Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1928

Vol. 24 No. 4

FORESTRY BILL, 1928—REPORT STAGE.

It was suggested that this Bill be recommitted when it came to the Report Stage. We had the Committee Stage about a fortnight ago, and certain amendments I suggested were agreed to in order to enable the Deputies to read the Bill as a whole with these amendments inserted, and it was agreed when the Bill came up for Report to have it recommitted and that amendments the House wished to make could be inserted. The Bill came up this day week on Report, and at that stage it was quite clear there was some misunderstanding—I was not clear as to what the misunderstanding was—and I agreed to adjourn the Report Stage until to-day. We have the Report Stage now. So far as I see, there is only one amendment on the paper, and that is the amendment to Section 10, which I now move:—

In page 6, line 9, Section 10 (5), to insert before the word "heather" the words "whins, furze."

The point of the amendment is that in some parts of the country "gorse" is known by the name of whins, in other parts as furze. For that reason we insert the three words in order to make the matter perfectly clear.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."

On the last day when this Bill came up we had a certain objection to its being taken that day, as we had not had time to consider it. Since then we have had time to consider the Bill, but we have not been able to suggest any amendment that would make the Bill worth while in the way of saving the timber of this country. The big point is that there are not sufficient woods or forests in the country. Then there is the point that timber was cut down in woods and forests during the last ten or twenty years and exported on a huge scale. This Bill could be made much simpler by simply introducing a one-clause Act setting forth that the Minister for Agriculture be empowered to deal with forestry. Every single section of the Bill states the Minister has power to do so and so, and if passed it will make the Minister a dictator in the timber trade. There are people interested in the trade and they have issued circulars. From reading these circulars one would come to the conclusion that the people in the trade seemed to be fearful of the results of the Bill.

They certainly have very good reason to be so, because it really depends on the Minister for Agriculture whether, for instance, a certain timber merchant is going to be driven out of business. The absolute power lies with the Minister to allow one man to cut down a tree or trees and to prevent another man from doing so. It is, perhaps, not possible as regards the present Minister, but it might be possible in the case of a Minister for Agriculture who would be addicted to allow his feelings to get the better of him, to issue these orders or refuse to issue them in such a way as to put timber in the way of certain merchants and prevent other merchants from getting timber at all. For instance, there is Section 2 where the question of the Minister's power arises first. It says:—"The Minister may, from time to time, by order made under this sub-section declare that this Act or such part thereof as may be specified in such order shall not apply to any tree of the species named in such order." It must, of course, be admitted that it does not give the Minister very much power to differentiate between one merchant and another, but it gives him power to specify that such a tree should not be amongst the trees specified as those to which this Act applies. I admit that that is a very difficult point to deal with. It is very difficult for us at this stage of the Bill to make out a list of trees to which the Act should apply.

It would be difficult for us to be sure, when we passed the Act, that we had specified every tree to which the Act should apply, and that we would not have to come again after a few months and introduce an amending Bill, mentioning some tree that was omitted. At any rate, there might possibly have been another method found to deal with it, and, if it referred only to the trees that should come under the Act, that section would not be so bad, but it seems to have a wider application. It seems not only to apply to the Order with regard to cutting such trees, but it has a wider application inasmuch as it refers to every other Order. When you come to Section 7 it says: "Whenever a felling notice has been given in respect of any tree the Minister may, unless such tree is an exempted tree within the meaning of this section, within but not after twenty-one days from the date on which such notice was so given, make and serve on the owner by or on whose behalf such notice was given or his successor in title an Order (in this section referred to as a Prohibition Order) in the prescribed form prohibiting the cutting down or uprooting of such tree." I believe that that is really a dangerous section. As I said, a Minister—I need not say the Minister in this case—of Agriculture might, for some reason or another, prevent a man from selling his wood or his forest to a certain merchant. Let us suppose that a Minister did not want a certain merchant to do business. He might prevent an order going there and might, for some reason, say that these trees must not be cut down, and after two or three months another merchant might come along who might be permitted to cut down the trees. On the other hand, a Minister might, for some reason or another, prevent a man who wanted to have trees cut and, such trees being mature and ready for market, a man might be seriously injured——

I wish to call attention to the fact that there is not a quorum of Deputies present.

Mr. HOGAN

After you sent out five or six.

You called on your members to go out.

If you want Bills to go through you should keep your members here.

There are Deputies here who are outside the barrier.

If you want to get Bills through, keep your Deputies here.

The Deputy will please keep in order.

Keep the other people in order.

I will attend to them.

Mr. HOGAN

Keep quiet.

I will keep quiet if I wish.

Mr. HOGAN

This is a proper farce.

Deputy Dr. Ryan may now proceed.

