I move: "That a sum not exceeding £10,825 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for a Grant in Aid of the Forestry Fund." (£8,000 had been already voted on account.)
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - FORESTRY FUND.
Under this head, I would like to ask the Minister if it is proposed at any near date to bring in an Afforestation Bill. The matter has been frequently discussed. It was one of the very earliest proposals of the political party which brought this Dáil into being. Several attempts were made to deal with it in the past and the attempts always resulted in failure because of the lack of administrative machinery by which alone it could be brought to success. Now, with the administrative machinery at our disposal, it is a matter of common consent that a properly organised system of re-afforestation should be instituted.
The Minister and we are all of one mind in that matter, and I would be glad if he would say when it is proposed to deal with it by means of legislation, and if, pending such legislation, he would deal administratively with persons who are destroying at the present moment some of the beauty spots of Ireland and some of those parts still remaining in forest or in wood that not merely serve a beautiful purpose but also serve an economic and necessary purpose. These trees are being felled purely for profit, and I would ask the Minister to deal with the persons responsible administratively and compel them at least to get sanction from his Department before a single further tree in Ireland be felled.
This Estimate is framed on very modest lines, doubtless because of the fact that the financial position of this country at present is harassed because of the unfortunate trouble that took place here during the last six or eight months. There is one fact I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister bearing upon this question of Forestry that might encourage him to take steps to increase his Estimate. Under his own Land Bill he proposes to take possession of thousands of acres of untenanted land. A large portion of this untenanted land is entirely unfit for cultivation, and a great deal of it is particularly adaptable to forestry. If advantage was taken of this fact, the Ministry might be able to hold possession of those lands and carry out a scheme of planting upon them.
The attention of the British Government in this country was called again and again to the question of Forestry and the naked condition of Ireland was pointed out to them. A Commission sat in 1908 and inquired into the matter. It called attention to the fact that while in Austria 32 per cent. of the area was under wood, only about 1.5 per cent. of the area of Ireland was then under wood. Taking into consideration the heavy felling that took place during the war, the area under wood in Ireland now would be only about 1 per cent. Ireland has 1 per cent. under wood, Hungary 27 per cent., Germany 26 per cent., France 17 per cent., Belgium, the most highly industrialised country in Europe has still room for 17 per cent of its area in timber; and Denmark, which is only half the size of Ireland, has 7 per cent., or more than double Ireland's wooded area. This Commission also called attention to the fact that the area under wood in Ireland at that time was 300,000 acres, and they pointed out that the question of planting was purely a question for the State. They stated that the private individual would hardly plant a crop of timber, because he would not reap the harvest of it in his own time, and that it was only the State which could venture on a large scheme of planting.
This Commission recommended that the State should plant 200,000 acres of forest immediately, under its own direction, and that the Co. Councils should be encouraged to plant an additional area. They considered the entire area at that time, and in their opinion there were one million acres in Ireland particularly suitable for tree planting. I bring these facts before the Dáil, because I am sure it is thoroughly aware of the great value of having a country well planted. Although America, as compared with Ireland, is a thickly-wooded country, they are taking steps in America to preserve the wooded areas around the river sources, and also to plant further, in order to equalise the rainfall and improve the health of the country generally.
No one going through Ireland at present can fail to be struck with the miserable condition of the country for lack of trees. It is almost as bare as the Sahara in places and a great deal uglier, I am sure. I think the Minister for Agriculture is furnished with an excellent opportunity at least for getting the land, and I am sure this Dáil would not hesitate to give him the money either. The Commission which sat in 1908 under the scheme they drew up calculated that if these 200,000 acres were planted the annual cost for the first decade would be about £25,000 per annum, the second decade £55,000 per annum, and £70,000 per annum for the third, fourth, fifth sixth and seventh decades, after which the scheme would become self-supporting. It would pay the entire outlay in the first instance, and all the outlay for all the years up to then and the reasonable interest on all the money expended. If that is so, and those experts came to that conclusion, it is a pity if we cannot commence the planting of the country at as early a date as possible. Unfortunately it is not a class of work that affords much employment, though the contrary opinion is very common. It is work more for small numbers of men here and there wherever the estates are bought up, but I submit that the work is very important, and I am sure the Dáil entirely sympathises with it. I hope the Minister will devote special attention to it in view of the fact that under the Land Bill he is now getting possession of land excellently suited to that purpose, and of very little use for any other purpose.
