Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 8

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - FORESTRY BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

The first section of this Bill is purely a definition section. The second section is one of the most important sections in the Bill. The principal Act referred to in the second section is the Forestry Act of 1919. Under that Act there were provided compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for the purposes of afforestation but the machinery for the exercise of these compulsory powers it appears was somewhat complicated and moreover there was no provision in the Act of 1919 to deal with two cases which time has shown it is essential to deal with. One of these, strange to say, is where there is no owner for the land. Deputies must remember that forestry land is often mountainous land and land of little agricultural value, and there have been cases, notably the Fort Mountain in Wexford, where it is almost quite impossible to decide who the owner of the land is, and some provision had to be inserted to meet some cases like that. Also some powers had to be taken to deal with grazing rights, turbary rights and easements. Forestry lands are usually in mountainous districts. The system in this country with regard to such lands is that they are held in common sometimes or in fee with commonage rights and turbary or with rights to grazing by the people in the district. Some of these original rights have lapsed and new rights have been created, and at this stage, with regard to very large areas of mountainous land in this country, it is quite impossible to decide accurately, or in a reasonable time, who is the owner of the rights of commonage and grazing. It is essential to get rid, once and for all, of these two difficulties if the Forestry Branch is to be put in a position to acquire sufficient land within a reasonable time for the purposes of afforestation. It is to meet these cases that Section 2 has been inserted in the Bill. It provides that an application shall be made to and heard and determined by the Irish Land Commission exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner.

Under the Forestry Act of 1919 application was to be made to the Development Commissioners, but the Development Commissioners are no longer in existence. Application has now to be made to the Land Commission. It is to be made first to the Commissioners, with an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner and with no appeal from him. The procedure is exactly the same as in the acquisition of lands by the Land Commission for the purposes of the relief of congestion. The powers taken here to acquire land for forestry purposes are practically identical with the powers to acquire land for the relief of congestion. This section sets out in sub-section (4):

"No such application shall be refused unless the Irish Land Commission, exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner or, on appeal, the Judicial Commissioner is of opinion that the land to which the application relates comes within the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Principal Act or it is required for the purpose of relieving congestion under the Land Purchase Acts."

In other words, the Forestry Branch or, rather, the Department of Agriculture, for the Forestry Branch is a branch of the Department of Agriculture, may acquire lands compulsorily for afforestation purposes unless the land is a home farm, demesne, town park, or one of the various other classes of land of little importance set out in that Act and that form exceptions to the law which allows the Land Commission to acquire land for the relief of congestion.

Sub-section (5) deals with the point which I just mentioned—that is the cases where the owner of the land cannot be definitely ascertained. Section 1 (5) sets out:—

"If the Irish Land Commission (exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner) or the Judicial Commissioner as the case may be, is satisfied that after diligent inquiry the owner of the land to which an application or appeal relates cannot be found or cannot be ascertained such application or appeal may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said Section 7, be heard and determined in the absence of such owner."

That may seem an extraordinary provision, but the fact is that there are rather big forestry areas which we have been anxious to obtain, and of which it has become extremely difficult to decide the ownership. This is sometimes land that is of very little value for agricultural purposes, mountain land left for a long time derelict, grazed in common, and with certain turbary rights and the rights of grazing in favour of certain people in the neighbourhood. Under this provision the Land Commission may proceed to acquire land, and the rights of anybody will be preserved as against the purchase money which will be lodged in court.

Further on there is also provision to deal with the second point, namely, the extinguishment of easements, grazing rights and turbary rights. "An order made on such application... shall operate to distinguish as from the date of such order all grazing, turbary and other rights in the land to which such order relates subject to the payment by the Minister to the owner of such rights or compensation which shall in default of agreement be fixed under the Act of 1919."

That is to say, that these rights may be extinguished subject to compensation being paid under the Act of 1919, which is the appropriate Act for deciding the compensation in such cases. That is a fairly drastic provision. It is not as drastic as the provision which we had in the Land Acts. It is not quite as drastic as these provisions, which enable the Land Commission to acquire land compulsorily for the relief of congestion. At the same time it is a fairly drastic provision, but it is essential if a forestry programme, and a necessary programme which, I think, there is very little dispute about, is to be carried out. At any rate it is absolutely essential to provide some machinery by which any definite right can be extinguished subject to compensation. The procedure, of course, will be regulated. The procedure for making applications by the owners or would-be owners of such rights will be laid down by the Land Commission under the powers given them under sub-section 7 in the same way as they laid down the procedure for owners of easements or rights of any kind over land which is being acquired by the Land Commission for the relief of congestion.

The fact that the land is to be acquired is to be advertised locally in the papers. Due notice will be given in the official gazette and in the daily and weekly local papers to the effect that anybody who claims to have rights over these lands may bring forward his claims and prove them before the Land Commission or the Judicial Commissioner within a certain time and make arrangements about fees and the distribution and lodgment of the purchase money in court, in the event of there being any difficulty in deciding who is entitled to the money or to any part of it.

The third section is quite simple, and speaks for itself. It is necessary in the event of lands which are subject to a Land Commission annuity being acquired to apportion the annuities over various parts of the lands. The fourth section is also a drastic section. It sets out that no tree or trees may be cut down without a licence except a tree that is uprooted for the purpose of transplanting; a tree growing or standing in a county borough or urban county district—that is a city or town —a tree growing or standing within 100 feet of any building occupied as a dwelling-house, or used for housing domestic animals; if a tree shows signs of falling over a house it may be absolutely essential to cut it without waiting two, three or four days to get a licence; or unless such tree is cut down under Section 34 of the Local Government Act, 1925, which gives powers to cut trees on the roadside, or Section 98 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, of 1927—for the erection of poles and standards for the Shannon scheme —unless "such tree is not necessary for the ornament or protection of the holding upon which it stands, and is cut down with the intention of using the timber thereof for the construction or repair of buildings, fences or other structures on the said holding." In this connection I would draw attention to the fact that Section 32 of the Irish Land Act of 1909 is repealed in the Schedule and Section 3, sub-section (3) of the Land Act of 1927. These two sections are the ones which deal with trees growing on land subject to a land purchase annuity, and the Act of 1927 sets out that no such tree that has value as ornamental timber or as a shelter bed can be cut down without the consent of the Land Commission.

This goes a step further in two directions. If you like, it goes two steps. First of all, it applies this prohibition to all land, whether subject to land purchase annuities or fee-simple lands not subject to land purchase annuities. So far as the exception mentioned in sub-section (F) is concerned, it is also dealt with in the Act of 1927, which provides that even trees which are not ornamental or required for shelter may not be cut down unless they are required for use on the holding for repairs. The position is, if this section be passed, that no tree or trees on any land, fee-simple land free from all charges, or lands subject to a land purchase annuity, or tenanted land, may be cut down with a few unimportant exceptions, except on licence from the Minister for Agriculture. The Bill also transfers the power of giving licences from the Land Commission, as set out in the Act of 1927, and previously in the Act of 1909, to the Department of Agriculture. That is a very drastic section. There is no doubt about that, but the question is: Is it necessary, and is there any better way of dealing with the situation? It is really meant to prevent the country being denuded of its woods. The problem in our minds when we considered the section was not the case of a farmer cutting one tree on his land. What we really want to look after is the case of woods of 15, 20, 100 or 200 acres being cut down, and I do not see any way of dealing with that situation except by such a section as this. If you try to draw a distinction between two, three or four trees and a wood you are up against almost impossible difficulties in drafting, as to when a number of trees become a wood, when they cease to be a wood and so on. I see no way of giving the Department of Agriculture sufficient powers to stop the wholesale cutting down of woods throughout the country except by giving the powers to the Minister—really to the Department of Agriculture—to prohibit the felling of any trees, with these few trivial exceptions, except under licence.

The next section deals with the method of giving licences:—

"The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, grant to any person a licence in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot any trees specified in such licence.

"Every application for a licence under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain the prescribed particulars.

"A licence granted under this section shall operate to relieve in respect of every tree mentioned therein the licensee and any person authorised by him from any prohibition against cutting down or uprooting and so on.

"A licence granted under this sec- tion may, if the Minister so thinks fit, contain a condition that the licensee shall, within a specified time after cutting down or uprooting a tree under the licence, plant one or more trees of a specified kind on the holding...."

I imagine that, even in the minds of people who own woods and forests, there is not very much hesitation about giving such a power to the Department of Agriculture, but that what would really occur to people on these two sections is: How are these powers going to be administered? First of all, remember that Section 5 says:

The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, grant to any person a licence in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot any tree specified in such licence.

I can imagine a man who has three or four different forests, who has been planting trees and cutting them as they are mature, selling them for commercial purposes. He is, of course, carrying out an absolutely legitimate transaction, but the sort of man who plants trees on his own land, cuts them down when mature, and re-plants, the first question he asks is: "How am I to get a licence to cut these trees? Have I to count all the trees in the wood, and send an application to the Department of Agriculture asking them for a special licence for each tree? When I get the licence, how long will it last, and so on?" I am advised legally that as the section stands it would cover a licence of this sort. Such an owner would apply to the Department of Agriculture for a licence to cut trees growing on an area marked in red on the map accompanying, and it would be open to the Department to send back the licence in that form. Similarly it would be open to the Department, if they thought it right so to do, to make a condition that trees shall again be planted on such area marked red on such map.

Has each application to be accompanied by a map?

Mr. HOGAN

No. I am merely quoting one case that I say would be typical of many cases which would occur to the mind of many people on reading this. I am suggesting the way the Bill should be administered in such cases, and I am stating that as a matter of fact there is legal power within the terms of this section to adopt the procedure I suggest. To a man who owns woods, who cuts them regularly, and who has a perfect right to cut them, when he wants a licence the procedure is simple. He applies for the licence. He need not count the trees. He need not say how many trees he will cut in one or two years.

Mr. HOGAN

He cannot say for certain. It is not necessary to specify each tree. The procedure is as simple as this: apply for a licence to cut the trees on the area marked red on the map. You can adopt any other means you like, but I suggest that if that very simple procedure is employed the legitimate grievances of people who are cutting trees in that way are fully met by this section. Another question would arise on that section, and it is this: the owner of a wood has made a contract, say, last year, with a timber merchant or a sawmill owner, selling him one hundred acres of woods, with the right to take away this wood for four years and to pay him each year. He has taken away a quarter of the wood. This timber merchant, in his turn, of course, has made certain contracts; he has arranged to supply that timber to somebody else, and this other person has arranged to make use of that timber himself. Everybody is bound by contract. Say that this has been done last year. It could be pointed out under that section that it is possible that on the application of the owner of the land—the former owner of the woods—for a licence to continue to sell the three-quarters of the timber which is still standing, a licence could be refused and consequently the contract which the owner had made last year would fall through, and the contract which the timber merchant had made for the next two or three years in respect of this timber would fall through, and there would. therefore, be very serious economic and trade reactions to such a state of affairs. That is so. It may very well be that the contract would have been made last year, that half the timber would have been cut, and the Department of Agriculture could refuse under that section to give a licence to cut the balance. What is the remedy? The obvious suggestion, of course, would be to insert a provision that a licence shall not be required to cut timber which has been the subject of a contract made before the passing of this Bill. I considered that at great length, but I saw very obvious objections to it. Everybody admits that land purchase is going on. There are a number of people selling demesnes and timber lands, and they are anxious to get rid of them quickly. It is the fashion at the moment to cut timber. It is not as bad as it was in 1920, 1921 or 1922, but still there is an undue felling of timber going on, and there is a spirit which leads people to cash in on an asset of that sort as quickly as possible. If such a section as that were inserted I think it is quite certain that a number of contracts would be made within the next three months, and that it would be almost impossible to administer it.

Section 6 is another strong section, but it deals with a real problem. You have to consider that a very big percentage of forestry land in this country is in mountainous areas, areas in which gorse, heather, bracken, and plants of that sort prevail, and a tremendous amount of damage is done by mountain fires, by people who quite wantonly set fire to a mountain without taking the slightest care to see that it does not spread into young trees or young plantations. As a matter of fact, considerable damage is done regularly, not only to forests of the Department of Agriculture but to forests of private owners, by people who carelessly—sometimes with good reason, in order to get rid of furze, and so on, sometimes quite wantonly, but in all cases quite carelessly— burn gorse, furze and heather within half a mile, one hundred yards or even ten yards of plantations. The fire spreads in and it does a tremendous amount of destruction to the trees. This section sets out that it "shall not be lawful for any person to burn any shrubs growing within one mile of a wood which is not the property of such person unless such person shall... have given notice in writing of his intention to burn such shrubs to the owner of such wood." That leaves it open for the owner of the wood to object. That is sub-section (3). It would look, if you read the section down to that, that the owner could object and that he would have the last word—that he was judge and jury. That is not so, because sub-section (4) enables the person who wants to burn the shrubs to go ahead and do it, but he will do it at his own risk, and ensures that if he does it he has got to take precautions to see that the fire will not spread into the wood. It reads:

If any person burns any shrub either in contravention of this section or after serving the notice required by this section and receiving a counter-notice under this section all injury occasioned by such burning to any wood in respect of which a notice ought to have been or was served under this section shall be deemed to have been caused by the negligent act of such person and damages to the extent of such injury shall be recoverable accordingly from such person by the owner of such wood.

There is a problem there. This thing is occurring. It will occur very much more if the Department of Agriculture goes ahead with its forestry programme and plants large areas on mountain sides. A mountain fire spreads very rapidly in the summer time. Gorse and heather when dry burn very rapidly. Even with the present area and even with the limited opportunities for doing harm, it has resulted in a considerable amount of harm to the young plantations of the Department of Agriculture and to the young plantations of private property owners who were enterprising enough to plant big areas. This is being done considerably. It will be a very much bigger problem as the area under woods increases. If the problem is to be dealt with, I know of no better way than this. It is difficult to deal with. A man has a perfect right to burn his furze or to burn his gorse, that is to say, notwithstanding that gorse and furze are often burned quite wantonly by young fellows just to see a blaze. Apart from that, a man has a perfect right to burn furze and gorse and to get rid of it in that way, but we must put some sort of duty on him to see that he will take the necessary steps, when he does so, which are quite simple, to prevent a fire spreading into a plantation belonging to his neighbour or the State, and I cannot see any better way of doing that than what I have suggested.

Section 7 is quite simple. It attempts to force people to fence woods they own. It looks an extraordinary provision, but all I will say about it is this: the fact of the matter is that tremendous harm has been done by careless owners who allow all sorts of animals to wander indiscriminately through woods which are being cut away. I am informed by people who are in a position to know that a good deal of natural forest would be reestablished, that a considerable amount of timber would grow quite naturally, but for the fact that while the wood is being cut away, and after it has been cut away, no one takes the slightest trouble to get it fenced or to keep gates closed, with the result that all sorts of stock stray into it and kill the seedlings.

Section 8, sub-section (1), reads:

Every proprietor of any sawmill or factory in which timber grown in Saorstát Eireann is sawn or converted from the round or rough state shall furnish in the prescribed form to the Minister, within twenty-eight days after being required by the Minister so to do. such information as the Minister may require in relation to the source of supply, volume, and variety of such timber so sawn or converted in such sawmill or factory.

I do not believe that there is any objection amongst sawmill owners to that provision. It is for two purposes, for statistical purposes and also to get some idea of the timber resources of the country, and, more important, to enable us to operate Section 4, to keep a check on the section which prohibits the felling of trees without a licence. The other sections are unimportant. I explained the repeal of Section 32 of the Land Act of 1909 and of Section 3 of the Land Act, 1927. In addition to that, Section 3 of the Forestry Act, 1919, is also repealed in part so as to take away certain limitations which existed in that Act in making loans or grants or in giving financial assistance to persons, being corporations or municipal authorities or individuals, for forestry purposes.

That is the Bill as it stands. People ask where is the forestry programme in the Bill. That is due to a misunderstanding. This Bill is simply to provide the machinery to enable the Forestry Department to carry out any programme which the Dáil agrees to. If the Forestry Department gets the powers contained in the Bill the programme of forestry need only be limited by one consideration—the amount of money that the Dáil will vote every year for the purpose. Discussing a forestry programme with regard to this Bill is, to my mind, irrelevant. The proper place to discuss that is on the Estimate for that programme for the year.

As I have said, this is a drastic Bill, but the need is rather urgent. The history of forestry in this country is rather peculiar. It is generally stated that there was a considerable area under forest, say, in the time of Elizabeth, not to speak of very much earlier days. I do not know whether that is so or not. I believe the best information on the point is that a considerable amount of it was what is known as scrub, but undoubtedly there was a very much larger area than there is now. For one reason or another that timber was all cut away, and you had a revival in or about the middle of the eighteenth century. Timber was grown very largerly from 1700 to 1800. The landlords, for instance, had settled down on their land and they had a certain amount of security of tenure during that period, so that there was a very considerable increase in the area under forestry. From 1880 on, the forestry operations consisted of cutting the wood grown in the previous 100 years. That is the history of Irish forestry in a nutshell. The woods, so far as we have any authentic information—we need not go back to the time of Elizabeth or the Middle Ages— were planted from the middle of the eighteenth century down to the middle of the nineteenth century. The forestry operations since then consisted, in a very large part, in cutting away these woods. There are only 220,000 acres of woods in the country, and if we are to supply the amount of timber used in the country which could be supplied from home sources we would want at least 500,000 acres. The percentage of timber in the country is very small compared with other countries. The percentage is something like 1.4, whereas in Denmark it would be about 9 per cent. of the land, and in Holland, 5 or 6 per cent.

Unless the State takes a very active part in afforestation work nobody will do it. It is an enterprise which cannot be carried out except by a man who has plenty of capital and who is in a position to wait for a long time for his return. There are very few such people here. As a result of the operations of the Land Acts most of the land is held now by small farmers. Some landlords in this country did very well in regard to afforestation, but the number of such people is getting less and less. The small farmer will not do any afforestation, could not do it as he does not own big areas of land, has not the capital, and cannot afford to wait for his return. Therefore, if the problem is to be solved, if we are to deal with this extraordinary state of affairs under which we have such a very small percentage of our land in woods, then the State must to a very great extent do the work itself.

So far as the State is concerned the first real attempt to do anything for forestry was in the year 1908 and the first provision made for forestry work was after the report of a Departmental Committee on forestry which sat, I think, in 1908. As a result of the committee's report, £6,000 per year were voted for the purchase of woods, which had come or were coming into the hands of the Land Commission as a result of the 1903 Act. Between 1908 and 1916 out of this money 5,774 acres were purchased, of which about one thousand were in Northern Ireland. These were, I think, all actual woods. In 1910 the British Treasury sanctioned a loan from the Development Grant for the purpose of buying a certain area of land, and out of that loan 8,656 acres were acquired between 1911 and 1914. So that up to 1914, with the exception of some small areas, I think, in Wexford and Wicklow, the State's part in forestry was to purchase 5,774 acres of woods and 8,656 acres of land for planting.

That work practically stopped during the European War and in 1920 it began again. In that year forestry work was transferred to the Forestry Commission of the United Kingdom. During 1920 and 1921 there were 2,830 acres of additional land purchased and about 3,648 acres leased on a long lease of 150 years. The leased land happens to be in Northern Ireland. At that time the programme of the Commission was to acquire and plant about 2,000 acres per annum. That is the recent history. There is only recent history in this matter, because, as I said, forestry operations began in any real way in 1908. There were about 5,000 acres of land purchased out of the annual grant provided by the British Treasury, of which four thousand odd were in the Saorstát. There were 8,656 acres purchased between 1910 and 1916, as a result of the grant out of the Development Fund, and about 2,800 purchased in 1920 and 1921.

The present position is as follows:— The area acquired by direct purchase or through the Land Commission is 25,369 acres. That was acquired by direct purchase and the fee simple of it bought. The area leased is 7,570 acres, and an area has been transferred from the Department of Defence of 6,817 acres, making a total of 39,756 acres. Of that area there has been either planted or replanted up to the 1st April, 1928, 16,608 acres. The present annual planting programme is from 3,000 to 4,000 acres, and the plantable land which has been acquired but not yet planted or replanted is 10,120 acres. I said that we had acquired about 40,000 acres; 16,000 is planted or replanted, but of the lands which are acquired there are 10,000 which may yet be planted. That is 26,000 acres, and the difference between 26,000 and 40,000 is land which is either unplantable or in forests.

Last year the Vote for forestry was £156,505. 3,000 acres were purchased, 1,400 were leased, and 3,200 planted. So that, in fact, there has been a rather rapid increase in forestry work since 1920. That, however, is not sufficient. It is necessary not only to continue that programme and to expand it, but it is absolutely essential to protect the 220,000 acres of woods that we have. If we cannot expect very much actual planting from individuals, the least we must expect, and in fact the least we must insist upon, is that the existing woods be treated somewhat differently from the way in which they are being treated. It is not the intention to make a radical change or to interfere unduly with the right of the owner of woods to cash his timber when ripe. There is going to be no drastic change of that sort. We are not going simply to issue a ukase to the effect that nobody is to cut any wood—whether ripe or not— nothing of the kind. We could not do that, because it would interfere with trade, it would be unfair to the owners, and generally would be undesirable. But everybody can visualise for himself cases where there is the most wanton cutting of woods, and the policy of the Department of Agriculture will be to interfere in such cases, either to prevent such wanton cutting of woods, which have a special value, or. if they are allowed to be cut, to make some conditions about planting, etc.

I rise to ask for a little information on some points that I do not quite understand and which it may be necessary to amend. I believe a Bill like this is necessary. I agree with the principle; we should restrict the cutting of trees as much as possible. There are a few points which I think the Minister did not make clear, and I would like if he could give us some more light upon them. For instance, paragraph F of clause 4 says:—"Such tree is not necessary for the ornament or protection of the holding." Who is to decide in that case? There might be a dispute whether the farmer in cutting down trees cut down ones not necessary for the ornament or protection of the holding, but the Minister for Agriculture might not hold that view. Also timber will be allowed for the repair of fences and buildings, but will timber be allowed for fuel or a certain class of timber that would not be of great value for anything else? What is the meaning of the last couple of lines in Section 5 (3): "But shall not operate to give any other relief or to confer any further or other authority in respect of any such tree"?

With regard to sub-section (5), it appears to me that one or two trees might alter the value, but I think the Minister made it clear that he was speaking of a wood rather than of special trees.

Section 7 (1) says: "It shall be the duty of the owner of any wood to take such steps as may be necessary by fencing or otherwise," and so on. It seems to me that as that section stands at present, especially if it were applied drastically, it may be almost impossible for a man to protect any wood against certain animals belonging to another man. How is he to protect it? There are certain stray animals that no fences would keep out. How is a man to protect himself against the entry of such animals?

I might also mention that it was only to-day I got a notification from a certain organisation of timber merchants and they seemed to make a good case for themselves. I would like to have an opportunity of going into that, and I would ask the Minister to give time, before taking the Committee Stage, for going into these matters, and particularly into this case.

I think there is general agreement in the country as to the need for a Bill dealing with afforestation. It is a good thing that something is being done. I think we are all agreed that it is necessary to deal with the matter. Anybody travelling through the country, whether by bus or motor, must be conscious of the fact that throughout a great area of the country there has been a wholesale cutting down of timber to the great detriment of the appearance of the country. I observed myself, having made a motor tour some years ago right round Ireland, that there were also many cases where there was a vast amount of timber far past its maturity and which should be cut down, and that case is almost as bad as the other. The reason this over-mature timber is not cut down is that the expense of it is too great, the damage in having it taken down to the land and removing it, the very small amount frequently got for it does not compensate the owner for the trouble and bother of cutting it down and the bad appearance it gives to the place when this heavy timber is removed. But it is a necessity, if the country is to be kept timbered in the future, that the over-mature timber should be cut away. It is just as important that that should be done as that the place that has been cleared of timber should be re-planted.

The Minister has mentioned that in the middle of the eighteenth century planting began and was continued into the middle of the nineteenth century. I have in my possession a rather interesting book dealing with the afforestation of Ireland during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It would appear that when the turnip was introduced into this country from Holland the return it put into the pockets of the owners of the land, and their being able to keep their stock fed during the winter, brought them in a very considerable amount of money, and with this money they set about beautifying their demesnes by putting down timber. That was the beginning of it. This book I have gives the acreage and the names of a number of people who during that hundred years or so went in for planting timber, of which a great deal remains in certain places still, but with the coming into force of the Land Purchase Acts in 1885 a different idea seemed to possess the minds of the occupiers and the owners.

I fear that there is a great deal of timber being cut down without, in many cases, much judgement being shown in that regard. In many cases I suppose that could not be avoided, but the effect of it has been very detrimental, as regards the appearance of the country, in many places. The County Kildare, of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives here, has always been foremost in this matter of timber-growing. I think it is only right to say that the amount of tree-planting done through the instrumentality of the Kildare County Council was pushed forward to a great extent by the knowledge and energy displayed by the first chairman of the Kildare County Council, Mr. Stephen Brown, who is well known throughout Ireland as one of the leading men in matters relating to arboriculture and everything connected with agriculture. The good work was helped on to a great extent by the late Lord Frederick Fitzgerald. Through his influence and effort large tracts of woods belonging to the late Duke of Leinster were given over to the Kildare County Council without any charge whatever. In connection with these woods, two nurseries were established, which supplied young trees for planting the additional woods acquired by the County Council from other people. In very few cases had the Council to buy any land at all for planting. In spite of all that, the quantity of timber in the country is being greatly reduced. I saw it stated in a newspaper that, with the cutting going on at present, twenty years would see the end of all the timber in the country.

This question is not altogether a national one. It is international, because within a hundred years or so, a period that is nothing in the life of the world, the quantity of timber in the world will be nearly exhausted. That is due to a very large extent to the enormous fires which have destroyed millions of acres in the timber-growing countries of the world, especially in Canada. I have seen one of these enormous fires burning away for months. It practically burned itself out, having destroyed untold numbers of trees. That, as well as earthquakes, has lessened the number of trees in the world available for use. The number has been lessened to an enormous extent, while planting has not kept pace with the destruction going on. There was nothing done during the war, and that period has to be made up for. For that reason I think that we will do well to go on with planting here.

Planting, of course, is a thing that will not yield us much fruit in our lifetime. The motto of the planter of trees is the old Latin one, "Sic vobis, non vobis." We have to look forward to the future, otherwise there will be no trees for those who come after us. We have benefited by the work done in this connection by those who have gone before us, and therefore we should not be selfish in our time.

Apart from all that, the planting of trees gives a great deal of employment. If it was possible to have land available for timber planting in every county, it is a class of work that would give a great deal of employment in the winter time. Numbers of men who are now receiving home help could be employed working on the plantations. It is in the winter, in the fall of the leaf, that planting should be done. That, of course, will cost money, and we have not heard what amount of money is going to be placed at the disposal of the Forestry Department for this purpose. The more that can be spared for it, the better.

With regard to the Bill, I think that some of the sections in it are extremely drastic, and might I say some of them are rather grandmotherly. It is right, of course, that those paying Land Commission annuities should act under the direction of the Land Commission as to what should be done about trees. It is rather drastic, however, that this measure should apply to landowners who are not subject to the Land Commission and who, it is supposed, will have sense enough themselves to realise what is suitable to be done. Section 7 provides that it shall be the duty of the owner to keep beasts, such as horses, asses, etc., out of these plantations. I think that is rather a grandmotherly sort of regulation. Most people, with any sense in their heads, would do that, and I think there is no need to have a special section in the Bill dealing with it.

Are the asses being consulted?

Are you worried about them?

They are not here, anyhow.

Mr. WOLFE

I hope that on the Committee Stage the Bill will be made more attractive than what it is. It is a good sign, at all events, to see a Forestry Bill coming before the Dáil. In my opinion, some of the sections in the Bill are extremely drastic, and I hope that on the Committee Stage some alterations will be made in them. There is another section in the Bill which provides that anyone who cuts down a tree must plant two to replace it.

That is optional with the Land Commission. They may require that to be done.

Mr. WOLFE

I think not. At a time when people were extremely rich, especially in the case of demesnes, the owners planted trees all over the place. They planted so many of them that they made the demesne land useless for any purpose except ornamentation. That kind of thing would not suit in these days. If, as the Bill stands, a person were to cut down one of these trees, he would have to plant two in place of it. That seems rather hard, because already the number of trees on demesne land is really a nuisance. I speak feelingly on this matter, because it applies to myself. If I had to plant two trees for every one that I took down in my own park, I should create what one might call a holy mess. I think the same thing applies to a good many other people.

Mr. HOGAN

That is not mandatory. The section says that the Minister "may."

Mr. WOLFE

I am glad to hear that, because if the provision were mandatory, it would certainly be very drastic. I welcome the Bill. One of the effects of it, I believe, will be to help in beautifying the country. It will also be the means of providing much-needed employment for a number of men now out of work. Not only will employment be provided in the planting of trees, but there will be a lot of work to be done in the cutting down of timber that is over-matured and in the re-planting of young stock. In regard to that matter, I think that people who are compelled to cut down over-matured timber should be given, free of charge, trees to replace those cut down, as well as some help to meet the expense involved in cutting down these over-matured trees. The owners will certainly make nothing out of trees of that sort.

I would like the Minister to give us a little more information regarding the trees referred to in the Bill. Are they trees that may be used only for commercial purposes, or is every class of tree that grows included? I can foresee where the Bill would have very harsh effects on the ordinary man in the country. There are various tracts of land covered with trees that are of no commercial value, and very often the farmer who owns the land would find it advantageous to clear the timber and make better use of the land. If that becomes necessary he has to apply for a licence. If a person applies for a licence for the purpose of cutting trees that he owns, we presume the Minister has the power to say whether or not he shall get that licence. If we are to assume that every person who applies for a licence shall get it, then there is no restraint on the cutting of timber more than there has been heretofore. On the other hand, if we are to assume that in many cases the Minister will refuse to grant a licence, there will be restrictions put on the cutting of trees. If that is so, we are up against the position that the farmer who wished to clear away waste timber which was useful only for firewood may be refused permission to cut the trees, which are of no value except for the purpose I have mentioned. If he were allowed to cut these trees the land could be put to some useful purpose. If restrictions are justifiable, and I am satisfied they are, still it is putting a certain amount of restriction unnecessarily on the man who owns the timber, and who has a perfect right to dispose of it in the best market possible. If people of that kind are to be prevented from cutting trees, not alone are the owners restricted, but the men employed in cutting the timber, the saw-mill owners, and other industries, are affected. That is a matter to be considered.

Where timber is cut certain precautions are taken that the trees must be replaced. I am not satisfied that that method is suitable, as I do not think it would ensure that the planting of trees would be effectively done. I have only a little experience of the planting of trees, but I have sufficient to know that it is one thing to plant trees and another to get them to grow. Planting should be done in a practical way and requires special care if the plants are to have any chance of growth. I do not agree with Deputy G. Wolfe that timber grown on lands owned by the Land Commission should be subject to restrictions. I think the position should be the opposite. Where farmers have timber growing on their lands we can assume it was planted there by them or their predecessors, and that they are the absolute owners of that timber. Placing restrictions on these persons would be most unfair, for the ordinary farmer with thirty or forty acres is generally careful of the timber, the value of which he understands for shelter and ornamental purposes. He often has the necessity to use it in seasons of the kind we had two or three years ago, when no turf was saved in parts of the country where they are entirely dependent on it for fuel. If these trees were not available he would have had no fuel. Deputy Wolfe says that these people should be subject to the control of the Land Commission, but I think the ordinary farmers should be exempt from the restriction proposed. The trees on their land are preciously guarded by them, and they hardly ever make use of them for commercial purposes. There is no danger of abuse in their case.

This Bill, unless I get a better explanation of it, does not quite satisfy me. I would like to see the whole scheme of forestry the Minister has spoken of before the House. If he produces a scheme on a scale the country requires, and he is prepared to push it vigorously. I am satisfied the House will give him all the assurances and guarantees he thinks necessary to safeguard the existing timber for the wellbeing of the State. We feel that a vigorous effort is needed on the part of the Government to deal with the question of afforestation. So far the Government have been very dilatory. I cannot see why it should not be possible for the Minister to put before the House, with the Bill, his whole programme as regards afforestation. There is not a county in Ireland—and that is particularly true of Leitrim—that could not offer thousands of acres for planting purposes. I was told by a gentleman who had long experience in Leitrim in connection with the Land Commission that it is ideally situated for the growing of timber, but that it was badly adapted for maintaining so many farmers as it has at present. The climate and appearance of the country can be changed immensely for the better by a big scheme of afforestation. We should insist on the Government submitting their whole scheme to the House before they ask us for the drastic powers outlined in the Bill, which, I am afraid, will react rather harshly as regards certain farmers and small property owners.

I admired Deputy Wolfe's speech, and especially I admired the ingenuity with which he succeeded in making a speech on this Bill which would be perfectly in order on the Estimate for the Forestry Department. When he came to the latter part of his speech he dealt with the Bill. I cannot help thinking of a story I heard of a man who married a widow. After the wedding he was introduced to his step-son for the first time. He naturally wished to please his wife and said he was very pleased she had a boy, but could not help remarking that the boy's appearance was very unprepossessing and his habits revolting. Deputy Wolfe naturally wished to please the Minister. Deputy Wolfe was very pleased that there was a Bill. Any Bill was better than no Bill, but in details it struck him as being drastic, grandmotherly and unnecessary. I agree that they are drastic. I will go half-way with him that they are grandmotherly. Then it comes down, I suppose, to tender motherly care on the part of the Minister. I am not sure that they are unnecessary. Deputy Wolfe is not going to cut down every tree on his demesne any more than I am, but knows that there are many cases, possibly tens, possibly hundreds, of people who shut down their houses and go away having sold the timber standing to some contractor to cut it down or take away. Anybody who goes around Dublin, who goes to the Dublin Mountains or Rathfarnham or goes down to Wicklow sees widespread clearances which it is the purpose of this Bill to prevent.

Drastic powers are necessary. You cannot do it without drastic powers, but the application and use of these powers are very important. When I read the Bill I felt the same apprehensions as Deputy Wolfe that it might be used to make the position of any man, growing or planting timber and hoping to get some return on his capital, impossible. The Minister was reassuring. I am speaking now in the hope that he will be even more reassuring when he concludes the debate. One point he left rather open. He said he had legal advice, that under the Bill there was legal power to adopt the procedure he suggested. He did not say it was his intention. That was very possibly an accidental omission, but I hope he will say that is the procedure that the Forestry Department intend to apply, because on the policy of the Department and on the machinery by which licences are issued will really rest the success of the Bill in the long run. I was glad when he said that people who had planted in the past, hoping to sell in the future, may be granted licences. I myself, twenty years ago, planted 10,000 young larch, thinking to make provision for my old age. I should have put the land to more profitable use if I put black-faced sheep on it and grazed them, because I have sunk my capital for, roughly, forty years, have been paying rates on that land all the time and getting no return. There is little hope now of very much private planting because of the costs. To begin with, all the costs are gone up. Labour, for instance, is paid a good deal more than it was twenty or twenty-five years ago. Planting costs have gone up. Then again your land is lying idle. You have no return on it, and you have to pay rates. I believe if the Minister has any hope of encouraging private planting his best plan would be a remission of rates on land planted with timber. I believe that would be more of an incentive than anything else. I gather where planting, cutting and re-planting are carried on on a commercial scale that the Minister will not be disposed to refuse licences.

There is another contingency. Numbers of Deputies are not familiar with forestry. I may say planting trees is like a general election under proportional representation. You put up more candidates than you expect to see come up when the poll is declared. In some cases you are lucky. You have planted your trees closely. I do not know how the licence procedure will apply to that. Will it be permissible to cut, say, 500 trees on an area coloured red on the map?

Provision may be made for that. Otherwise trees will grow too closely together and not as well as they should. When planting you have to have a shelter belt of older trees. When young trees are growing up that shelter belt becomes unnecessary. I hope provision will be made by which licences will be granted to cut down these. I hope, also, the Minister will take into consideration Deputy Dr. Ryan's suggestion about firewood. There are dangers that if you put that into the Bill you may use if not only for mending fences and structures but also use it for firewood. A man might denude his whole place for firewood. On the whole, I think the advantages are greater than the disadvantages. There is in every plantation of any size a certain amount of timber that is cut for firewood. There may be trees that had better be cut for firewood, partly because they may interfere with young trees. They had better be cut down, and firewood is one of the best uses to which they can be put. I am not very hopeful that the Minister's policy of compelling a man to plant one, two, three or more trees instead of any others that he may have cut down will be a great success. While you may compel a man to plant a tree you cannot compel him to tend it. There is some use in the Minister's power to compel a man to make a fence. He may make a fence to keep out cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and so on? I deprecate Deputy Gorey's wrath at the suggestion that hares were the enemies of young trees.

A DEPUTY

Rabbits.

Rabbits are bad, but I think hares are worse, because hares can get over any fence. If you do not fence your young trees with hare-proof wire fences you will have very little result. I do not see how the Minister can compel every person who has to plant trees also to put an expensive wire fence around them. That, however, is a discretionary provision.

I want to go back again to the machinery for granting licences. At present the staff of the Forestry Department is small. There are about seven in the office, not counting typists and so on. There are five inspectors. Will they be able to deal with the applications for licences, which will be numerous in a reasonable space of time, because, if not, the inconvenience to people owning saw-mills will be considerable? Before the war I had a saw-mill which I worked, one day a week, for my own needs, for fence work, gates, planks, and so on. Other uses are contemplated under this Bill. After the war, when wages had risen, I did not want to turn off the men. I found there was a considerable demand from my neighbours for such uses as I mentioned, and I gradually built up a certain trade which suited my neighbours and suited me. I am quoting my own case, but unless I had an assurance that there was a steady supply of timber not merely for my own repairs and structures but also for my neighbours, unless one could get an assurance that the licences would be granted regularly and without undue delay and would cover a substantial amount of timber, I am afraid I should have to shut down my saw-mill, which would mean throwing from four to six men out of employment. I know there are a good many people in the same position. The purpose of the Bill is excellent. It all rests on the policy adopted and the machinery employed in issuing licences. The Minister has reassured me very much in his opening statement, but I hope he will extend the matter a little further, and touch some of the points I have raised.

I thank Deputy Cooper for the very interesting lesson in afforestation that he has given. I happen to come from a part of the country where a considerable trade has been done for years in the exporting of round wood. I got this morning the circular to which Deputy Ryan referred with reference to the exporting of round timber. They give as an illustration Irish beech. A very valuable little industry has been worked for years dealing with Irish beech. The beech was cut into rough shapes for the manufacture of clog soles used in Lancashire by the operatives in the factories and it gave steady employment for years to about 20 men in a small district. As a result of some difficulty with the owner of the timber the mill had to be closed and the operatives have cleared out. That timber at present is being exported in the rough; the probable price for it would be 25/- a ton, whereas if it was turned out partly finished it probably would be worth £4 a ton, and the greater portion of the money realised for it would go in wages. The work given in the district at the time the mill was in use was very valuable and the amount of wages was very helpful indeed. I take it such provision would be hardly included in this Bill but it would be well worth while considering the suggestion made in this circular.

Deputy Cooper dealt with trees that are only fit for firewood. I know a considerable area containing such timber, but if the timber were cut it would destroy the scenery. The timber is really useless for anything but firewood, but it would be a serious loss and would spoil one of the most beautiful places in Ireland if it were cut. Even in the case of such trees the Department should be loth to grant licences wholesale. It would be a good idea if local nurseries were established. I have in mind a local nursery where some years ago farmers got seedlings for practically nothing. I am afraid that they would not be got so easily at the present time. It should be made possible to have seedlings bought more cheaply than at present. Farmers should be induced to see the value of planting shelter beds. If the Department's experts could endeavour to persuade them to plant such beds and give them seedlings at a considerably lower price than the market price it would help considerably.

With reference to the planting of a tree or trees instead of those that are cut, the Minister stated that such provision is not mandatory. I am sorry it is not, because it is one of the things that is really necessary to prevent a repetition of what has taken place in the past. Trees have been wantonly cleared away in many places where there was no necessity for it, and such a clause should be made mandatory.

It appears from Deputy Goulding's speech that the only concern of some people in the country is the scenery and the beautiful view that you get on the top of a hill. He hopes that the provision in the Bill with regard to replacing trees will be made mandatory. I never heard a more ridiculous suggestion.

A more unfair suggestion. It is quite true that woods are beautiful, but would not timber that would be of some use afterwards be just as beautiful as the old scrub that Deputy Goulding refers to. The Minister made an effort, I think, to differentiate between plantation timber, hedge timber or casual trees about a homestead. In previous discussions here on the Land Acts the same distinction was made, but in reading Section 4 of the Bill I can come to no other conclusion than that this is meant to deal with timber about homesteads and not outside timber in plantations. The Minister has told us there would be no necessity for anticipating any drastic results with regard to timber that ought to be cut and timber that is not growing in plantations, but once the Bill is an Act it will depend altogether on the viewpoint of those who are administering it. We may have different viewpoints from different Ministers. I do not know that Section 4 ought to be so drastic as it is. Sub-section F of Section 4 states "such tree is not necessary for the ornament or protection of the holding." I agree that this Bill is very drastic indeed but I can see that drastic provisions are necessary if you want to have your scheme of forestry a success in the country, but the smooth and commonsense working of it will largely depend on the Forestry Department. I admit that you must have certain drastic definitions, so as to protect every interest but a good deal is left to the discretion of the officers and heads of the departments.

Reference has been made to the destruction of young timber. Deputy Cooper referred to the damage done by hares and rabbits. It is very necessary in dealing with forestry to deal with the pests especially in the early stages of your timber plantation. I do not know very much about the damage that hares do to plantations, but there is a pest to which no reference has been made and which does considerable damage to growing larch, and that is the squirrel. I have seen a plantation destroyed by squirrels ringing the bark for eight or nine feet high to a with of an inch or an inch and a half. It is very necessary that provision should be made to deal with all these pests. Of course we may have some old maids in the country as we had in the case of the Protection of Wild Birds Bill who will say "do not touch the poor little squirrel." We do not want to be squeamish even though the hare were concerned. If it is necessary for the forestry of the country to deal with pests I hope the squirrel will be dealt with.

I would want to have an assurance from the Minister as regards the application of the provisions of this Bill to hedge timber. I know that Deputy Wolfe in his very long speech said one very sensible thing at least, and that was the felling of timber at a certain age, because when timber goes past a certain age it is best that it should be felled. In my opinion, this Bill is not introduced because of the things that are apprehended but because of the vandalism of the past.

The Ministry dealing with this Bill is animated with the knowledge of the many undesirable things which took place in the past. I suggest to the Minister that nearly all the vandals have operated and that any timber that is there is due to the fact that it was cared for by people who have some respect for scenery and who did not desire to make the most money they could out of it. During the war timber was at peak prices. It is a pity that this Bill was not introduced nine or ten years ago. Woods were destroyed by people who wanted to make the most out of timber when high prices prevailed, and who can only be described as vandals. In regard to the section stipulating that scrub cannot be burned within a mile of a plantation, I think it is very drastic. In my opinion a mile is an exaggerated distance. I can visualise places like a mountain-side where that would be necessary, and for that reason I am not prepared to question it, especially in regard to new plantations. I am not sure that the Minister should not take powers to deal with fires originating in another way. Every day we pass through a county which is represented by a namesake of mine on the Opposition Benches and we see tracks of burned wood which originated in a fire caused by sparks from a train. Some protection ought to be afforded to plantations bordering on railway lines. I think the same remark applies to the line running from Maryborough to Limerick Junction and Thurles where you see traces of forest fires which originated in sparks from an engine. On one occasion I heard a law case decided on evidence given by so-called experts that fires could not take place through sparks from an engine as there was a contrivance attached which prevented the possibility of fires. The judges accepted such evidence, but there is no greater fallacy than the idea that a fire cannot be caused through sparks from an engine.

The Deputy, I think, will have to keep off the judges and keep to the Bill.

I want to show the Minister the necessity of making provision to prevent fires on plantations originating through sparks from an engine. In regard to the fencing clauses and the making of provisions to exclude trespass, I desire to state publicly that the greatest offenders in that direction will be the employees of the timber merchants engaged in cutting down timber. When removing timber from a wood these are the people who do most harm to the young natural timber growing there. I do not say that they do it intentionally, but it is done through carelessness, and the necessity of doing as little harm as possible to young growing timber should be impressed on the timber merchants and their employees. That, I think, should be made one of the conditions of the Bill. Trees are thrown down without any regard as to where they fall or what they are going to destroy in their fall. Employees often take an axe and cut down—I have done it myself—whatever is handy to them, even if it be the best young plant in the immediate neighbourhood. The timber merchants and their employees could help considerably by exercising a little more care in cutting down and removing timber. I think my suggestion is a good one. One would be inclined to look at this Bill as being unduly severe. It certainly carries with it the possibility of undue severity, and a good deal will depend on the commonsense shown by the Ministry, the staff and the head of the Department. It can be made very objectionable and very drastic if people who have not commonsense are entrusted with enforcing its provisions. It may, in fact, be necessary in Committee to tone down some of its provisions. The people who have timber are not, as I say, the worst offenders. The worst offenders have already done their damage, gone away with the swag, and have made as much as possible out of it. I think that the people who have timber to-day should be complimented upon not having taken advantage of the times when they could have got enhanced prices if they were inspired by greed. They were not inspired by such motives, and they are to be complimented.

I have read the circular that has been sent out. It is very instructive. It states that the whole stock of native timber should be held over for the operation of native timber manufactures. They use the word "manufactures" and that is the reason I use it, but I do not think it applies. It is mentioned that beech logs are worth 25/- a ton f.o.b. I do not know what the price would be if we had not a steamer to put this timber on. What price would the timber merchants pay in that case? I wonder what the price would be in the wood. It would, in my opinion, range from nothing up to 12/- a ton to the grower. Twelve shillings would be the extreme limit. If the ton were only partly manufactured, as it is in some cases, it would be worth £4. You need not bring it to the steamer, you need only put it on the sawmill, make a few cuts through it, and make it partly-manufactured and it gets a value of £4 a ton. Perhaps that timber took a hundred years to grow. It is worth at the very outside 12/- a ton to the grower but after ten minutes on the sawmill its value is £4 a ton. In this, as in every other case, the producer is the last man to be taken into consideration. The grower of wood timber must, of course, be put on a different footing from the man who grows timber on good land. Woods, of course, are given over to timber, but in the open country the damage that could be done to a big ornamental tree, ash, beech, or horse chestnut, is extraordinary. I do not know what they would pay the grower for timber which happened to be on his land from sixty to one hundred years. When it is cut down it is worth practically nothing for shipment but when it is ten minutes on the sawmill it is worth £4 a ton, and after further operations such as shafting, it is worth £10 a ton. Even now there is considerable traffic in timber to my own knowledge. That traffic is on estates which have been broken up by the Land Commission within the last two or three years, and the people who gave it to them, some of them imported counts, have left nothing but stumps in the woods. The land is in the possession of the Land Commission and it is on these lands that most dilapidation has been done. On an estate near my residence I have seen these things happening. It would be no harm if we had a better intelligence department.

Mr. HOGAN

Was it the Land Commission sold off the timber?

It was not; it was the individual to whom they gave possession.

Mr. HOGAN

Then the land is not owned by the Land Commission. I gathered from Deputy Gorey that the greatest devastation was on lands held by the Land Commission. Now, apparently, he is referring to land which the Land Commission got and resold.

No; not resold.

Mr. HOGAN

What is the point?

They let it to tenants. They have not resold it, and the Land Commission will get very poor security in some cases in consequence of this.

Mr. HOGAN

They let it to tenants on an agreement from year to year?

Yes. At present a fair price is being paid for soft timber compared with the prices people have been getting. Ash timber is worth from 15/6 to £1 per ton, but what is other timber worth? What is oak, elm or beech worth? It is worth practically nothing at present. In the neighbourhood of towns you might get people who would take it away, but there is some timber which you could scarcely get people to take away. Deputies do not appear to know that. The best buyer of wood in the country today is the firewood merchant. He is a very much better buyer than the timber merchant. I am sure, from what I have been told, that the policy of the Department is to concentrate on growing soft timber. There are a few other timbers that are very useful, especially ash, but soft timber is worth infinitely more than hard timber. A lot of the timber that was fashionable fifty, one hundred or two hundred years ago is useless today. These timbers are a drug on the market, and the growing of them would seem to me to be bad business, except on bad land. Soft timber is the only timber for which you can get a price, such as deal, larch and spruce. I hope that in Committee we will be able to take the sting out of some of these provisions. It would appear to me, however, that we should adopt the attitude on the Committee Stage that these provisions are necessary to deal with possible abuses. Although we may have only to deal with a few individuals in the State, it is necessary to have these provisions there to deal with them.

I only intervene in this debate for a few minutes to deal with some of the objections which have been put forward to some clauses in this Bill. The first objection which was made was put forward by Deputy Wolfe. He has had several followers who object to the section which makes it obligatory on the owner of a plantation to have his plantation properly fenced against domestic animals. I quite agree with Deputy Cooper that rabbits, hares and deer do more damage to timber and to plantations than domestic animals, but it does not follow from that that domestic animals do no damage, because they most undoubtedly do. On the other hand, for practical purposes, I may say that it is impossible to fence against rabbits. You get a certain amount of rabbit-wiring and at tremendous expense you put it down three or four inches in the ground. You think you are safe, but afterwards you go down there and you discover that the rabbit has gone a little deeper and has entered with his young family and your plantation is attacked. It is almost impossible to protect a plantation against rabbits.

It is possible.

I say it is almost impossible.

I say it is quite possible.

You could not plant a tree in County Wicklow if you were not able to protect it against rabbits.

The only complete protection which you can have against rabbits would be to wire each individual tree, which would be absolutely impracticable.

Might I suggest to the Minister that the net-wire should be put on the flat and not put on a raised fence? There will be no such thing then as getting in under it.

I have never seen a plantation in a place in which rabbits were plentiful into which rabbits have not succeeded in getting. I think you possibly could do it if you tarred your fence or put on some of the patent things that are used which will keep rabbits out, but for all practical purposes it would be impossible, and it would be an unnecessary hardship if the section were enlarged to make it essential that every owner of a plantation should put up a fence against rabbits. Deputy Gorey has correctly said that if a person plants trees now for anything with a commercial view in his head he will undoubtedly plant soft wood. Hard woods—oak, ash and beech—are practically unsaleable and are very slow in giving a return. If you want any return from trees you must plant early-maturing trees, such as larch and Corsican pine. These are the trees which you must plant for practical purposes. The person who is putting down a plantation of that nature will, you may be practically certain, take the necessary steps to safeguard it as far as he can. But there was another way in continental countries, a very well recognised way of replanting, which is allowing nature to do its own work. You cut down the large belts, and you allow those to be re-sown with natural-growing timber. Natural afforestation in this country is unfortunately rare. None of the conifers re-seed or plant themselves, and in the case of natural plantations, like that in the wooded parts of the country, the only trees you will see of any value will be the ash and the beech. Still the ash and the beech are trees of some value. Beech is a tree which grows under shelter much better than almost any other tree grown. You see places in which a considerable number of trees have been cut down, and there are isolated ones here and there standing. There are big gaps in these places, and if the land is fenced these will inevitably replant themselves with the ash and with the beech. Some of these young trees will be, no doubt, very poor and very scrubby things, but you will get some very nice straight-growing ash poles there, and then, as Deputy Gorey points out, some night one of your neighbours who wants a handle for his spade gets it, and your nicest ash sapling will have disappeared in the morning. I am afraid that this happens in all parts of the country. It is not confined to Kilkenny.

Going on a little further, Deputy Maguire talked about a licence to cut trees of no value. I take it, of course, he means cutting trees for the reclamation of land. I think it is pretty obvious, if you look at the Bill, that mere scrub does not come under the head of "Trees." That is to say, whitethorn, or blackthorn, or hazel, except in cases where it grows to the dimensions of timber trees. In a great part of the country this would also apply to birch. A great part of this would not come under the head of timber trees at all, and there would be no necessity to get a licence to clear your lands of them. Deputy Maguire also said that this Bill would be a hardship upon the smaller tenants. He said the small tenants would never cut their trees and that therefore there is no necessity for anything where they are concerned. As a matter of fact, the small tenants had never, at any time, power to cut trees upon their own holdings except in very rare cases. There were old timber Acts in the time of George III. passed in this country, whereby the occupier could register, if he liked, with the Petty Sessions Clerk a list of the trees planted and where he planted them, and then they became his property. Otherwise all trees were not the property of the occupiers, but always the property of the landowner, who always could cut them down. The Land Act rendered it impossible for him to cut down a certain class of tree on a tenant's holding; he had to compensate the occupier. Subsequently the Land Commission was given power to prevent the sale of timber on lands that had been purchased outright already, as has been pointed out by the Minister. So that this Bill is not really putting the small tenant purchaser in a worse position than he was in already. I certainly have seen myself, in a great number of cases, the small tenant purchaser cutting down woods in which there was a considerable amount of trees growing, and cutting down every single tree. In most parts of the country, at any rate, the small tenant purchaser did not recognise the economic value of small shelter belts. They did not see that those shelter belts pay and that the small amount of land under the shelter belts may improve the value of the rest of your holding out of all recognition.

It was also said that this section about re-planting is rather foolish and that it could be made ineffective. That is to say, the replanting of two trees where there was one tree already. That is a very common provision in continental countries. I know it exists in Switzerland, where no one can cut down a tree without planting another tree, and it seems to me that it is a very good and wise provision. Deputy Wolfe said that he has got trees scattered over his demesne and that there are other people in the same position, and that these trees overshadow too much ground for grazing and that they prevent the tilling of the place entirely.

He said that if he cut down these trees he will have to plant two trees for each tree cut down. That does not follow. If he cuts down trees in a particular place he may not be compelled to plant in the same place. Certainly he will be compelled to plant in some other part of his holding, not in the particular place where the trees were cut. If he cuts down twenty trees in the middle of his land he can make a little circle somewhere else and plant forty, of which a small number will mature. He also said that it is very difficult to plant trees effectively. I have myself some little experience of tree planting, and I have dscovered, so far as I am concerned at any rate, that the planting of small nine-inch trees is very much more effective and much cheaper than the system of planting where you dig a big hole and where you have to put in the roots of the trees with very great care. I am talking of planting in the open country. The question has been raised about the burning of scrub and heather and that sort of thing. Well, that does not seem to be a very unfair or drastic provision in the Bill. The section simply says that if you are going to have a fire, if you are going to burn things, that you should give notice of it. That prevents any burning except by the owner, and it prevents those wanton burnings which do so much damage through the country. We have all of us seen from time to time mountains and bogs on fire, and a tremendous amount of damage done in this way.

There is an old saying that some people cannot see the wood for the trees, and I think that as far as some of the critics of this measure are concerned that saying applies to them, because, to my mind, the drastic element in this Bill is its sole value. But for the exceptionally drastic proposals made I would consider this a worthless measure. I welcome the Bill from many points of view, but I welcome it principally as seemingly an earnest on the part of the Government of their intention to proceed with some form of re-afforestation scheme on a greater scale than heretofore. If they are about to proceed on such a scheme, such a measure as this is undoubtedly necessary. This Bill provides protection for existing plantations, and it also provides that if a large amount of money is to be expended in future on new schemes, that that money will not be wasted; at any rate, that it will not run the risk of being entirely wasted by not having the plantations properly protected.

Now, the Bill is drastic. The Minister has candidly admitted so. It is quite true that in some respects it may require certain slight alterations. In Section 4 (1) (f) I think that there should be some provision dealing with the cutting down of trees for fuel. There is nothing in that section to provide that if fuel is required, and if it is necessary to cut down a tree for that purpose, that it will be within the right of the owner of the land to do so. As far as Section 5 (4) is concerned, it has been stated that when a person gets a licence to cut a tree he will have to plant another or more trees in its stead. I do not read that interpretation at all into the sub-section. It says that such a condition may be imposed, but that is a very different thing from saying that in every case that condition shall be imposed. As far as Section 6 is concerned, it has also been stated that the meaning of that section is that no one can cut a tree, or a shrub, rather, within a mile of a plantation. Of course, the section means nothing of the kind. Anyone may cut a tree upon his own land within a mile of a plantation, but he will do so at his own risk.

Burn a tree. He will, first of all, have to send a notice to the owner of the plantation, and if the owner of the plantation objects and he proceeds to burn the shrub or shrubs, then he will do so at his own risk, and that simply means that he will have to take all proper and necessary precautions and steps to see that the fire does not spread to the damage or the detriment of the neighbouring woods. I do not think that in any way can be considered an excessively drastic suggestion.

As far as the Minister for Justice's statement is concerned about not being able to protect plantations from rabbits all I can say is that he can know very little about the County Wicklow. Most of the forestry operations that have been going on here—and unfortunately they have been pretty limited in the past—have been in the County Wicklow, and the County Wicklow is entirely over-run with rabbits and no such operations could have proceeded if they were not able to protect the plantations from the incursions of the rabbits. They have done it by many means, including that suggested by Deputy Gorey. The Bill, therefore, as a whole appears to me from the point of view of a step in the right direction of a future reafforestation scheme. I sincerely hope that when it is passed the Government will seriously consider the expenditure of considerably larger sums of money upon afforestation in future.

In view of the long time that we have been waiting for this Bill and the high hopes that were placed upon it. I think most Deputies must be very disappointed with its provisions. It is true that it follows the line of most of the legislation being passed through this Dáil, inasmuch as it places immense power in the hands of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. Practically every Bill that comes in here, it seems to me, has as its centre-point that the Minister shall do so and so and the Ministry shall be entitled to do so and so. In this Bill the principal feature is that the Minister shall say if there is to be another tree cut in Ireland in this generation, how many trees are to be cut, will all the trees be cut, and the particular persons that are to cut them. That seems to me a rather extraordinary way of legislating—I mean from the point of view of a democratic assembly. Assuredly it should be our aim to draw up schemes for dealing with this problem of restricting the cutting of trees, rather than to say: We will just pass it on to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and his Department, and it will be quite safe in their hands." It seems a lazy way of doing things, and I am sure most Deputies will agree that it may turn out to be a very dangerous way of doing things, because, I suppose, Government Departments are as liable to sin, and as liable to influences of various kinds, as anybody else in the world. Of course, the Minister must not think that I am attempting to make particular points or to speak in anything more than in general and theoretical terms. To my mind it is very undesirable that that should be the principal feature of the legislation passing through this House. This is one of the most remarkable cases of it.

There are other features in the measure, too, that are disappointing. On the question of licensing we are really taking the Bill on trust, because we have nothing in it to guide us as to who is to get the licence, what the expense of getting the licence will be, whether there are to be inspections on each application, whether there will be any general system of dealing with them, whether each application is to be considered apart from any other application, and so on. Further, there is this very curious provision about the burning of shrubs. I do not think that that can ever be put into operation. I think the Minister knows enough about country life, and everybody else here does, to realise that in nearly all cases these fires are started by urchins who have no responsibility and whom it would be impossible to train to recognise that this is a dangerous practice. I do not know how the owner of a farm where a fire breaks out amongst the furze is ever to be held responsible unless he is actually caught setting fire to the furze. It would be quite impracticable, I am sure, to put that clause into operation, and, though it may be useful as a sort of warning, its effect for the purpose of its own terms will be entirely useless.

The biggest difficulty in the Bill, in my opinion, is that it means making two bites of a cherry. We will some time or other have to link up the question of afforestation with the saw-milling industry, and I think it is a great pity that the Minister did not see his way to do that in the present measure. There are very many responsible people in the country who are alarmed at the big export of timber that is going on at the present time, and I refer particularly to those engaged in the furniture trade and the coach-building trade.

I have heard many of them say that things were reaching a very dangerous point, that unless action was taken to stop this export trade that was going on, industries would be in a very serious plight in the immediate future. In that respect, I think, Deputy Gorey was badly informed when he said that there was no demand at present for timber. So far from that being so, there is an overwhelming demand.

If the Deputy will remember, I referred to hard wood. With the exception of beech and sycamore, I named hard wood.

I did not remember that that remark was made and, of course, I accept the correction. But for the soft woods, at all events, there is an overwhelming demand, and nobody has to think that the 105 shilling mentioned in the saw-millers' statement is any guide as to the amount that is being obtained by growers for this timber. As a matter of fact, I believe that excellent beech is being sold at 2/6 per ton for export. We can see no reason why that trade should be continued, especially when saw-milling is so widespread an industry in the country, and there is a prospect of getting much more out of this timber than by merely exporting it in the raw state. We do not see why the Minister would not have gone the whole way by putting in a clause prohibiting the export of timber except in manufactured or semi-manufactured form.

To come back to licensing for a moment, I do not believe the Minister meant that literally as it stands, and I think it will be capable of abuse. In any case, I can say this, that any farmer who wants to cut down a tree is not going to be deterred by this Bill from doing so. He can very easily cut it down at night. Many a tree, as the Minister knows, has been cut down at night, and it will be done in the future wherever the owner desires to do it. I would really invite the Minister to consider it between this and the Committee Stage. We do not intend to vote against the Bill, but we would be very glad, and would certainly not claim it as a Party victory, if the Minister between this and the Committee Stage would consider the linking up of this measure with the requirements of the saw-milling industry. After all, the facts set down there, that most Deputies have read, are very striking and important facts, and some time or other we will probably have to face them and make the provisions suggested. We think the time has come to do so.

Mr. HOGAN

On page 1 of that statement the Deputy referred to, one suggestion was the prohibition of the export of any timber except sawn timber. What about the second suggestion? Does he think that provision should be inserted also?

He does, of course.

Not at all. I do not accept that statement except in a general way. I did not mean to say that we agree with every detail in it. Apart from this statement altogether, the Minister will remember that only a month ago, I had a question on the Order Paper asking him if he would take measures to stop the export. That question, I may tell him, was prompted by people engaged in the industry, people who have no axe to grind, except that they take a very serious view of the depletion of the woods that is going on at present, all the more because that depletion is bringing so little profit to the country. Between this and the Committee Stage, we would urge the Minister to consider whether he could not introduce at least a provision such as I suggest into the measure. I am sure that if he does the Bill will be a lot more useful. To me, at least, the system of handing over to the Government Departments such big powers and duties as are given in this Bill is not altogether to my liking. I do not think it is a good principle, and I think it will eventually lead to great danger.

I desire to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill and I am only sorry that it was not introduced sooner. The amount of wood that has been felled in Ireland for some years must arouse anxiety in anyone who takes an interest in one of our most valuable national assets. If this Bill had not been introduced, I am afraid that in a very short time we would have nothing left as far as my part of the country—Waterford—is concerned but gorse and some brambles. Coming to and going from Dublin I pass through a fairly extensive tract of country, and even there one can see on every side of the railway line tree after tree felled within a very short time. In fact, from here to Waterford there is scarcely a tree standing now in close proximity to the Great Southern Railways line. It seems to be forgotten by people who cut down trees what a great value they are to any nation. They forget that it takes years and years before a tree reaches maturity. Apart from the various uses that the wood can be put to, it seems to be forgotten that trees exert a great influence on the climate of the country, and I am fairly sure that the wholesale destruction of trees has helped to bring about a change of climate in Ireland. And not only that, but it helped in no small degree the floodings that we had in Ireland, especially within the last four or five years. Apart from the uses that the wood can be put to, other nations take a great interest and have very drastic laws in relation to their forests and woods. Take Scotland. Scotland has a tremendous turnover on account of the way in which it preserves its deer forests and grouse moors for tourists. I do not see why we in the Saorstát could not do the same as Scotland does. It would be a great source of revenue to our people, and in various directions it would create employment. The word "grandmotherly" and other words have been used by some Deputies when describing this Bill. I do not see anything grand-motherly about it. I think it is a sound Bill.

I think that is very clear, even though it may be in some clauses very drastic. As to Section 5, sub-section (4), dealing with the replanting of trees, the only adverse criticism I have of that is that it is a pity the Minister did not insist that half a dozen trees should be planted where one was cut down. I do not see that any great harm will be done to the wood industry by the export of pit wood, provided more trees are planted. I am not going to proceed to criticise this Bill. I suppose I got a copy of the Bill before, but I only saw it a few moments ago. I wish to congratulate the Minister and hope that, if necessary, it may be the precursor of more drastic Bills dealing with our forests and woods.

I was not present during the greater part of this debate, and therefore I intend to deal only with one of the clauses and that is in connection with the burning of plantations and furze. I probably would not have spoken at all on this subject only for the fact that I was present on last Sunday evening when twenty acres of furze and plantations belonging to Major Halliday, Cleaboy Stud, Mullingar, were burned. I do not know what caused the burning of these woods. Probably it was an accident, but the fact remains that thousands of young trees were burnt and that thousands and thousands of eggs were destroyed —ducks' nests, snipe nests, pheasants' nests, and ordinary birds' nests. That is a matter that possibly the Minister for Justice, when introducing his very much overdue Game Laws Bill, might be able to deal with. I agree with Deputy Moore that damage like that is probably caused by urchins, because I know and have myself seen young boys going through the mountains and bogs and setting fire to the dry heather simply for amusement, but doing damage the cost of which to the country it would be very difficult to estimate. That devastating fire that I spent three or four hours looking at reminded me of the times when I read about prairie fires. Because the evening was rather rough, the fire blew right across these twenty acres, the flames went up into the air and the entire place was destroyed. I am very glad that the Minister has introduced this clause requiring people who are going to burn anything at least to give notice beforehand. I am sorry that the Minister for Justice has spoken before me, because that is a matter he could deal with when he introduces what I have said is the very much overdue Game Protection Bill which he has promised to introduce before the Summer Recess.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House for very long. I wish to oppose the Bill on account of Section 4. I opposed a similar section in the Land Act some twelve months ago. I think this is much too drastic, that it is not at all correct, and that it will stop all enterprise. Perhaps some Forestry Bill is necessary, but I do not think that this Bill will meet the position at all. If the Bill made it compulsory on people to give notice when they were going to cut down trees, and if the Minister made a condition upon the permit to be given that they were to replant a certain number to replace those cut down, there might be some reason in it, but it seems very unreasonable that men who have been paying rates and income tax on land, and their fathers and perhaps their grandfathers before them, should now be told by the Government that they cannot cut down their trees—should be told: "We are usurping this power, and consequently we will not allow you to cut them." Of course it has been said that a good deal depends on how the Bill will be enforced, and, according to the Minister, there will be no trouble about it. He says that all you have to do is to make application to the Department, and that the Department will probably say: "Yes, it will be all right." But we would like to have some more definite information about this. We want to know how we are going to be treated in case the Department says "No," and if there is to be any appeal against the Department's decision. I think that there should be an appeal to the Circuit Judge in a case like that, or to some other responsible person, and that it should not be left altogether to officials of the Department. I think the burning clause opens a very wide and perhaps a dangerous question, because in the case referred to by the last speaker the serious fire that took place in his district was probably not caused by the owner of the place, but was caused by some passing person, who may have done it maliciously or by throwing down a match after lighting a cigarette or a pipe. If the Bill passes with this clause it will leave the owner liable.

Mr. HOGAN

No, the person who does it.

It opens a big question. There is no danger that the owner of a big place like that would burn it, even for the destruction of the ferns, at this time of the year. Anybody who owns a place like that would be quite well aware of the damage that would be done if a fire was lit there. I think we are going the wrong way to have our woods protected. If the industry was encouraged, and if the people were allowed a free hand, I do not think there would be any necessity for these powers. The Minister dealt with contracts that have already been made. He is evidently doubtful as to what steps can be taken with regard to them. I do not know what steps he intends to take, but I think something very definite should be done. Other wise it will lead to a considerable amount of trouble, because any man who has got a contract and who has cut part of the timber will have to decide whether he has to cut half of it or a quarter. It will mean big discussions, and probably trouble and law. Notwithstanding what has been said, the timber trade is in a depressed condition. I know from experience that timber is not worth more than 25 per cent, of what it was worth four or five years ago. That is soft wood, and as regards hard wood, such as beech, it is practically unsaleable at present. Men who deal in timber tell me that they can buy enormous beech trees for about 5/- a ton. I do not think that at that price there will be any encouragement for people to grow timber, and certainly it would not be in the interests of anyone to sell it, except where the trees were doing harm to grazing, as they do. I think Section 4 is much too drastic, and therefore I will oppose the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister whether between this and the Committee Stage he will carefully consider Deputy Redmond's suggestion of inserting in Section 4 a provision permitting the cutting of timber for fuel. The difficulty I see is this: in common with a great many landowners, I am accustomed to making use of my own timber for fuel. The Minister may say that there would be no difficulty about giving a licence, but I observe that Section 5 says: "The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, grant any person a licence in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot any tree specified in such licence." Does the Minister seriously suggest that it would be worth his while to send an inspector specially to my remote domicile in order to mark down half-a-dozen trees that I may propose to cut for fuel purposes? It appears to me to be utterly impracticable. While it is necessary that the Department should have general power of control, the form in which it appears in the Bill is really quite hopelessly impracticable. One does not want to be driven to the evasion suggested by a former speaker of having to cut down trees by night. I suggest to the Minister that between this and the Committee Stage he ought to consider seriously whether a simpler form of dealing with the matter could not be found.

There is general agreement that the introduction of this Bill is necessary. There is no doubt that if anything in the nature of an extensive, not to mention a national, scheme of afforestation is to be carried out, it must be carried out by the State. The class of people who in the past were responsible for planting and maintaining forests is rapidly disappearing, and the denudation of timber took place largely simultaneously with the expansion or completion of land purchase. The two main reasons why afforestation cannot be carried out by the individual are that at the present prices of practically all classes of timber the schemes would be unremunerative, and that even if they promised to be remunerative, the long period which planters have to wait for the financial returns makes it impossible for the small holder, in fact any farmer, to embark on a scheme of afforestation. It is also pretty evident that under the afforestation laws as they stood it was impossible for the Department to extend their afforestation activities, for the reason that they were obliged to acquire the land which they wanted by voluntary means. It, therefore, sometimes happened that in places where there were suitable tracts of land—mountain land, perhaps —available for afforestation, the Department could acquire certain portions, but could not acquire the whole of the land owing, perhaps, to peculiarities of certain holders, who could not be satisfied as to price, with the result that large areas which could be planted if the Department had compulsory powers were and are still lying derelict so far as afforestation is concerned. This Bill will give the Department power to acquire this land by compulsion, and when that power has been acquired the way will be clear for a general expansion of the afforestation policy of the Department.

With regard to this Bill, although the general principle may be approved, there are certain sections, a great many of which have been commented upon, which will require careful examination in Committee. In Section 4 we have the old hardy annual which has been discussed under several Land Acts—the question of the prohibition of the felling of trees. I approach that section with a great amount of diffidence, because I have heard it argued so frequently that I have come to recognise the extreme difficulty of drafting a section or devising a formula which will make it possible for the Department to control the felling of trees in certain circumstances and, at the same time, give the necessary freedom which is required by the ordinary farmer in order to carry out his usual farming avocations without unnecessary interference by a Government Department. It seems to me, however, that the devising of a formula is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Deputy Law suggested the inclusion in Section 4 (1) (f) of timber to be used for fuel purposes, and I think the Minister should accept that suggestion. But even that suggestion would not fully cover the situation in regard to the ordinary farmer. The real difficulty is that apparently the Minister visualises a situation in which certain legal enactments will be passed, certain powers will be taken, which can be enforced or not just as the Department sees fit, and that in actual practice the farmers will continue to do as they have been doing in the past, that is, cutting an occasional tree when necessary for fuel or for the requirements of their farm. Personally, I think that principle of law is bad. If we enact a law we ought to be prepared to put it into force. It is an unsound principle to have a law on the Statute Book and that a farmer who cuts down one tree will be consciously violating that law. In addition to that, I am sure it is well known to the Minister that the kind of afforestation which is wanted is not of the nature that exists at present on farms, if we can call it afforestation. It is a well-known fact that hedge timber and isolated trees scattered through lands are in many cases injurious and that no good purpose is served by keeping them. Land may even be improved by cutting them down. As the law stands, and will continue to stand after this Bill is passed, the individual farmer will have to obtain a licence before he can cut down one tree, unless that tree is used for a certain purpose on the farm. I am sure it is not outside the bounds of possibility to devise an amendment or formula which will get over this, and if that can be done it ought to be done. It is a blot on all the Land Acts and on the present Bill.

The only other section which I would like to call special attention to is Section 6, which deals with the burning of shrubs. With many other Deputies, I am not fully convinced that the section is practicable in its present form. The placing of responsibility in the proper quarters will, in my opinion, be very difficult, but not impossible. Further than that, it seems to me to throw all the responsibility on the person who burns the shrubs, and no responsibility on the owner of the afforested portion of land. Possibly some responsibility ought to be thrown on the owner of the land, because it is well known that in certain mountainous districts the setting fire to scrub growth, heather, etc., is essential to the proper retention of that land in the kind of condition necessary in order that grazing may be available.

Whereas it is right and correct that responsibility should be thrown upon the people who set fire to the land in their own interest it is also, in my opinion, perhaps advisable that some stipulation should be placed in the Bill throwing a certain responsibility on the owner of the afforested portion of the land to protect his land. I think the whole responsibility should not be thrown upon the owner of the scrub land adjoining the portion of the afforested land.

Deputy Moore made some comments with regard to the extraordinary power given by this Bill to the Department of Lands and Agriculture. This is a type of legislation very common nowadays—legislation by regulation. But it seems to me that in dealing with a matter of this kind no other form of legislation is possible. You cannot make provision for every contingency which may arise from time to time. There is no possibility that we can pass Acts that will make provision for every contingency arising out of a complex situation which may change from year to year. And you must give certain powers to the Departments, and although we give these powers we have the right to come to the Dáil and to restrict and stop those powers at any time we think fit. Deputy Moore also referred to a matter which, I think, was mentioned before. He suggested the advisability of putting restrictions upon the export of timber. I find it difficult to follow the intention of the suggested restriction of that kind.

There is no doubt whatever that one of the main reasons why afforestation is not taken up at the present time, or even thought of, as an economic and financial enterprise is that the return from timber is so low that in no conceivable circumstances at the present price could a man think that the planting of an area of land would be remunerative to him or his children. After all, internal prices are and must be regulated to a very large extent by the external price, and undoubtedly the internal prices are governed in regard to timber as in regard to every other exported article by the external prices, the price of the exportable surplus. But the actual effect of restrictions on the export of timber would be to give a monopoly to the saw-mill owners and the industrialists who deal with the timber on an industrial basis, and to give them a right to fix their own prices. By doing that we give a monopoly to a class generally acknowledged to be paying unremunerative prices to the producers at the present time. It seems to me if a stipulation of that kind were introduced into this Bill, or into any Act dealing with the export of timber that the effect would be not to encourage afforestation but to restrict it.

I was very interested in Deputy Gorey's definition of scrub. It reminded me of the answer given by the committee man who was telling his neighbour some of the improvements which were going to be made in the local graveyard. He said they were going to remove the big timber round there. And the other said: "What are you going to do then?" And he answered that they were going to put scrub in. Looking over this Bill, I think it is a Bill that is all for prevention and negation. It is not as acceptable as if it made provisions for the more productive end. While some measure of protection of the forests may be necessary, that is protection of immature timber, the Bill as presented to us seems to be very incomplete. Deputy Heffernan mentioned, as we well know, that tillage land is far better without lone trees. Any of us who has tried tillage in the neighbourhood of ash trees knows what happens. There should be in the Bill some provision where a person having these trees should not have to go the rounds of getting permission and of having an inspector sent down to cut down such lone trees which are only doing damage and only useful for firewood. Another thing I want information about is with regard to timber on fee simple land. I know the case of business men who purchased land at a good price. There was timber on the land and that timber was an asset, because they looked upon it as very useful in connection with the factory which they worked for the making of boxes for their products. That timber has not been removed as yet. Would the provisions in this Bill prevent them getting what they have regarded as an asset on the land in return for their money?

There may be a great many reasons why people should cut timber. A person may have to sell timber at a low price to get the necessaries of life. I think it is a sad reflection on the timber of our country that so very little of it is of use for building purposes. I have in my short life engaged in building operations and I found very little of the native timber useful or suitable for that purpose. If the Minister had brought in this Bill along with another Bill making provisions for the planting of trees I think this House might have met it in a more gentle spirit and in a spirit of welcome. If provision for planting large areas were made along with this prevention, and also if there was encouragement given to the smaller farmers to plant the corners on their holdings, even if only half an acre in extent, I think it would appear to this House more acceptable than the Bill as it stands now.

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Moore when he says that a good deal of power is vested in the Minister. None of us has any reason to believe the present Minister for Agriculture, being a practical man, would prevent great things being done. But when you look into the Bill you find that in thirteen sections the Minister is mentioned no less than nine times. I think a law or a measure should stand on its own feet and not on the opinion of an individual, no matter how good that individual may be. I admit there is necessity for this prevention of the cutting down of timber that is not matured, but the provision extends too far. I ask the Minister to allow time between now and the Committee Stage in order that amendments might be framed which might make the Bill more acceptable to Deputies.

I welcome this Bill to this extent, that it will be the means of promoting the growing of timber in the country a little better than it is going on at present. Many Deputies have stated that timber here is of very little value. I can state from experience that home-grown timber in this country costs to-day almost as much as foreign timber. For instance, if in my neighbourhood you go to the wood and buy a tree, bring it to the saw-mill and there get it cut up as you require, it costs you, by the time you have it ready for use, almost as much as the foreign timber costs you on rail at the local station. I think if this Bill promotes the growing of timber that many people will welcome it. In years to come, the timber grown will be of great benefit to the country. I just wish to refer to Section 4, which prohibits people who own timber from cutting it without a licence. I think that such a provision in the Bill is a poor recompense for the industry of farmers and others who preserved their timber up to this time. There was a period not so many years ago when the owners of this timber could have got a good price for it. I think that the method adopted here is hardly a right way of dealing with this. I think that the people who own the timber should get a certain amount of consideration, or that they should be compensated for it before anyone would be allowed to take it over and say: "This belongs to me." In my opinion, that is not a fair way of dealing with the matter. I hope that before the Committee Stage is reached the Minister will consider that and make such provision that the farmers will be compensated for the timber they have saved up to the present should it be taken from them.

With regard to Section 4, I desire to support what the last Deputy has stated. I think that section ought to be abolished. The idea that a farmer should have to look for a permit every time he wants to cut a tree seems to me to be ridiculous. Goodness knows we have to look for permits enough without having to seek one every time we want to cut down a tree. I think what is sought under that section is very well provided for under Section 5, where it is provided that a licence granted may, if the Minister so thinks fit, contain a condition that the licensee shall within a specified time after cutting down or uprooting a tree under the licence plant one or more trees of a specified kind on the holding on which such tree was cut down. I think myself that the general run of farmers at the present day are planting more trees than they are cutting. I think if there was a proviso put in that, in the case of a farmer cutting a tree, he would plant one in its stead it would be meeting the situation fairly.

Deputy Wolfe sought to draw a distinction between purchased land, land on which annuities are being paid, and land held in fee simple—demesne or landlords' land. He said that those holding land in fee simple had a better sense of what was right than those paying land annuities—a sort of superiority complex. I know that in my district when the landlords were leaving the land they did not leave as much as a bush to be cut.

I do not quite understand what the Deputy has said, but when speaking what I meant to say was that a man who owns his land in fee simple has more right to say what he should do with his land than a person who is only paying annuities.

I think the farmer paying land annuities, and who has actually planted the trees on his land, has more right to cut the trees on it than the other gentleman, who cut all the trees he could and turned them into hard cash before he let the land to the farmer, leaving nothing but the stumps, and who had paid nothing at all for the land. I think myself that Section 4 should be deleted from the Bill. I am glad to see a Bill of this kind brought in, because I would like to see plenty of timber in the country. At the same time, I think Section 4 is an outrage. It is not right that a farmer should have to apply to the Department for a permit before he can cut down a tree on his land. I think the Bill could do very well without that provision.

I desire to draw the attention of the Minister to Section 7. In that section there is no provision for the protection of farmers' crops outside woods. During the past five weeks my attention has been called on several occasions to the damage done to farmers' crops by rabbits, pheasants and other birds which had come out of the woods adjoining the farmers' lands. I hope that the Minister will be able to find some means of amending this section on the Committee Stage so as to prevent damage of that kind.

Nearly everybody agrees that there should be some restrictions placed on the wholesale cutting down of woods; even Deputy Cole, who was more free trade in the matter than probably any Deputy who spoke. How to carry that general agreement out is the difficulty. The proposal in Section 4 is that no tree, with some exceptions, shall be cut down without a licence from the Department. I admitted that was drastic, but I stated the intention was mainly to protect the wholesale cutting down of woods. A number of Deputies object to that but what do they want me to insert in its stead? I considered the matter from every angle, and I fail to see how I can take any powers under this Bill which will enable the Department of Agriculture to prevent the wholesale felling of woods without replanting by anything short of this. If Deputies think that it can be done, then let them put in amendments; but I ask them to remember that they have all agreed that there must be some restrictions.

