instances, to limit the scope of a scheme in relation to relatively small areas of vital significance for wildlife.

I suppose it can be shown—and here we are not going to enter into a discussion as to the need for arterial drainage or drainage of any kind—that it has had the effect of minimising the number, kind and types of birds we have. In this we are hoping we would alert the OPW to this and ask them to co-operate with us while appreciating all the time the vital importance of the work in which they are engaged. They will have regard for conservation in any operation.

The last couple of lines in sub-section (1) (b) read: "and take all practicable steps including, where appropriate, the limitation of the drainage scheme to minimise or avoid such effect or interference ".

It is highly desirable that should be done and I would be hoping that the officers of the OPW would take seriously the spirit of section 43. I suppose there is no more that can be gainfully said.

I should like to put it on record that my experience to date has been that that is the spirit in which the OPW have approached these matters. I have had that experience in my constituency where a major drainage scheme was carried out.

Mr. Kitt

My experience has been that the Office of Public Works had not enough money for drainage. That is why in our part of the country they are so slow in tackling the problem. I was hoping money would be made available for more drainage. As the Minister said, in some instances the scheme will be limited in relatively small areas in the interests of wildlife. I do not think there is any danger of that happening in the west of Ireland because so little drainage is taking place.

I think Galway did fairly well at one time. We would all like to see more drainage schemes.

On this section and as one who was in charge of arterial drainage for a considerable period I want to say the OPW are meticulous in ensuring that they replace any damage done to rivers. They have been confronted in the past with the problems of spawning beds for salmon and fishing generally, and they have given an undertaking to reproduce, as far as is humanly possible, the natural conditions, the environment in the gravel and the bends and the contours of river banks. They have done this magnificently. All this has helped to impede the course of the 1945 arterial drainage scheme. Sometimes it does not require much opposition to create the necessary excuse not to go on with a drainage scheme because it is a big undertaking and costs a lot of money.

I remember when we pushed through the Moy drainage scheme, at the official opening at Ballina, the locals assembled not all to rejoice that we were spending almost a couple of million pounds for the drainage of the Moy, but to protest about the good fishery which would be ruined. The Office of Public Works have been vindicated today for the work they did there. They did not destroy the fishery but provided a better environment for fish. The salmon fishery there is as good now as ever it was. In this section here we have given them another headache. This is the point I have been making on which the farmer members of this committee will support me. When they move in to do drainage schemes it is to relieve flooding of land which has been neglected but, due to the fact that it has been neglected it has become a natural habitat for many types of fauna and it has produced flora which is conducive to making it a sanctuary. The OPW are asked to drain land in the interests of agriculture. We are told so much of the land of Ireland is fallow and so much of it is derelict that reclamation is necessary. We have spent millions on reclamation and now, before they start a drainage scheme the office of Public Works will have to give this undertaking and may not be allowed to do it.

It says here that small areas may be excluded from schemes, and the Minister in his explanation says it will not interfere to any serious degree. The huge drainage scheme going on on the Boyne at the moment and the many drainage schemes that have been carried out under the 1945 Arterial Act and the many that are listed on the priority list could be set back by this.

In fact I think they have been. When the late Deputy Kenny was in the Board of Works he told me that one of the main reasons that was holding up the Dunkellin apart from money was that at the Rasheen Turlough, which is one of the finest wildlife sanctuaries in Europe, had to be got around.

This particular section is an effort to get enlightened thinking on conservation, an effort to conserve without interfering with the improvement of land. I will read the section:

(1) Where the Commissioners propose to undertake either——

(a) a drainage scheme within the meaning of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, which is one to which this section applies, or

(b) any other land drainage scheme,

in respect of an area which includes land to which an establishment order, a recognition order or a designation order applies, or land to which an agreement made under section 18 of this Act applies, the Commissioners shall, before commencing the scheme, consult the Minister to ascertain if and to what extent the proposed scheme if carried out would affect or interfere with the suitability of the land affected by the scheme for a nature reserve or refuge, as may be appropriate . . .

