The Minister has the right under this section to utilise the greenlands for military exercises and I suppose that is the basis of his right to dig trenches, for example, in the greenlands. Some effort should be made to fill in the trenches afterwards. There are trenches at the moment which were dug at some stage and are now left just as they were when military operations ceased. Some effort should be made to fill them in and re-seed the land.

I will look into that matter. Some of the trenches may have been used over again. I will look into the matter to see if they are completely unnecessary now.

The Minister will see two between Newbridge and Kildare on the left-hand side.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 46, to delete ", with the approval of the Minister,".

I do not think it should be necessary to have the approval of the Minister for the charge to be made for copies of the map.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 20, after "The Minister may" to insert ", for the purpose of the construction, maintenance or repair of any road in or in the vicinity of the Curragh or for the purpose of any power, duty or function of the Minister in relation to the Curragh,".

This is to meet the point that was raised by Deputy Dooley on the Second Reading. He drew attention to the fact that this qualification existed in the former Acts and that it was being dropped in this Bill. I do not see any objection to including it now and this amendment enables that to be done.

Is the Minister able to explain the point raised about valuations?

Yes. The rating, I think it is clear now, will be on an individual basis, which has been fixed by the Circuit Court, as Deputy Sweetman may be aware.

Very much aware, I am afraid.

It will be on an individual basis so the fears Deputy Sweetman expressed on the Second Reading will not arise.

On the Second Stage of this Bill I raised the question of preserving the rights of soldiers and their families and outsiders generally of going across and watching the races from outside the enclosures. I asked the Minister to take steps to ensure that whatever enclosing process was contemplated it should not deprive these people of the right they have exercised from time immemorial to utilise the Curragh lands for the purpose of seeing the races there. The Minister undertook to look into the matter and gave me an assurance that the fencing would be done in such a way as to exclude the sheep, but to preserve the right of human beings to walk across the Curragh and see the races. Could the Minister say what is the position in that respect?

The racing authorities have no intention of making any change in the present position whereby the public can cross the plains and watch the races from outside the track.

We can take it, therefore, that whatever rights they have had up to the moment will not be interfered with in the enclosure scheme?

That is right. They can still view the races from the position to which they can go at the moment.

In other words, it is purely for the purpose of improving the texture of the soil of the racecourse?

Yes, primarily.

Has the Minister given consideration to another point, the constitutionality of this? As the position is, certain people have the right to graze sheep at large over the whole 4,000 acres of the Curragh. The effect of this provision is that it takes away their right to graze at large. I know that it only deals with it proportionately to the number of claims that are cancelled but even so a person who retains a claim and whose claim is not cancelled has, at present, the right to graze at large. Under this Bill he loses that right. It is, to some extent, therefore a confiscation of the proprietary rights without compensation which, as far as I understand, is prohibited by the Constitution.

I am advised that so long as there is, beyond doubt, sufficient grazing left for the number of grazing rights that remain it is within the power of the Oireachtas to give me this power to enclose portion of the Curragh on the extinguishment of an appropriate number of rights.

Regardless of the quality. The quality might be much better in one place than in another.

Provided it is beyond doubt that there is sufficient grazing left available to the remaining numbers of grazing rights in existence. I realise that if you kept on enclosing more and more, you would eventually reach the stage that Deputy Sweetman has described where there would not be grazing at large. The remaining graziers will still have the right for their sheep to graze over a very large area. They will still have the full length and breadth of the Curragh apart from this portion which will be enclosed.

Which might run as much as one-fourth of it from what the Minister said the other day.

Yes. It would be approximately one-fourth of the green lands but then there are the blue lands as well—approximately one-fifth of the total grazing area.

Once the Minister has adverted to it, it is his responsibility thereafter, not mine.

It has been suggested to me that there is not the right to surrender claims in perpetuity and that, furthermore, some of the persons who have made the offer do not understand they will be giving up the claims for all time, that it may be only for the big race next year. It is not clear they have the right to surrender the claims at all. It is suggested that the claims go with the holdings and not with the person for the time being in tenancy of the holding.