Not only could a grave injury be done to a merchant under this section, a merchant whose only means of livelihood was the timber trade, but the owner of trees might be seriously injured. The Minister for Agriculture might prevent him from getting a permit to cut timber while prices were good and while the timber was in a proper state for cutting. At a later stage, when the timber was not in a good state and when prices were not so good, the permit might come along and the owner of the timber might lose seriously as a result. In Section 8 there is a certain amount of arbitrary power given to the Minister which is not as serious as in Section 7, but another very serious section is Section 9, under which the Minister "may if he so thinks fit, grant to any persons a general permit grant in the prescribed form to cut down or uproot any trees in any specified wood in the ordinary course of thinning or clearing such wood either with a view to replanting, or in accordance with the general practice of good forestry." I know that the Minister, in introducing this Bill, gave us an explanation that it would be practically impossible to give any sort of special permit for thinning out any forest or any wood, but this section might have been made a little more watertight, because, as it reads, it appears to me that the Minister can if he so thinks fit, grant a general permit to a person to cut timber even though it was not being done for the purpose of thinning or in accordance with the general practice of forestry or anything else. A man might, for instance, cut his timber at a certain stage when it did not require thinning or when it could be sold for building poles, scaffolding poles or things of that sort, or where it did not require thinning he might be granted a permit under the pretence that the permit would be used by this man for thinning whereas in reality it might be used for the purpose of cutting down timber for sale, thereby depriving the country of the small amount of timber which we have got.

In Section 13 we see again that the Minister, for some reason or another which I do not quite understand, has taken to himself the power of discretion as to whether anybody shall be proceeded against under this Act or not. The section says: "Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Minister. Every offence under any provision of this Act may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister as prosecutor." I do not know for what reason sub-section (1) was inserted—that proceedings shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Minister. One would imagine that in the ordinary way if a Civic Guard were to see an offence committed under the Act he would have power to proceed just as he would for an offence under any other Act, but for some reason or another there is a provision put in here that the proceedings shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Minister. That appears to me to give power to the Minister to proceed in certain cases or not to proceed in certain cases as he thinks fit. There is always danger in cases of this sort that the personal element will have influence, and that an offender under this Act who is personally known to the Minister, or personally known to a friend of the Minister's, will not have proceedings taken against him, whereas if he were not so known proceedings would be taken.

There is also a clause in the Bill which asks merchants to make returns of exports of timber, but for what reason we do not know. We are all well aware that the export of timber from this country is not very large. As a matter of fact, the import of timber is larger, but the big difference is that the timber that is exported is practically all exported in a raw or unmanufactured state, whereas the timber imported is all imported in a manufactured state. The timber that we send out of the country goes out without having given any employment practically. It may provide some little employment in the cutting down or in bringing it to the port, but the timber that comes in does not give any employment. The most part of it comes in in the manufactured state. I do not want to delay the time of the Dáil by quoting figures, but if anybody would get the trade and shipping statistics for 1927 and read up the returns of the imports and exports of timber he will see this point very well illustrated. He will see that not only is the timber brought in sawn into boards, but that even big sums of money went out of the country for wooden boxes and things of that sort while, as everybody knows, our own carpenters and workpeople are idle in the country. None of the timber exported is manufactured. It is all sent out in the raw, unmanufactured state, and gives practically no employment before leaving this country. For those reasons, I, for one, will oppose this Bill —I might say more for the provisions it does not contain than for the provisions it does contain. I have also very strong objections to arbitrary powers being given to any Minister in a case like this, where it is absolutely in his power to make or break people in certain trades.

Táim i gcoinne an Bhille seo mar is dóigh liom go bhfuil an iomad comhachta tugtha do'n Aire agus gur feárr, ar mhaithe leis féin, gan an comhacht so do bheith aige. Ní thiocfadh le h-aoinne a rádh annsan nár cuireadh an dlí i bhfeidhm i gcoinne duine atá cionntach. Dar liom, gurbh fearr i bhfad Acht 1919 do leasú agus Bille ceart do thabhairt isteach annsin ná bheith ag iarraidh Acht 1919 do leasú ar an dóigh seo. Níl ins an mBille seo ach dornán giobalach. Bfhéidir go bhfuil cuid de maith go leór ach, mar sin féin, b'fhearr liom Bille ceart d'fheiscint. Cuir i gcás Airtiogal 5 den Bhille seo. Dá gcuirfí gearán isteach fén Airtiogal so, cé bheadh freagarthach? Ba cheart é sin do mhíniú agus do dhéanamh níos soiléire. B'fhearr liom Bille d'fheiscint a chabhródh leis an obair i dtreo is go bhfeicimís, i gceann dathad bliain, i bhfad níos mó adhmaid sa tír ná mar tá fé láthair. Is gá cose do chur leis na daoine atá ag leagadh agus ag gearradh crann agus b'fhearr liom Bille níos treise na an Bille seo.

I am not in favour of this Bill. I think it is altogether too bad. I consider it is pretty hard luck on a man who planted trees years ago to have to comply with all those rules and regulations. Afforestation is certainly a good thing for any country, but in most European countries, anyway, I think it is worked on certain well-defined principles. In regard to afforestation as we have it in Ireland, I do not think it is fair to compel men who planted, say, thirty, forty, fifty or sixty acres of land for the purpose of getting a monetary benefit out of it at a future date to comply with such orders as are in the Bill. I do not think that it is equitable, or that people will agree to such a principle. The Bill is entirely too drastic. There are a good many points in it, and it is not easy to understand how they will work out; for instance, compliance with the statement in felling notices. I suppose if exporters get permission to cut down trees you can see that the orders will be complied with, but I do not see how you can devise means by which farmers who cut down trees will use them for the specific purpose mentioned in this measure. It will take a good deal of vigilance to see what they will do with such timber. It is difficult to see how that will work. The Bill compels you to give notice when you want to cut down trees. It would, perhaps, be a good thing if it compelled people to cut down certain trees. There are a good many places in Ireland where good land is destroyed by trees, especially the ash, which do an amount of damage to tillage. They impoverish the soil, and in the autumn, when the leaves fall, they are a serious destruction to grass, as they turn it sour. It might not, as I say, be a bad thing to compel people to cut down such trees. There is another matter in connection with timber felled in this country.

We had to import wood to make egg boxes. People were not allowed to export eggs in native timber; it was considered to be too damp. That, to a certain extent, prevented the cutting of timber—it was a good deal of protection. The passing of a Bill of this description means a great loss of time. It will not have any effect, because most of the timber that was useful, that beautified the country and helped to change the climate, has already gone. We started to close the door when the steed had been stolen. It will not have any beneficial effect on afforestation. If the Government could see its way to devise a regular scheme of afforestation, under which they would take 1,000 acres in places, put men to tend the trees, have them properly looked after, see that the fences were kept up, and have a regular staff to look after them, we could possibly produce timber that would be really beneficial or be turned into use. Most of the timber here, except in the last few years, is ornamental.

Under present conditions there does not seem to be any object in the Bill except to prevent people from cutting timber altogether. There are cases where it is necessary to cut timber; where trees are a distinct loss to the farmer, where they diminish the productivity of the land. Three months in the back end, from the time the leaves start to drop until the wind blows them away, are practically a loss. Of course we cannot expect to have it both ways. It is for these reasons I believe that an afforestation scheme should be in existence whereby you could have trees in places where they would be tended and looked after properly.

The general permit for felling trees does not exist for more than one year; it will have to be renewed the following year. I do not see the reason for that, except that it will create more work and consequently more expense. If any person burns any shrubs in contravention of this section that will also bring about a certain amount of difficulty. Farmers, like other individuals, are not always in agreement. Sometimes petty animosities arise, and they take every opportunity of intensifying them and having their own revenge. This section may give rise to abuses. Farmers may be let in for what they do not expect. The definition of furze and whins seems to be especially accurate. I suppose the Minister expected that some serious question might arise on that point. I know that there is a difference of opinion in some parts of the country as to what is a whin bush and what is a furze bush. It was well that that was defined.

Taking it all round, the Bill will not serve any useful purpose. If, instead of having all this expense of supervision, you let the farmers have the trees free, you certainly would have a good deal of afforestation. This Bill assumes that farmers have not cultivated a taste for landscape; that they have no taste for ornamentation, and are materialistic purely and simply. That is not the case. Farmers always had a good deal of taste for Nature's beauties. More than any other section of the community, they are in constant touch with nature. They are not handling inanimate machinery. They are constantly in communion with Nature, and I believe that this is a sort of slur on that good point that they possess. If they get the opportunity, and if the Minister would consider giving them young trees free, I believe that they would plant them in proper places and protect them, and that they would beautify the landscape and ornament the country. They are not such uncouth individuals as some people believe. They do not simply fell the trees and fell them for money. In cases where they did cut them down and sell them, they did it because the trees were interfering with the productivity of the land. I do not know many farmers who cut down trees for fun or merely for money. I believe they cut them down because it is going to be beneficial to their farms or to themselves. What did take place was that, when some landlords were notified that their land was to be sold, they preceeded to cut down the trees. In a good many cases they had too many of them; the land was overcrowded. I think that we would be better employed if we started a scheme to replant these lands and gave them some assistance. No doubt these trees were put in the best position from the point of view of ornamentation and on the best land, because it takes good land to grow good trees. I do not believe we will ever grow them on poor land. At the same time, this Bill can, more or less, be taken as an insult by the intelligent farmer, and that is one of the reasons I oppose it.

