COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 46—FORESTRY FUND (GRANT-IN-AID). – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Thursday, 10 Jul 1924

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 46—FORESTRY FUND (GRANT-IN-AID).

Mr. HOGAN

I move:—

"That a sum, not exceeding £15,223, 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, 1925, in respect of a grant in aid of the Forestry Fund (9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 58)."

Deputies will note that certain items in this Vote are reduced, and they will note that the item "Forestry Operations," £21,400, remains the same. Advances for afforestation purposes are £500; last year the amount was £1,000. This system of giving small loans for forestry purposes to people who apply in a casual way is not sound. You get very little work done, and you do not get it done according to plan. We are endeavouring to substitute a different system. We are asking the County Committees of Agriculture, and we have got some of them to agree, to set aside a certain sum for forestry. We are asking them to set up nurseries, to acquire land and to turn that land into a nursery, and we offer them a bonus of £20 for every acre of land planted in that way. We are hoping that they will sell the young trees at cost price to farmers in the neighbourhood who require them for shelter belts. We think that it is much more likely that we will get results if the County Committees of Agriculture take up this, if they spend a little money, the 2d. rate themselves, and if we give them the bonus of £20 an acre together with the services of a forester to look after their nurseries. That is the reason why that item is reduced.

With regard to forestry education, we had only one forestry school, that at Avondale, and it was essential that it should be taken over by the Ministry of Defence for military reasons. We have had to adopt a different system with our apprentices. They are sent out on forestry work, and we cannot take them back to the school until we are in a position to reopen the school and get it going. In the meantime the apprentices are just as many, and they are doing actual forestry work throughout the country. With regard to that item of £21,400 for forestry operations it is the same as last year. Our position as regards that is quite simple. Forestry development is essential in this country, for probably it is the worst wooded country in the world.

Forestry development costs a considerable amount of money, and for the amount of money that is spent on it, it gives very little employment, so that as a method for relieving unemployment, forestry is not quite an ideal system. Further, it takes about 30 years before there is any return. Deputies may say that that is all the more reason why we should begin immediately. But our position is this, that in those few years, 1922, 1923, and 1924, we have had to make the most drastic economies in order to balance our budget and to get on a sound financial basis; and these are not exactly the years to undertake expenditure on a large scale which will fructify only after a very long period of years. And I say that, while fully admitting that as soon as possible money should be spent, and spent liberally as soon as we can afford it, in making a commencement in this service. Our way of making a commencement is to acquire all the land that we can get. Fortunately we have on hands, I think, about 20,000 acres of land for forestry purposes. I will give you the exact figures later on. And we have acquired over 6,000 acres of that from the Ministry of Defence. Of course, if we put the price of these 6,000 acres of land on this Estimate, it would make it quite respectable looking. I merely mention that point in order that Deputies might realise that the Forestry Estimate is what it appears there and, added to that, what would be the fair value of 6,000 acres of land, the forestry rights over which we have acquired from the Ministry of Defence.

Major BRYAN COOPER

This is not a very large Vote but in many respects it is an important one; and its importance is not decreased by the fact that it is a Vote which shows an increase from last year. Unfortunately I was not here at the beginning of the Minister's statement, and I am not quite clear whether he explained the reason why the Vote is increased, because in our present financial circumstances every increase in the Estimates needs to be justified by the Minister who is in charge. There is an increase, I think, of very nearly £4,000—£2 short of £4,000. It is not a very large sum but it is large enough to require explanation. The second point that I want to bring to note in this Vote is the disproportion between the sum voted for administration and office expenses and the sum actually expended on forestry operations. The Minister has explained that to a certain extent. It was necessary to cut down forestry operations to a very considerable extent owing to the financial situation of the country, but I cannot help thinking that it is mistaken economy to reduce active operations while keeping on all the overhead charges at the same rate as they were before. It seems to me that the vote for salaries—I am leaving out the education staff because all money spent on education is good—the vote for salaries £7,311, and added to that another £1,635 for administrative expenses, travelling, rent, furniture, etc., making approximately £9,000 in all, is very great compared with the sum expended on forestry operations, namely £21,400. And even the money spent on forestry operations is not all spent on planting trees because it includes purchase of land and also supervision and rates, so that it seems that for every pound spent in planting trees there is another pound spent on administrative expenses. That is a very rough approximation. That is not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs even taking the financial stringency of the times into account. One reason why this Vote is higher than it was last year is that the receipts from the sales of forest produce are less. Last year they were estimated at £2,410; this year they are only estimated at £1,000. Does that mean that the price has gone down or that we are selling less? I should like also to know whether the £2,400 estimated for last year was realised or not, because if there is any falling off it may have affected the previous estimate.

The Minister spoke of lands acquired from the Ministry of Defence of about six thousand acres. I wish he would tell us where that land is. Is it the land formerly used for artillery ranges in County Wicklow and for rifle ranges on the borders of the County Wicklow and the County Dublin? Because if it is I will not say any more about it now. I shall have something to say to it on the Vote for the Ministry of Defence. This is, I think, the proper occasion to take stock of the work of this Forestry Department. In dealing with a thing like a tree, which takes thirty years to develop, one cannot confine one's review to merely one year. One must from some sort of opinion as to the general state of things in this country. Where forestry is concerned, I think there is an enormous amount of ignorance and lack of true appreciation of the value of woodlands to the country. In the days when I was a landlord I had tenants constantly coming to me and begging me to cut down trees. I had one man coming to me and begging me to cut down a most valuable shelter belt without which his farm would have been practically useless, but which he thought shadowed the ground too much. I had another man coming to me fifteen years ago to cut down a tree which he said made the house unsafe. He could not sleep at night, he said, because of the fear of the tree coming through the roof. That was fifteen years ago, and the tree is still there. There seems to be some sort of inherited hatred of trees. In the West of Ireland, when a farmer got his vesting order, the first thing he did was to cut down almost every tree on the land. This is not at all a good thing for the country. I should hope that this Forestry Department would do more than it is doing to dissipate that state of ignorance.

We had a small Vote for these apprentices. What do these men do when they cease to be apprentices? Are they people who are going to take up forestry as a profession? If so, the number of openings for them is not very large. Or, are they ordinary farmers' sons, who go on large farms, and try to put their knowledge to some use there? There is a very strong case for State aid in forestry, and there is a strong case for State information. If Deputies go to Ballsbridge and look at the Department of Agriculture's exhibition there, they will see a most instructive show in forestry trees, suitable for wet and dry soils, and so on. But very little of that information is brought home to the person who does not go to the Show. The Department would have, I have no doubt, given the information if it was asked for. But, generally speaking, it is a singularly modest Department. I myself have planted over 10,000 trees, nearer to 20,000, without ever knowing that this Department existed.

There was no sort of announcement that they were willing to advise or assist people who were willing to spend their own money in planting. I think the result of this debate to-night will be that the Department will come more into the limelight. I hope that the second reason for State aid is a more convincing one, for very few people can invest money in timber and expect to see their money back in their lifetime. Their sons may see the return, but they themselves are hardly likely to do so. The average man is hardly so altruistic as to start planting on his own and wait 30 or 40 years for his money. It must be borne in mind that though by the Treaty we have many advantages, we have also got its disadvantages. There was a very big scheme for promoting forestry in what was the United Kingdom, which has been proceeded with in England and Scotland, but not proceeded with here. That puts a certain obligation on the Government. I agree that this is not the moment, even if the health of the Minister for Finance was more robust than it is, to turn round with a demand for £50,000 or £105,000 for afforestation. It would be a severe shock indeed. I hope we may take it as a definite pledge from the Minister that as soon as the financial situation is better, regard will be had to this important matter, and that as soon as the budget is balanced, and some relief in taxation is able to be given, he will press this on the Minister for Finance, as the debt is overdue and ought to be paid.

Mr. ESMONDE

I think Deputy Major Bryan Cooper's theory about the increase in this Vote might possibly be explained. If he consulted the expenditure in the year before last he would find that the Grant was £31,000, and including various other receipts it came to over £41,000. Although it may be a slight increase over last year, it is not an increase over the year before last. The Minister mentioned a scheme by which he is proposing to give the County Committees of Agriculture, for the purpose of advancing forestry, £20 an acre for planting. I wonder could he give an idea of the basis he went on in fixing that sum? It might be a reasonable Grant in some circumstances, but when one takes into account the various costs of planting in the different lands, and the price of land, and the kinds of trees you have to plant in particular lands, I think there will be a very considerable difference in the cost to the Committee in the various cases. The Minister referred to forestry as only giving a return in 30 years. I think that is a gloomy estimate. If in 20 years time the coal mines are still working in England there ought to be a market for trees which are planted this year. There are various items in this Estimate which are a bit confusing to ordinary Deputies. Under sub-head A we find an item for carrying coal, £12, and under sub-head B you find "fuel and light, £100." One might think that the coal to be consumed might be included in the cost of fuel and light. I do not know exactly the explanation of that peculiar change. Then there is this term "Professor of Forestry." Could the Minister tell us how many students the professor is teaching? I saw he was receiving a salary and bonus of £827. I wonder how many people he is teaching out of that. Then there was a Grant under sub-head C on the general Vote "Forestry Operations." I wonder if the Minister could tell us how many trees have been planted under the auspices of the Department last year.

Mr. HOGAN

I could not.

Mr. ESMONDE

Because otherwise it is difficult for us to form an estimate or opinion as to the value of this Department, for I think he has not given us sufficient information. With regard to sub-head C, which is the main item in the Vote, I think he ought to give us further information about that. Then as to sub-head D, Advances for Afforestation, would he state exactly what are the conditions for receiving these small grants which I see in the Estimate, amounting only to £500? Under sub-head E would he state how many apprentices are there at the present time at the forestry centres? That Vote has been reduced from £255 to £100. I think that Deputy Bryan Cooper has already referred to the reason for the reduction in the receipts from this Department. They have been reduced this year to £1,000 from £2,410 last year. I hope the Minister will give us some information on that. There is a further point on which I would like to question the Minister with reference to the whole policy of his Department. I would like to ask him whether it is true that Major Aherne, the Assistant Chief of the United States Forestry Department, offered his services, free of salary, to the Irish Government for the purpose of investigating and assisting in the development of this country, and whether the Minister is aware that this gentleman, in two or three years, completely reorganised and placed on a paying basis the forestry department of the various external territories of the United States of America? I would be glad if the Minister would say what answer he gave to Major Aherne on this generous offer he made to assist the Irish Government in the development of forestry.

Mr. P. DOYLE

One can understand that the financial position prevents any reasonable effort being made to replace the woodlands of the country, but I think while we are waiting for that time to come, that the Ministry should undertake to revive the holding of the Arbour Day celebrations that were in vogue some years ago, when a good deal of tree planting was done. I am sure if it was revived and held under Government auspices, it would give a fillip to the movement as well as create an interest in tree planting. There is no necessity for referring to the manner in which the country has been denuded in years past, particularly during the late war. It would seem to be nothing short of a crime the way in which trees are cut down without any effort being made to re-plant. Surely something could be done by some of the Departments to prevent people ruthlessly cutting down trees without replanting in their stead.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister complains very much that there is not sufficient money to conduct forestry operations on a scale that would be adequate for the requirements of the country. I want to throw out a suggestion to him that perhaps might relieve him of some of that expense and which would at the same time leave him with sufficient money for development. Sub-head C—"Forestry operations, purchase." A considerable sum of the £20,000 was used in buying land for forestry operations at something like £4 or £5 an acre for poor mountain land. I suggest that when the Minister buys this land he should not pay cash, but should issue land bonds when they are available, and he can then retain the cash to develop the 26,000 acres which he has on hands. I am throwing out that suggestion. He bought 20,000 acres and now he has not sufficient money to work them, but he need not pay cash for any further land he buys; he can pay in land bonds and use the money for the development of this land in forestry. I think that suggestion is worth considering.

Mr. BAXTER

There is a reduction in the Vote of £500. I think that a better result would come by increasing the Vote and by administering it by the Department direct rather than leaving it to the County Committees. It seems to me that this action of the Ministry is leaving to the local County Committees, and local effort, work that ought to be the work of the Government. I feel this work is not going to be done in the way it ought to be done unless the Government take it in hand themselves and unless administered directly by the Minister for Agriculture. I agree there is plenty of room for development and that some of the County Committees are doing a good deal in this matter of reafforestation. If a sum of money is to be placed at the disposal of the County Committees for procuring land, and if the services of a forester are also to be at their disposal, I think the Minister had better go the whole way and lay aside such a sum of money as will make it possible for the forester to do work on the land secured.

Mr. CORISH

Has the Minister any information at his disposal as to whether there has been any re-planting in the County Wexford recently or to what extent there has been replanting? Because he is aware that owing to the proximity of Wexford to the Welsh coal-fields, and Wexford being a seaport town, thousands of tons of pit-props were sent across during the war and Wexford county was practically denuded of timber. So far as handing over a certain amount of money to the County Committees, I, like Deputy Baxter, am inclined to think that that will not have the results the Minister has in mind.

Mr. HOGAN

It may save time if I explain the position, because I think some misconception has arisen. What I propose doing in regard to that sub-head D—Advances for Afforestation Purposes—is to reduce it by £500. These advances used to be made casually to people who looked for loans to plant very small areas. That is not considered sound. It is considered that it would be better, even in regard to these small areas planted here and there, if you could get them planted on some sort of a general plan. That was not being done, and this is a substitute for that sub-head and it is a substitute for nothing else and for none of the other activities of the Department. In connection with forestry, it was considered that perhaps better results would be obtained by encouraging, financially and otherwise, County Committees to commence the establishment of nurseries and let the farmers in a county have their trees for shelter belts, etc., at cost price. That scheme is an alternative only for the particular service which used to be rendered under this particular sub-head, and is not intended to be a substitute for any other of the activities of the Department.

Mr. ESMONDE

Under what Vote will that come?

Mr. HOGAN

This year it will come from C.

Mr. CORISH

What I am afraid of is that if that large sum of money is made available for County Committees it may lead to corruption in the administration. Along with that, I do not think the Government ought to delegate their powers in this matter to any committees. As Deputy Baxter said, it is a national matter. The country was denuded of timber during the recent European war, and a very serious effort ought to be made by the Government with a view to having a lot of replanting done. As Deputy Doyle said, the people's attention should be drawn to the necessity for planting trees, especially on Arbour Day. Circulars should be sent round broadcast through the country immediately before that, in order to create an interest in Arbour Day. I rose for the particular purpose of asking the Minister a question about the County Wexford, and I hope he will be able to give me some information.

Mr. CONLAN

I wish to point out that a great deal of good work in this direction has been done by the Kildare County Council, who took up the question of re-afforestation many years ago. After the sale of the great Leinster estate in that county, several woods still remained the property of the landlord. The County Council were able to acquire those woods on very favourable terms, in some instances on merely nominal terms. They appointed a forester and assistants and paid them out of the local rates. At the same time they established a nursery and supplied sufficient trees for the planting of half an acre, free of cost to any person who would apply for them. In that way a good deal of useful work was done. I would like to ask the Minister if that work, on the part of the County Council, is to come to an end, or is it proposed that it should be taken up by the Committee of Agriculture in the county. As I know myself, the work has certainly been very well done by the County Council up to this.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am interested in these 20,000 acres.

Mr. HOGAN

The exact figure is 27,525 acres. The other figure asked for was the area taken over from the Ministry of Defence, and that figure is 5,800 acres.

Mr. JOHNSON

These 5,800 acres are included, I take it, in the 27,000 acres?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes. They are in Kilworth, in the County Cork.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has said that afforestation is not an occupation or an industry which may be quite suitable for the relief of unemployment, inasmuch as it did not call for the employment of a large number of men. But, at least, it would be very helpful in agricultural districts in relieving the unemployment situation somewhat. The Minister says that the financial position is not satisfactory, and Deputy Cooper hopes that, when the Budget balances and when things are better nationally, something will be done to plant these 27,000 acres. I picture an ideal feudal landlord who realises that he was not able to make planting profitable in his own life-time, but was prepared to spend money in afforesting certain areas in the sure knowledge that it would be available in future years when he had passed away. I thought of that man going to a bank and borrowing money on the security of that land. The bank, knowing that the money would certainly be spent on this work of afforestation, would advance the money, knowing that there would be a certain return and that it would not be calling upon the landlord's annual income or for any other security than the lands which had been planted. I thought, too, of this Forestry Fund and whether it would not be possible, without hurting the finances of the country, to deal with this as a separate estate, and of raising a considerable sum of money for the purpose of afforestation without hurting the national finances in the least. After all, in this case you would not be calling upon the tax-paying capacity of the country, and you would have tangible securities. I think it is not beyond reasonable expectations that a considerable sum of money should be made available for this work at a time of great unemployment, and that money could be put into the work of forestry with the knowledge that in less than thirty years, I think, there would be some little income from it, enough, at least, to pay the current expenses out of the estate itself. When things got better then the actual current work could be paid for out of the national revenue by annual contributions. But in the present emergency it seems to me that we ought to take advantage of this national saleable property and raise money as distinct from the ordinary national loans for a specific purpose of this kind.

I do not think there is any reason why that should not be done and why it would not be done if it were dealt with as part of a separate fund, such as was done with the Development Fund. I think that this Forestry Fund was part of that Development Fund and treated as a separate asset, handing over to that Fund the administration of this forest land. I am sorry to hear that the Minister has turned down the proposition that money should be spent in forestry at this time because the finances of the country rather repel such a thought. Everybody agrees that re-afforestation is necessary in this country and I think everybody agrees that after the tremendous consumption of timber during the war it will appreciate in value and that the earlier the timber is available the more valuable it will be. I would urge that that matter be considered as a possible way of using some of the unemployed labour in the country in a manner which certainly would bring in a return within this generation. There will be a great deal of money spent in one operation or another, valuable no doubt, but not so certain of bringing a monetary return. Many operations that we will be engaged in for the purpose of relieving unemployment will be valuable in improving the amenities and the general comfort of the community but may not bring in a commercial return. Deputies from certain quarters are very fond of thinking in terms of commerce and finance. I would ask Ministers and Deputies to think of this in terms of commerce and finance, and even from that point of view I suggest that there is something to be said in favour of spending money in the employment of labour in re-afforestation.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I am very much in agreement with Deputy Johnson. Deputy Corish and Deputy Baxter went on rather the same lines in regard to this. I believe that this matter of re-afforestation is a national and not a local matter and it is a matter that should be dealt with at the very earliest opportunity and on a much bigger scale than it is proposed to deal with it. It is well known that the climatic conditions are affected by afforestation. It is well known, too, that the water power of our rivers is to a certain extent affected by afforestation. If the country is properly afforested the water will not rush down in a tremendous flood for a short time and then disappear altogether. I think that little can be done by means of local aid for the very evident reason, as has been emphasised several times, that the returns from afforestation are too slow. A man plants for his children or grand-children and it is difficult to ask the local ratepayers to have their money spent for purposes that will not give them a return for a long time. Even though the money is used for the purpose of making those nurseries, there will not be any quick return. The stress on local rates is sufficiently heavy at present without increasing it to any great extent.

With regard to the Department's policy, there is one matter I would like to call the Minister's attention to. It is the policy of the Department towards people who wish to cut down trees on farms purchased under the Land Acts. I think their policy is sometimes very obstructive and narrow-minded with regard to that. They sometimes refuse to give authority for cutting down hedge timber. The Minister must know, and those acquainted with afforestation must know, that hedge timber is detrimental rather than advantageous to farming. It would be a good thing if three-fourths of the hedge timber in the country were cut down. Its branches destroy the land for a considerable distance, and I think it should not be necessary for farmers who have purchased their land to have to apply to the Land Commission at all for the purpose of getting permission to cut down hedge timber. The Land Commission put difficulties in the way of men who want to cut their timber. I remember a friend of mine in the days of the war who had a dilapidated shelter belt which he wished to cut down, and the difficulty of getting permission to do that was so great that he decided not to cut it at all. I would like to ask if the Minister can give me some information with regard to the present conditions in Dun-drum, Co. Tipperary, in regard to afforestation, what expense has been incurred, and how the whole matter stands?

I think something should be done at once if the Government is not prepared to treat it as a national measure and spend money on it. Something might be done in the way of long-dated loans to people who have waste lands suitable for afforestation. There is an immense amount of waste land in the hands of farmers, which is not used effectively but which might be usefully employed in the growing of trees. These farmers are not themselves in a financial position to spend money on that. Probably the Minister will say that they tried that before and did not succeed. But it was not well known that money could be got for that purpose. I know men who, with a loan of that kind, would be anxious to plant, but farmers are not in the position to undergo large expenditure on a work which will not give a return for thirty or forty years. I think the Government might consider making a loan the repayment of which would not start before ten years.

I believe such plantations would begin to pay for themselves in ten years, and by having mixed plantations a man would be able to start paying off the loan and sinking fund in ten years. I would say that this is a national matter, and a matter affecting our climate and our country. It should be considered seriously by the Ministry. From the point of view of afforestation we are one of the worst countries in Europe. There is an immense amount of land in Germany under timber, and an immense amount of employment is given in tree-planting there. I believe afforestation does give a great deal of employment in the winter. Though the amount of employment it gives is not very great, still it does provide employment in the winter, at a time when the work on the farm is slack. It is my information that men who would be paid off on the farms in the winter would find work in the forests, apart from the question of the reproductive character of the expenditure and the utilisation of the unemployed.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I rather regret that the Minister did not give a detailed statement as to the policy of the Department in moving his Estimates rather than wait for the criticisms that will necessarily come from all parts of the Dáil. View points have been expressed here about afforestation, from which I must dissent. I do not favour the indiscriminate and haphazard planting of trees in various parts of the country. With the solitary exception of "belts," whether for shelter or ornament, I do not think that land would be very profitably utilised by the growing of trees. After all, we must go on the economic value of things, even to the extent of heather for grouse. My view is that we should rather go in for forests on a large scale, and have them well planted and properly tended by a forester. In this country we have too little sunshine. We have suffered very much, especially in the West of Ireland, from trees planted in the old days in a haphazard way. For a considerable distance out the land is worthless, whether for the purposes of hay-saving or tillage.

Seeing that it is now the considered policy of the Ministry to divide lands, I do not think small farmers can afford to lose what they do lose by having large plantations on their holdings. It is all very well for Deputy Cooper, who has a few hundred acres of land to spare, to talk about devoting space to woodland, but the average small farmer in these strenuous times cannot afford the land necessary for the purpose. Again, I say I am of opinion that it is rather on large woods carefully tended that the Ministry should concentrate their attention. There are hundreds of thousands of acres in this country of purely waste land which has no potential value for agricultural purposes. This could be profitably devoted to tree-planting. It is along these lines that we should turn our attention in afforestation.

Mr. ESMONDE

Might I suggest to Deputy Hogan that he could very easily cut down the branches that are hanging over the fields.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 Jul 1924