Deputy Sears brings under your notice a very important fact. A few years ago a Canadian expert in timber-growing visited Ireland, and I had the advantage of a visit to the Botanic Gardens in company with some friends under his direction. He drew our attention to a little planting in one corner near the Glasnevin Cemetery, wherein various kinds of hybrid trees had been planted in experimental plots. He gave us a very instructive lesson in regard to those trees. They are alongside a little plantation of spruce. We all know that during the later years of the Great European War most of the paper utilised on the American Continent was made from spruce. So great was the demand in fact for that type of timber that a special railway line was run in the neighbourhood of Seattle. According to this expert, and from what I have read, stimulated by his suggestion, a better tree for this purpose which grows the maximum of pulp usable in the minimum of time is the popular tree. I am sorry the statistics which I was provided with then are not forthcoming now on the spur of the moment, but I do recall that the average time in which the poplar tree would have produced its greatest quantity of usable pulp was from 30 to 40 years, so that the return upon the capital outlay is exceptionally rapid, and is exceedingly fruitful. It so happens, as Deputy Sears wisely reminds us, that we have now the opportunities under the Land Act, and also that Ireland is a country particularly favourable to the growth of the poplar. It grows with great rapidity and richness of sap in every part of Ireland, so that there is the opportunity here for a very rich investment. There was a time when the farmer did not own the tree that was planted on his land and one of the Land Acts introduced a very beneficial reform in securing him his property in it. Agricultural education should be extended in the near future, under the head of Technical Education, and it should be brought under the notice of the people what a rich harvest they may have, not in the nature of an annual harvest, but a rich harvest nevertheless, through the planting of trees. There will be the additional advantage of shelter. We are all aware —to copy the very happy phrase used by Deputy Sears—of how naked the land has become. Shelter is absolutely needed, not merely in the ordinary sense for cattle, but for the country at large. It does seem an unfortunate thing that the Forestry Department, until a comparatively few years ago, was a neglected side of public expenditure. I am quite confident, however, that under the new regime, to which we are all looking forward, the planting of trees will be inculcated as a public duty, apart altogether from its being shown with absolute conviction to the farmers that they cannot put their money more profitably into any other thing.
I just want to draw attention to the figures in connection with this Vote. Last year there was voted £31,665. There is a note, and I think, though I am not quite sure, that a similar note was attached to the estimate last year. The note reads:—
"The expenditure out of this Grant will be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended on the 31st March, 1924, will not be liable to surrender."
I presume that was the case in regard to the Vote of £31,665 last year, but we find in a note at the bottom of that page that the balance unexpended or anticipated balance of the Forestry Fund amounting to £6,000 on the 31st March, 1923, was, as a matter of fact, surrendered, or it was equivalent to a surrender, inasmuch to the balance of the 1923 account is added a sum of £5,690, which it is expected will be paid to the Forestry Fund by the British Government, and those two sums added together are taken from the Vote for the ensuing year. The effect of that is that the Forestry Fund is not able to take advantage of the money that was saved from last year. I think it would have been more satisfactory to the country if the Grant of £31,000 voted last year was duplicated this year, and if any addition, either paid in by the British Government, or saved on last year's expenditure, had been added to the sum at the disposal for the current year instead of being reduced from the amount voted. We see in the Appendix an alleged nett decrease of £1,150, but so far as the charge upon the Exchequer is concerned there is a decrease of £12,800, and it is a pity that advantage should be taken by the Treasury of the circumstances of last year, which militated against the expenditure of the voted sum, to deprive them of the use of that sum for the ensuing year.
As I read this estimate, that is in effect what is to happen. Item E, dealing with forestry education, was reduced by £800 from £1,070 to £255. I have been led to believe that the scheme for forestry education has been very successful, and that young men, farmers' sons, were able to take advantage of this forestry tuition and experience, and spread the light that they received at that school when they got back to their own localities. I think it is unfortunate that there should be a decrease in this estimate for forestry education and expenses of apprentices at forestry centres. On the general question, it is a pity to find that the Ministry is economising in this Vote. There has been a great deal said in favour of education and forestry, and the development of afforestation for the purposes of National wealth in the future. I think it is generally admitted that this is one of the forms of expenditure which is certainly productive. I do not think £30,000 should be cut down. I do not think the forestry department should have been deprived of the amount—the unexpected amount—saved out of last year's Vote, especially when we are reminded that any such balance is not liable to surrender. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that, notwithstanding the meagre sum asked for on this occasion, he does anticipate there will be a call for a supplementary estimate, having schemes in hand, and that his expert advisers are satisfied with the forecast of work for this year that this Estimate gives us. I would like to hear the Minister's explanation on this point.
I do not agree with the Deputy that we should look at the Estimate from the point of view of how much money we have to spend. Apart altogether from whether the Estimate should be big or small, the correct way to prepare one is to ask yourself how much are you going to spend, and not how much have you.
Will the Minister say whether his expert advisers' schemes are covered by this Vote, and where they were asked to prepare schemes limited up to a certain amount?
May I suggest to the Minister a still more suitable question: "How much, according to the requirements of the country, ought we to spend?"
That is putting my point in another way. I will deal with the Deputy's point later on. At present I am on the contention that we had £6,000 over from last year, and that we expected £5,690 from the British Government, and that hence that should be added on. It really comes to this: it should be added to the £30,000, and that we should spend the whole lot. That, in my opinion, and the Deputies generally will agree, is a wrong way to look at the question. I am not defending the £30,000; it might be £300,000. The real point you should first consider is: "What are you going to spend; what can the country afford; what should you spend according to the particular policy you are carrying out." That should be the view point, and you should not look at it from the point of view, "We have so much money and let us spend it." That is the reason I am against grants-in-aid. It was all right when we were getting the money from the British Treasury, and when we were getting a certain amount under conditions which enabled us to hold it. Now we are getting it from the Irish Treasury and there is no further reason for the system whereby Departments hold any balances they may have. That only leads to waste and inefficiency, and the general spending of money for the sake of spending it. To come to the figure £30,515, that really is not the Estimate this year. If we are to increase our forestry programme, and undoubtedly it must be increased in the near future, we will have to buy land, and we are in the fortunate position this year that we, probably, will get something like 10,000 acres of what I call Army land, land taken over from the British War Department. If we had to buy that it would increase that Estimate very considerably. Deputies should not come to the conclusion that the payments will be made by the Department and that the service which they intend to carry out is covered by this figure of £30,515. We are getting 10,000 acres, and then as Deputy Sears pointed out, we have a Land Bill under which we have power to vest land in trustees or other bodies for forestry purposes. There is no limit to the one important item, the amount of land we have in hands, and that is the item which costs money. The estimate is in fact, if you look at it from that point of view, a very big estimate. We get land from the Army, and we will have provision in the Land Bill to take over land for forestry purposes, and make advances to trustees and other bodies. Therefore, it is not in fact a small Estimate this year. I do not want to go into the general question of policy in regard to forestry. Apart from the consideration that Deputy Magennis put forward, that it might be developed and made a paying industry in a special way, there is the fact that this country is denuded. Apart from the question as to whether you can make the planting of trees a paying proposition, you have to deal with the fact that of all countries in Europe this country is probably the most denuded of trees, and whether the planting of trees pay or not from the commercial point of view, we must plant them. From the point of view of climate, shelter and scenery it is absolutely necessary to increase our forestry programme to a very large extent. I need not labour that question, and I need not go into the question of whether we should make profits from forestry in this country which other countries can make. That does not arise.