Here we propose consultation between the Minister for Finance and his Parliamentary Secretary, who are charged with drainage and the improvement of land, on the one hand, and the Minister for Lands who is charged with conservation on the other hand. There will be consultation between them and then the Board of Works will be advised to take all practical steps, including, where appropriate, the limitation of drainage schemes, in order to minimise or avoid such effects or interference, and this section applies to any drainage scheme within the meaning of the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, not being a scheme which has already been initiated.

It is reasonable. I have no great objection to it; and I know the Office of Public Works will meticulously carry out the instructions, and there are legal obligations now. Heretofore it was on their own volition they had regard to it. However, it could be another reason—and there are many—to slow down drainage. I mentioned the Boyne drainage, and everybody who knows the way the Boyne is silting up so that islands were created in the middle of the river; they became jungles, with, I am sure, kangaroos and everything. The Board of Works bulldozed the lot, and they have the Boyne flowing well. If these restrictions were in operation, I doubt if they could have cleared much of the artificial lines that were created, and the huge growth along the banks did create a paradise for birds.

We are dealing here with only limited and specified areas——

Did the Minister say the Commissioners would be obliged to comply?

It says " and take all practicable steps including, where appropriate, the limitation of the drainage scheme, to minimise or avoid such effect or interference ".

There is no obligation on them under that section.

Except the Commissioners " shall " before commencing the scheme, consult with the Minister. We have " shall " consult.

I think there is nothing in that section other than an expression of the concern for the preservation of wildlife and an exhortation to people——

No. There are teeth in this section.

There are no teeth. It says " before commencing the scheme ". That in itself visualises that they will commence the scheme and they only have to consult. There is nothing which says that if the Minister for Lands is unhappy with their approach that he will do anything about it.

We are only reading these things as we go along: The Commissioners " shall ", before commencing the scheme consult with the Minister and ascertain if and to what extent the proposed scheme if carried out would affect or interfere with the suitability of the land affected by the scheme for a nature reserve or refuge, as may be appropriate, and—" shall " comes back into the provision—shall take all practicable steps including, where appropriate, the limitation of the drainage scheme to minimise or avoid such effect or interference.

But if they do not feel like taking them there is nothing the Minister can do.

It is another brake on drainage.

The Minister says he has his consultants. I would have a keener look at that. I would say that having regard to the manner in which that is written, there is nothing but " the Commissioners shall, before commencing the scheme ". It does not say before planning a scheme but before commencing it, they shall consult with the Minister.

And take all practical steps to minimise or avoid.

As they feel like taking.

There is a balance here between the two——

(Interruptions.)

This is too much heavily weighted in favour of wildlife rather than the farmer, and there is a certain danger in this.

(Interruptions.)

What the Minister is actually doing is giving legal teeth to a practice that has been adopted today and has worked very satisfactorily, as Deputy Brennan says. They have been very conscientious about their duty, but in view of the fact that other people are being asked to do things or not do things it is only right that the Board of Works should be brought into the net. They should not be excluded from duties under this Act. That is all they have done. The word "shall" is pretty mandatory.

While we all accept and welcome it, we have to consider to what extent it is inimical to good husbandry around Ireland. If land was properly cultivated in the country there would be very little room for fauna and wildlife. The new forestry that is growing up has done more for the preservation of wildlife than anything else. Snipe is the best shooting we ever enjoyed, and if the land was properly drained, cultivated and fertilised there would be no snipe.

Mr. Kitt

I would hate to think this would ever be used as an excuse for not going ahead with drainage schemes which are so important in the west of Ireland. In the case of the Dunkellin, the nature reserve has put back the scheme, apart from the fact that there is not money available to do the scheme. The usual excuse given is that it is far down on the priority list and that there is a lack of finance. There are many other rivers to be drained in Galway, and we have not heard any reason why they are not being done, except the lack of finance. I would hate to think that because certain areas are to be preserved the schemes will be held up.

I am satisfied that will not happen. There will be consultation between the two Departments and a reasonable approach.

Is there anything further on section 43?

We are accepting it in the belief that, in the circumstances prevailing at the moment, common sense will enter into any arrangement. Like all other legislation the effluxion of time may change all that.

If it was abused any reasonable Government would introduce an amendment very quickly.

The OPW still have the upper hand.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn