Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 1

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 53—FORESTRY FUND (GRANT-IN-AID).

MINISTER for JUSTICE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £25,457 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Deontas i gCabhair don Chiste Foraoiseachta (9 agus 10 Geo. 5, c. 58).

That a sum not exceeding £25,457 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, 1927, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund (9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 58).

Mr. HOGAN

There are only about 240,000 acres of woodland in the Free State. That represents 1.2 per cent. of the total land surface, which is a very small percentage compared with any other country in Europe which is suitable for growing trees. The policy of the Forestry branch is to increase the woodland area to, at least, five per cent. of the total land surface. That would entail the planting of 600,000 additional acres, in addition to conserving the 240,000 acres of woodland already in existence. The main difficulty about forestry is that land is wanted for some other purpose. Mountain land is not suitable for afforestation and a large percentage of the lands which are suitable are required for what is regarded as a more urgent purpose, such as the relief of congestion. 400 acres is regarded as an economic unit, and if that amount of land is obtained, similar units can be grouped about it. The total area of forest land acquired is 33,000 acres, 21,000 of which have been purchased in fee simple. Close on 7,000 acres of that were obtained from the Department of Defence and negotiations are proceeding for the acquisition of a further 11,000 acres.

During the past season 3,043 acres were planted, and for this purpose 6,000,000 trees were required. The principal varieties used were Douglas fir, Scots pine, larch, common and sitka spruce, silver fir and Corsican pine, etc. The Department were able to supply about 3,000,000 trees from their own nurseries for last year's planting, and the others were got from various sources. The total area planted during the last five years was 10,611 acres. In 1921-22 the number of acres planted was 707; in 1922-23, 959; in 1923-24, 1,176; in 1924-25, 2,210; and in 1925-26, 3,043. Considerably more will be planted this year because Deputies will notice that for cultural operations there is this year a sum of £29,000 as against £24,000 last year. The number of workmen employed is, roughly, 100 permanent men and 260 seasonal men. It is hoped to purchase in addition about 3,000 acres this year, and in addition plant about 3,500 acres. I do not think that I need say anything on the sub-heads, as they speak for themselves. The important sub-head is C 2, which amounts to £29,000 as against £24,000 last year, and that refers both to the maintenance of land and to cultural operations. This year for these two purposes as well as for the acquisition of land under sub-head C (1) the sum is £34,000.

Mr. ESMONDE

I would like to suggest to the Minister that he might take steps to wind up the Forestry Fund. I have been looking at the Estimate for the last few years, both in the Dáil and the Public Accounts Committee, and I see no particular reason why these sums should be retained as grants-in-aid when so many funds have been wound up and are now treated as ordinary estimates. I see no definite reason why you should keep this estimate in the form of grants-in-aid. Apparently, from the figures before us, it is quite easy to estimate the exact cost of this service for the year. I think it would tend to uniformity if the estimates were put down in the ordinary form. Under sub-head C 2, which is the main one, Deputies, as it stands here, have no information as to how the money is spent. The main sum in the estimates amounts to £34,000, of which £5,000 is to be spent on the acquisition of land, but we have no information as to the charges in regard to the £29,000.

If the Estimates were set out as Estimates for the Department of Agriculture we would have more information as to the exact cost of the services, how much is spent on charges, and how much on other matters. I am glad to see that the expenditure has been increased this year. I wonder also if the Minister would give us some information with regard to forestry education and as to whether any progress has been made in that direction. The Minister did not mention it in his statement. I do not know whether we should deal with the sub-heads separately or together.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Together.

Mr. ESMONDE

Then there is sub-head D. He might explain to us how advances are made under sub-head D. There is no variation here. In sub-head A I notice that the head of the Department has been changed from "Assistant Commissioner" to "Director." I do not know if that has any significance. I suppose it is only a change in the name. If I understood the Minister rightly, apparently 33,000 acres have been acquired, and so far the acreage planted is about 10,000. These are the figures he gave. Therefore apparently there must be 22,000 or 23,000 acres still in the possession of the Department and not yet planted. Would it not be better to spend more money in planting that area instead of spending it in the acquisition of land when there is so large a quantity of land still untenanted?

Mr. DALY

I would like to ask the Minister if it is a fact that a large amount of money is sent out of the country for young trees every year, and if that is so why not immediately start our own nurseries? I believe there are nurseries here and there throughout the country that could be used for this purpose, and so avoid sending the money away. I have no fault to find with the way in which forestry is being managed by the Department. In my district it gives very much-needed employment. I would be the last to say anything against the way in which it is managed. I only want to suggest to the Minister that he might in future, instead of sending money out of the country for these trees, arrange to have these young trees grown in the country and keep so much money at home and give employment here.

Mr. CONLAN

I wish to ask the Minister if any grants-in-aid are being given to county councils who have forestry schemes set on foot. In my county the county council have been fortunate enough to have acquired a considerable amount of woodlands on very easy terms. Some of these require planting to replace the timber that is being cleared out. What I wish to know is if any grants-in-aid are being given to the councils for this work or has the work been altogether paid for out of the rates?

Mr. WHITE

Complaints are being made about the dearth of timber in the vicinity of Stranorlar in the northern part of Donegal. I have been asked to bring the matter before the Minister. The whole country around there has been denuded by the contractors who have purchased the woods. The local people object to it very much. It would be desirable if the Minister or his Department could exercise some authority in that matter. I would like to urge the Minister and the Department to go in more extensively for re-afforestation schemes in Donegal. The congested districts of the county would lend themselves much to this form of industry. I would ask that this matter be taken up seriously. I do not know what is being spent at present on forestry in Donegal, and if there is nothing, I suggest that there should be some money spent there every year by the Department in tree-planting. In parts of the county at least this is most necessary.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I want to ask the Minister if it is his intention to make any arrangements whereby farmers would be able to plant small belts of trees. I approve of his policy in regard to afforestation in general knowing how important it is for the country. But a difficulty seems to arise in connection with the provision of small shelter belts by farmers. I think a good deal of the denudation that has taken place is due to the cutting of trees by farmers. The Minister is aware that the cutting of fence timber is often really an advantage to the land, fence timber being injurious, whereas on the other hand shelter belts in suitable places are most useful, and they certainly improve the value of the land. As far as I know, there are no arrangements by which loans or grants can be obtained for the planting of such belts. Farmers are naturally slow to plant those belts of trees because the return from them takes such a long time to come in. Life is short and, money being scarce, farmers are naturally slow to plant trees from which they will not get any advantage in their lifetime, perhaps.

I know considerable portions of waste and semi-waste land, barren or semi-barren hills that would grow timber. Farmers would be anxious to plant those hills if they could get some aid by way of grant or loan. I suggest, without giving very much consideration with regard to a system of advances, that something might be done whereby advances would be made that would not be repayable at once. Farmers naturally would be slow to look for advances or loans which they would have to start repaying immediately. However, I do not intend to stress that point. At any rate I think the idea with regard to advances should be considered.

Mr. HENNESSY

I would like to ask the Minister what is the intention of his Department with regard to the educational side of this question and whether it is his intention to establish schools of forestry in the country where men could be trained to this occupation and if it is his intention to do that in the near future? It is a very interesting occupation and a work of national importance. I think it deserves more consideration from the Department than the £150 down here. I urge the Minister to increase that amount to a much larger sum so as to enable a School of Forestry to be established.

Mr. ESMONDE

The Minister said he has a Forestry Bill under consideration. Is that likely to be introduced in the course of next year?

Mr. HOGAN

I think Deputy Esmonde is right about the giving of more information in the Estimate as to what makes up the £29,000. That is a matter that is worth considering— whether the form of the Estimates should not be changed with a view to giving more information on that point to Deputies. This sub-head C 2 for £29,000 is made up as follows:— For new buildings, roads, bridges, equipment, etc., the approximate capital expenditure is £1,000. For fixed annual charges covering rents on leased properties, annuities on estates acquired under the Land Acts, rates etc., approximately £3,000. For maintenance which provides for foresters' and foremen's wages, caretaking, repairs to building, fencing materials, tools, etc., approximately £8,500. Cultural operations cover the normal operations incidental to the working of forests exclusive of maintenance charges and is estimated at £16,500. I think that gives in some detail information as to how the £29,000 is made up.

There are some county schemes, but they do not seem to be developing. We make grants of, roughly, £20 to a county council, for every acre under nurseries, and in addition pay for a forester for two years. I think that answers Deputy Heffernan's query also. These grants are made to the county council on an acreage basis. Any county council that adopts the scheme and that starts a nursery will get £20 for every acre planted, and we reimburse to them the wages of the forester during the first two years of the scheme. One of the conditions of the scheme is that the county council shall sell the young trees to the farmers at cost price. The horticultural instructor acts as a go-between the farmer and the county council. That looks a sound enough scheme if it were only taken up more widely. The grant is a fairly considerable one, and the wages of a competent man for two years is even more important still. Then the condition under which the trees are sold at cost price to the farmer seems to me to be reasonable. The scheme, however, has not been taken up by a great many county councils, but it is the only scheme in existence.

Mr. CONLAN

Are we to take it that the grant is only in respect of nurseries and that it does not apply to woods that are to be replanted?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes.

Mr. CONLAN

Does the Minister not consider that it should apply to them?

Mr. HOGAN

The idea is to provide shelter belts for farmers at a reasonable price.

Mr. CONLAN

I am aware of that, but where land is already in the possession of a county council and is being replanted——

Mr. HOGAN

Not as a nursery.

Mr. CONLAN

From their own nursery.

Mr. HOGAN

We do not give any grants in respect of land that has been permanently planted. We do give grants in respect of nurseries. The whole idea of the scheme is to provide nurseries from which farmers can get trees at cost price. It would land the State into very considerable expenditure if grants were given in respect of areas actually planted out with permanent timber by the county council, and I think it is a sounder policy to divert all the money that is available for cultural operations through the Forestry Branch of the Department with a view to extending the area planted in the country. It would be a complete change if we allowed each county council to do the kind of work that should be done by the Forestry Branch, to start planting out large areas of permanent timber. I do not think that the county councils would be likely to take that up. It would mean a big staff and a special branch under the county council.

If it were to be done properly at all it would have to be highly organised, and I do not think it likely that the county council would have the staff or the organisation to take charge of big planted areas. I think that that work should be left to the Forestry Branch, and the real question at issue is as to whether the Forestry Branch should not plant a much larger area and proceed further with their schemes. I do not think it would be sound to transfer portion of that work to each county council. What we do is to give inducements to the county councils to have nurseries and to sell the trees to the farmers at cost price.

Mr. CONLAN

Then, to be logical the Department should take over these woods from the county council when they do not approve of county councils embarking on such schemes.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not think that the Deputy ought to say that they do not approve of it, because this is the first time I have ever heard the proposition made that the county councils should plant out forestry areas. If that suggestion had come from the county councils it would have to be considered a little more fully than I have considered it now, because it has never been considered at all. It is the policy of the Forestry Branch to take over any areas which contain valuable trees and which are of sufficient size to be worked economically. They are doing that; they are taking over such areas from the Land Commission and from private individuals, and I am quite sure they will be glad to take over such areas from the county councils if they were offered and if they were economic. That, I think, answers Deputy Heffernan's question with regard to arrangements to enable farmers to plant trees.

I have said what the county councils scheme is. We have only a very small item here for education and at present the question is under discussion with the Minister for Finance as to whether some changes should not be made in that particular service. That small sum is to pay the expenses of the few apprentices that we have at various centres for educational purposes. Money is sent out of the country for trees, and obviously the figures which I gave are an explanation of that. Six million trees were planted last year. That is a very big number. We were able to supply three million from our own nurseries, and we were able to buy a considerable percentage from other nurseries in the country, but we had to buy a certain percentage outside. This country, after all, is not noted for forestry development, and it is not likely that at any time we would be able to obtain sufficient young trees for any kind of ambitious programme. With an increased programme, it is not likely that we would be able to obtain sufficient trees in the country to plant the area available.

Mr. SEARS

A great many people are suggesting that in view of the large tracts of land, not arable land but land suitable for forestry purposes, that have come into the hands of the Land Commission, particularly along the western sea-board, where there is a great deal of unemployment, it might be possible for the Minister to initiate a large forestry scheme on these lands. Would that be possible, and has the Minister ever contemplated the idea?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

The Minister did not quite meet my point. I knew about the system of nurseries under the county councils, but I suggested rather a different idea. I suggested advances to the farmers for the purpose of planting, say, shelter belts, perhaps areas that might be somewhat larger than shelter belts, but which would not be large enough to be dealt with economically by the Department. The Minister gave 400 acres as the smallest area that could be dealt with economically by the Department, but a farmer might have 40 acres that he would like to plant. The justification for my request for such advances is that not only would they be advantageous to the farmer but to the nation in general, because it is generally agreed that a bigger area under forestry would be of general advantage to the nation from climatic and other points of view.

Mr. ESMONDE

Would the Minister reveal any of the possible contents of his Bill?

Mr. HOGAN

It is a very long Bill and I would not like to begin it. There are a great many sections in it. Deputy Sears asks if bigger areas could be planted in the congested districts. Of course they could, but it would mean a great deal more money. There are other limitations besides the amount of money. On the Estimate this year there is a sum of £34,000 for forestry, and if there was twice as much money there could be twice as much for forestry. That is what it comes to. It is an old question whether the money could not be used to better advantage in some other direction. Personally, I would be anxious to see the forestry programme speeded up. I admit that the amount of land planted is comparatively small, and that there would be a justification for spending bigger sums on forestry each year. But to do anything like what Deputy Sears seems to have in his mind—to plant large areas in the congested districts—you would want very big sums of money indeed, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, and then you would be up against other limitations. First of all, you will be up against the limitation of finding suitable trees. There is another point, and it is that a very big area of the land which the Deputy seems to have in his mind as suitable for planting and which may not look well is really good mountain grazing.

Some of the mountains in Mayo and Kerry afford really excellent grazing for mountain ewes, and are possibly the most valuable adjunct that the small farmer has. A small farmer in either of these counties may have a holding of only five or six acres, but in addition he has grazing rights on three or four hundred acres of mountain and is generally well off. The mountain could not be divided. It is held in common, as a rule, and carries 20, 30 or 40 mountain ewes for each man. That would mean a proportionate number of lambs, or say £100 for each man. That is the reason why even in the very poor districts of Kerry where there is a lot of commonage of that sort, and where the holdings are extremely small and look extremely poor, the people are, comparatively speaking, in comfortable circumstances compared with people in other districts who have bigger holdings. You would be up against a real difficulty at once if you attempted to go in for an ambitious scheme of forestry which contemplated taking a part of some of these areas the Deputy has spoken of and which might not appear to be very valuable. You generally find that these mountains are covered with mountainy cattle and sheep. The opposition to taking them over would be intense. I think any scheme that contemplated taking some of them over would be unsound, apart from the opposition to which I have referred. There are, of course, mountains that are no good for grazing. If you confined yourself to these the question then arises: are they any good for forestry?

You generally find, I think, that the mountains that are excellent for grazing are also excellent for forestry purposes, and that mountains that are no good for grazing would be no good for forestry. You might find some mountains, of course, no good for grazing that might be useful for forestry. The sort of trees to be planted would have to be chosen very carefully, and I can quite see that it might not be easy to get them in a short time. They would have to be grown and planted out for the purpose. There are all these limitations against entertaining a big, ambitious forestry programme at the moment. I do not know that there are other and more urgent credit needs than the one Deputy Heffernan has referred to, namely, loans for individual farmers for planting. If I were to make a list of them I know a hundred and one needs that the individual farmer would want loans for, and that, perhaps, are all fairly reasonable. You might make the same suggestion about any thing else. The individual farmer could influence his county council to adopt the scheme that some county councils have adopted. We pay a subsidy to nurseries owned by county councils, and we also pay the services of the forester for two years. Under this scheme the farmer could get the trees at cost price. So far as the trees are concerned, it becomes an inexpensive operation. I think that meets the case. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the Deputy that we will cull out this particular service and make loans in respect of it to individual farmers. I do not think any farmer is stopped from planting his land with shelter beds from the money point of view in view of the facilities offered and in view of its comparative cheapness.

Vote 53 put and agreed to.