With regard to the Afforestation Bill, I have the points of that Bill prepared, but the fact is that as a result of the Land Bill I have no time to present it to the Dáil, and there is no time in the Dáil, because of its programme being so full up with other absolutely essential Bills. I do hope, perhaps, but I could not promise to introduce that Bill before the elections. I could not deal with it until the Land Bill is through, and we are taking certain powers in the Land Bill which will go some way to meet the powers we propose to have under the Afforestation Bill. It will go part of the way. Deputy Johnson asked me a question which I do not propose to answer—that is, as to what particular advice I got from my experts in this matter. I am declining to answer that on general principles.
I asked the Minister one question which probably passed his memory, and that is that pending the Reafforestation Bill is he prepared to come to this Dáil and get such powers as he may be advised are necessary to enable him to stop the felling of any further trees in any part of this country without the specific permission in writing of his Department?
Before the Minister answers that, I would like if he would tell us what the expectation is for this current year with regard to the number of apprentices receiving education at Forestry centres? Is there considerable reduction in the number which would account for the reduction in the Estimates?
I could not tell the Deputy the exact number, but my impression is that the sum we are providing covers the expenses of all the apprentices that we could take. I could not at the moment say the exact number.
Does not that rather suggest that there is, apart from these bigger and more expensive items, a decline in the actual work of this Department, certainly in the forestry centres when £1,000 could be voted last year and only £255 this year for education services?
Of course £1,000 was voted last year, but the £1,000 was not spent. My impression at the moment, and I have gone into the question before, is that there was some difficulty in getting apprentices for these purposes— that is to say suitable men. The Department expect that £255 will cover the expenses in connection with the men they will be able to get for this purpose this year. With regard to Deputy Figgis's point, in regard to the Bill I spoke of, one of its main provisions was the prevention of the felling of trees. That is not a thing you can do with a wave of the hand. There are a great many interests connected with it. You have the timber merchants and other people, and all these people have been consulted, and their views have been found, and I have the Bill practically ready. I have the points ready, but the Bill is not yet drafted. The various points in the Bill are prepared and in writing after consultation with all interests. I could not come to the Dáil and get from the Dáil permission to issue an ukase preventing people cutting trees. It is a matter for legislation. The Dáil time-table has not allowed me to introduce this Bill. The fact that I have been dealing with the Land Bill for the last month or two, and the fact that I have had to give my time also to other interests have prevented this.
I understood that the Department had powers in the matter of preventing the felling of trees.
Yes, but in regard to purchased land only; that is to say, land purchased under the Land Act and not untenanted land.
Then they have power in such cases?
Yes.
There are a number of wood tracks in the neighbourhood of Dublin, and at the rate they are being denuded, and by the time the Re-afforestation Bill comes, there will be no trees left because of those who are sheer plunderers in the matter. In the absence of legislation could not an interlocutory order be passed by the Dáil?
Unfortunately the felling of trees takes place, and it is a great loss to the scenery sometimes, but if the ideas of Deputy Figgis were carried out in a wholesale manner, would it not be very poor encouragement to farmers to plant trees if after planting their "crop" and waiting for it to mature the State steps in and says "We will not allow you to reap it." A man should be allowed to reap his crop. I am sure if Deputy Figgis had a thousand acres of valuable timber and could get a good price for it, and wanted to sell it, he would not like the State to step in and say "We will not allow you."
I do suggest that Deputy Sears might have listened to the question before speaking as he has done. I said pending the introduction of the Re-afforestation Bill.
There is really no use in arguing this. We cannot do it by any interlocutory injunction. We cannot change the law except by another law. We are doing what we can to prevent plunder. The Minister for Home Affairs is doing what he can to prevent plunder. The District Justices all over the country have their hands and their time fully occupied in dealing with this matter. They are fining people for it. We have certainly stopped that and will continue to stop it.
Question put and agreed to.