There was just one possible alternative suggested. That was that there should be no power to prevent the cutting of trees, but that the Ministry should have power to compel the person who cuts a tree to replant. I think if you compel everybody who cuts a tree to replant, that is a much more drastic provision than the one in the Bill. Moreover, it seems to me to be a little wasteful, because, as it was pointed out by many Deputies, the planting of trees is quite a simple operation, but it does not carry the problem very much further. Anybody can dig a hole, get a tree, and put it down and cover in the earth, but then the job only begins. It is the protection of the plantation while the trees are growing that is the real problem. If ten trees are planted in a careless fashion like that, perhaps only two will survive.

If I were to accept what many Deputies have stated and insert a provision about replanting as a substitute for the powers I have asked, namely, to prohibit the cutting down of trees except under licence, then you would be doing something much more drastic than what is proposed in the Bill. In addition, you would be doing something which would be extremely wasteful, as well as extremely difficult to administer. You could administer it in odd cases, but if you had to administer such a provision in a wholesale way, and if you made an order that every wood and every plantation, no matter what its size, should be replanted, look at the number of inspectors you would have to employ, unless you wanted to turn the thing into an absolute dead letter. There is a dilemma here. Every Deputy here says that he is in favour of restricting the wholesale felling of woods and of trees, of shelter belts and ornamental beds, and of plantations big and small, but everybody, not perhaps everybody, is against this particular provision.

Not quite everybody.

Mr. HOGAN

A very large number of Deputies in all parties are against the provision. A suggestion was made by Deputy Cole which is much more drastic than the provision I have in the Bill. It would be extremely drastic if it was considered that in the case of every plantation or wood where matured timber is cut down, no matter where and in what circumstances, the owner would have to replant. That would make it impossible in many cases to cut down, and in some cases it would be undesirable. In any event, even as the provision stands, if it were applied everywhere and in all circumstances it would be very drastic.

Is there not that power in sub-section (4) of Section 5?

Mr. HOGAN

There is power under sub-section (4) of Section 5 for the Minister to say you shall replant, but it is not mandatory. I contemplate that that would be exercised in this way: There is an application to cut down a plantation, and there is a lot to be said on both sides of the question, so that it is very doubtful as to whether or not you should allow such a plantation to be cut down. It may be very valuable from an ornamental point of view. It may be very valuable as an asset, and for some reason of that sort the Department are doubtful as to whether they should allow the plantation to be cut. In that sort of case you would resolve the doubt and say "Very well, cut away, but replant." I do not anticipate that section will be used except in cases of that sort, and in the minority of cases.

Does the Minister realise that it will stop all voluntary planting?

Mr. HOGAN

That is a point that has not been made. I can see what would stop voluntary planting. Undoubtedly there would be no voluntary planting if a licence to cut was refused in 50 per cent. of cases. Does any Deputy put it that there are 15 per cent. of cases where there is devastation, wanton cutting of timber, very valuable from an ornamental and national point of view? Is it suggested there should be no authority in the country to stop that?

Deputy Myles will agree with me that it would not stop all planting if these powers were exercised only in such cases. Of course he will object: "But at the same time they may be exercised in all cases."

You should wait a few years and educate the country to your point of view.

Mr. HOGAN

Where does that lead to? If you put a time limit it is an invitation to people. It is merely a way of frightening people if you insert a provision of that sort, that these restrictions will come into force in three years. Owners will come to the conclusion that when they do come into force they are going to be operated drastically in a wholesale way, a thoroughly false but inevitable conclusion in the circumstances, and owners who would not proceed to cut their woods so quickly would proceed at once to cut down all over the place.

The Minister misunderstood my remark. I meant to say that by the very fact that the terms of the Bill had become known it would so frighten people that for a number of years they will not plant voluntarily until they see the Minister's good intentions coming out in his work in the future.

Mr. HOGAN

Then we will find some way of dealing with that 15 per cent. of cases that come within these restrictions. If you vote against that section without putting up an alternative to meet the case, you are voting against giving power to some Department of State to prevent the sort of wanton devastation that occurs in, I admit, very rare cases. In the circumstances Deputies should not come to me again and say: "There is shocking destruction of timber going on, and what is the Government going to do about it?"

Why should it be necessary for a farmer to get a permit to cut down a single tree? That is the ridiculous portion of the Bill.

Mr. HOGAN

Of course, it is possible, and it is a matter for consideration whether this might not be narrowed somewhat. A farmer may cut down any tree he wants for the use of his holding, such as for fuel, except it is ornamental timber or a sheltered belt. If it is that, he must get a licence. It might be possible to insert some words which would make it clear that a farmer could cut trees scattered here and there through his holding if they were not of much value, such as ash, for his own purpose without having to apply for a licence. What I want to prevent is that a farmer or any person occupying land should wantonly cut shelter belts or ornamental timber. I can see no other way of doing it than that suggested in Section 4. If it is made wider there would be loopholes, and there would be questions as to whether it was valuable timber, a shelter belt, and does it come within the category of a wood or plantation? Is it merely a half-a-dozen or a dozen trees which are of little value? How do you define a plantation? Is it twenty trees with a fence about them, and if the fence falls what about it then? These are things that would make it impossible to administer the Act.

Would it be possible to define that a licence would not be necessary except where trees were cut down for the purpose of sale?

Mr. HOGAN

That suggestion would meet one point, but it would not meet the point made by Deputy Cole and Deputy Myles. It is a suggestion that could be considered.

Is not all this Committee work? We are dealing with the principle of the Bill, and these points can be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. HOGAN

That is my view. As to the three points put up by Deputy Ryan, who is to judge whether the trees are ornamental or not? There is also the point of cutting the timber for fuel. The question he asked on Section 5 was a Second Reading question. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 states:—

"A licence granted under this section shall operate to relieve in respect of every tree mentioned therein the licensee and any person authorised by him from any prohibition against cutting down or uprooting contained in this Act but shall not operate to give any other relief or to confer any further or other authority in respect of any such tree."

That is inserted for the purpose of ensuring that the State has no liability in the matter. For instance, a person who did not own a tree might apply for a licence to cut it. It is not a question for us to decide who owns the tree. We give a licence to cut the tree and it is a matter afterwards between the person who owns the tree and the holder of the licence to deal with that case. I think I have also dealt with the point about replanting. The intention was to exercise that power very carefully, and not as a general rule. My idea was to exercise that power when there was some doubt as to whether a licence should be granted for cutting trees. In such cases you might resolve the doubt by saying, "Very well, it is a doubtful case, it is a case in which, for one reason or another, a licence should not be granted to cut down the wood; but if you agree to replant we will make no further difficulty."

That I think is a reasonable enough power to take. I agree that as the Bill is drafted the Department might say that in every case and make things impossible, but I can see no other way except leaving it to the discretion of the Department. You cannot deal with special cases. If you want to make it more specific you will find that the very case with which you want to deal will be left outside the Bill. It is extraordinary when you pass legislation how often you fail to cover cases for which you intended to provide. Deputy Haslett made a point which surprised me. He also said that there would be a greater welcome to the Bill if we coupled it with powers to plant very much larger areas and gave help to individuals and local authorities to develop their planting programmes. In other words, the point was made that we have not taken powers in this Bill to plant more land. That I take it is what he meant, or that we should increase our assistance to private individuals and local authorities for the purpose of planting. That point was also made by Deputy Maguire on the opposite benches. Is there, however, any point in again taking powers which we have already got? If the Minister for Finance put up a sum of £1,000,000 per annum for buying land and if the Dáil passes the estimate we have all the powers we want under this Bill and previous legislation. What more powers do you want? If the Minister for Finance put up £1,000,000 to be advanced to individuals and county councils and if the taxpayer and the Dáil agree to find the money we have all the powers we want. They are all there.

I know you have that power but I understand that you do not deal with anything under 300 acres. My suggestion was in regard to schemes for smaller plantings.

Mr. HOGAN

We do not, in practice, take less than 300 acres, but we could do so. That is an economic question. We could take an acre here, there, and elsewhere if we wanted to, and we do not require legislation for that. I am only professing to deal here with points that are not covered by legislation. It is a question whether it is good business from the point of view of the taxpayer to go into smaller areas and what you would pay for them. I was also asked to link up the question of afforestation with that of saw-mills. That was done by Deputy Moore, but, as Deputy Goulding rightly said, they are two different questions. The insertion of a provision as suggested in the circular is, as Deputy Goulding said, a question of trade, and an entirely different question from that of afforestation. Remember Deputy Moore's position. He is in a different position from Deputy Cole. He agrees that there should be restrictions on the felling of timber and the cutting of woods, but he objects to the way we do it, and makes no suggestion as to how it should be done. He objects to giving discretion to any Department. He says that this is the lazy way. I do not know what is the lively way. He goes on to say that the provision suggested in the statement of the Native Timber Merchants' Federation should be inserted, dealing with the prohibition of native timber in an unmanufactured state except in the case of pit wood. He seems to suggest that if a provision were inserted prohibiting the export of unsawn timber it would have a wonderful effect on forestry. I am talking from the point of view of the development of woodland and forestry.

If you prohibit the export of unsawn timber it will be sawn and exported and just as much timber will be cut. This provision would really be no good to the timber merchants. The sting is in the tail. There are two more provisions to be inserted to meet their case. One of them is that properly established and registered saw-millers and timber merchants should be free to purchase their supplies of standing timber wherever and whenever they please in the Twenty Six Counties. I do not know what they mean by that except that the position of saw millers in Ireland in that regard should be stabilised and that no one else should cut timber, that they should cut it, saw it, export it, and that they should be perfectly free to buy timber without let or hindrance anywhere. That might be a sound case to put up on any Bill but a Forestry Bill. This is purely a commercial question. I have no objection to anyone putting forward that provision provided it is not done under cover of doing a good turn for planting. As I say, if you prevent the export of unsawn timber it will be sawn and exported. You stabilise a number of timber merchants. That means something like a monopoly and you then tell them to go ahead, buy their timber, cut it, saw it, and export it. There is much to be said for that, especially from the point of view of the saw-millers, but do not let anyone pretend that that is going to benefit the development of forestry.

If unemployment results in the saw-mills as a result of this Bill will you be able to provide employment on forestry schemes? A similar thing has happened in regard to the creameries.

Mr. HOGAN

May I say that I do not see how, as a result of this Bill, unemployment could take place, provided the Department are reasonable in giving licences to cut timber that should be cut. Deputies cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that the country is denuded of timber and that trees should not be cut down in a wholesale way and then, on the other hand, blame the Department or any other authority which may be set up for using their discretion in a reasonable way to prevent this wholesale felling. They cannot try to have it both ways. By saying to me: "Well, what about the unemployment?" I could no more discuss unemployment which might be caused on such a Bill than I could discuss any other reaction such as, for instance, the indirect effect which this Bill might have on the climate of the country. I do not see how this can cause unemployment. It is not proposed drastically to restrict the felling of timber fit for felling, and the cutting and sawing of such timber. It is only proposed to interfere with the odd case where timber is being cut wantonly and where everyone would agree that it is wrong to cut it. That is the idea, but the Bill may not carry it out. I cannot understand the attitude of any Deputy who takes up the position of saying that there should be restrictions and then, when you put on restrictions, asking about the unemployment it will cause. That is a different question. The question whether timber should be exported, sawn or unsawn, is not a forestry but a commercial question. Whatever decision you come to it will have an implication which should be examined from a purely commercial point of view, but not on a Bill like this. These were the general points raised. There were a number of other points which, as the Ceann Comhairle pointed out, were Committee points, which can be dealt with in Committee, and which I do not intend at this stage to go into. It was suggested that ample time should be given between Second Reading and the Committee Stage to enable Deputies to consider the Bill. I would suggest that the Committee Stage be fixed for Wednesday, 9th May.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th May.
Top
Share