A further point is the fact that the portion being enclosed contains some of the gallops. If those gallops are not to be used now further gallops will have to be provided on the outer lands that are not enclosed. If additional gallops are to be put on those lands it will further decrease the amount of grazing available.

I am advised that these claims can, in fact, be surrendered to the State, which is the basic owner of the land in question, and that there is no doubt as to the legality of that.

Surrendered to the Minister rather than to the State?

Yes.

I understand some documents have been completed surrendering them to the State, which I do not think is quite accurate.

It is to the Minister they will be surrendered. In regard to people not understanding that they are, in fact, surrendering their claims entirely, none of these claims has been surrendered yet. I think they are by now fairly well aware of the position. If there is a training gallop included within the area to be enclosed, the number of the rights which will be extinguished will be a number which will be equivalent to the total area being enclosed, including the gallop on which there is no effective grazing at the moment. If a replacement gallop is established, rights in respect of an equivalent area will already have been surrendered. There will be no question of any more land being taken than rights have been surrendered to cover.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 13, to delete "the Minister proposes" and to insert "it is proposed."

This is merely to bring this into line with the wording used in subsection (1) of Section 11.

Could the Minister give us some idea of what is intended under Section 13?

Section 13 provides for the temporary exclusion of sheep from parts of the Curragh for the purpose of such things as carnivals, race meetings and so on. In the case of a road race, it might be necessary to exclude sheep temporarily.

A road race is what I had in mind. For a road race, you would also have to exclude people from certain parts or it would be very dangerous. Where is the right to deal with that?

I do not think the people have any definite right to any part of the Curragh at all. It is only sheep.

You failed to include the sheep behind Fianna Fáil but that day is gone.

That was only if proportional representation were abolished.

Deputy Sweetman raised the question whether this could be used to cover a car park. It is not intended that it should. The Racing Board intend that any car park they establish will be in the area they are enclosing. It is possible that for the day of a race meeting, it might at some future date be necessary to establish a temporary car park for one day. It could be used for that but that is not the intention.

The Minister can do what he likes on the Curragh in relation to people but in relation to sheep he can do only what is permitted by this Bill?

Yes.

That, roughly, is the situation?

Yes.

Are there, in fact, any pending proceedings?

I believe there is one pending.

Is it quite clear that neither of the litigants is damnified in any way by this section?

It is. The Board of Works have proceedings against someone. That will be transferred to the Minister for Defence.

If the Minister looks at Dublin Opinion this month, he will see when proceedings are likely to come to fruition—a comment on the Board of Works and the time involved.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, line 37, after "continued" to insert "and not exceeding one hundred pounds in all".

This is to conform with principles enunciated in a judgment given by the Supreme Court last February.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, line 42, to delete "made".

The word "made" in line 42 is considered to be superfluous.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, line 47, to add to the section the following subsection:

"(5) Every bye-law under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the bye-law is passed by either such House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the bye-law is laid before it, the bye-law shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder."

This is to meet a suggestion made by Deputy Sweetman. I see no objection to it.

Can the Minister tell us whether it is intended forthwith to prepare consolidated bye-laws?

I do not think there is any urgency about it.

Is it proposed to go ahead with them? It is not proposed to leave the old ones there?

It is proposed to go ahead with the new ones.

I do not mean today or tomorrow, but within some reasonable time.

Is there no other phrase, apart from the "Curragh of Kildare", to describe these lands? What is the meaning of the "Curragh of Kildare"?

I do not see any point in introducing a new title for an area that is already well known.

Would you give posterity the benefit of this description? You might as well say "Newbridge of Kildare" or "Naas of Kildare". This phrase "Curragh of Kildare"—what does it mean?

There may be other Curraghs in different parts of the country. This is the Curragh of Kildare.

Is that the reason?

That is my guess.

I have often heard the expression used outside Kildare.

I am trying to get the origin of the phrase for the benefit of posterity. Somebody might read some day what we are saying here.

The Minister omitted one thing which he should have told us—the winner of next year's race.

It will not be Fine Gael, anyway.

No, that will be this year. The Minister will be over here as one of the survivors next year and he will have plenty of time to go down to see the race. He will not be engaged in the duties of his present office.

I wish I could be as sure of the winner of the Derby as I am that I will be on this side.