I have read the Title of the Bill very carefully and I cannot understand how any Deputy, having read the Title, can see his way to oppose it, particularly at this stage. The Title reads:—

An Act to make further and better provision for promoting afforestation and for that purpose to amend the Forestry Act, 1919, to restrict the felling of trees, and to make other provisions connected therewith.

I agree with the principle of the Bill, and I believe that there has been a general demand for some years for a Bill of this kind. That does not necessarily commit me to every detail of the Bill. The principle is there, and I cannot understand how any Deputy, especially a Deputy like Deputy O'Reilly, who speaks for the farming community, opposes the Bill. It was generally agreed that the amendments put down for the Committee Stage should be allowed to go through, so that the Bill could be reprinted and Deputies would have an opportunity of studying it and seeing whether they could put down any amendment. Not one amendment has been put down. I rise particularly to inform the Minister that there is a fear amongst certain saw-millers and people engaged in the wood-working industry that the operations of this Bill will affect them detrimentally. I have not been given any good reason for that particular statement, but I have been warned by one man who is a saw-miller and gives a reasonable amount of employment that when this Bill comes into operation he will have to close down. He makes the claim that there should be a prohibition against the export of timber from this country. I realise that if you prohibit the export of timber in the round and raw state, that is going to be detrimental to persons who have trees to fell and sell, and that you would thereby give a monopoly to people to buy timber at their own prices in their own country. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that the measure, if it passes, will not be allowed to be administered in a detrimental way so far as the saw-millers and the people engaged in woodwork are concerned.

Personally, I would prefer to see a preference given in the case of timber that has been cut down and offered for sale to people engaged in manufacturing it in this country rather than see it going in unlimited quantities out of the country in a raw state. At any rate, as far as I can see, the people engaged in saw-milling are not going to be in any worse position in the future than they were before this Bill was introduced.

I would like to know if the Minister has anything to say as to the way the Bill is likely to be administered so far as it concerns people engaged in the saw-milling industry in this country. Apart from this objection, I could not make a case against the Bill, especially in view of the principle which it contains and the Title. I, therefore propose to vote for the passage of the Bill.

Deputy Davin seemed to give a curious argument in favour of this Bill, that is the Title.

The principle.

I am afraid the Deputy used the wrong word because it was the Title he emphasised several times and he said in view of the Title he could not see how anyone would vote against it. We would be well satisfied with the Title of this Bill if the provisions were not so faulty. Taking it as it is now amended, I do not think anybody can hold it is going to have any good effect upon afforestation. There is provision made for the acquisition of land. I admit that is a useful provision, except that I think there should be some provision made for securing that where a fairly big area of land, suitable for afforestation, is taken over such land as is suitable in that area for agricultural purposes should not be liable to be taken over for afforestation. There are districts, for instance, in the County Wicklow where you have hundreds of acres suitable in the main only for afforestation but that contain, here and there, a good many acres of land suitable for agricultural purposes and for tillage purposes. To the people living in such areas that land is of great importance. I think it would be a great pity if, in the administration of this Act, that land is taken over completely. People in this area would have a very big grievance and some of those familiar with the provisions of this Bill are rather worried as to what it may mean in the future.

It is to be remembered that it does nothing to preserve existing supplies. There are provisions in it by which the Minister may prohibit the felling of trees and there is an important provision, of course, that nobody is entitled to cut a tree without a licence or without giving notice that he intends to fell. It does not mean that there is to be any diminution in the felling of timber in the State. It means that if the Minister and his Department choose there will be a diminution, but there is no provision made for a check on that power. There is no provision made by which the Dáil or any other body can see whether the Act is being administered with that object in view or not.

The Deputy cannot criticise the Bill at this stage for what it does not contain. He can only criticise what is in the Bill.

I do not think I am out of order. I was pointing out that while there are provisions in the Bill intended to secure that the timber will be conserved the Bill does not really do that.

Deputy O'Reilly thinks otherwise.

I am not responsible for Deputy O'Reilly; I am only responsible for myself. To-morrow, if there was a Minister for Agriculture in power who choose to do it, he could issue so many licences for the felling of timber that the felling would proceed at a much more rapid rate than before The whole principle of the Bill to me is repugnant. I do not think any Department should be entrusted with so much power as is given to the Department of Agriculture by this Bill. It may be all right, as I said on Second Reading, to say that the present Minister for Agriculture will not, anyhow, abuse this power and will be careful to see that licences are issued fairly and that no undue influence is used upon the Department. And he may be careful to see that too many licences are not issued; but to-morrow you may have a Minister for Agriculture that may not be so careful or so scrupulous. I think in all legislation we should consider, not the present Minister or his staff, but we should consider human nature as it is. Even taking conditions as they are, we have seen that less than a year ago a member of the staff of the Broadcasting Corporation was dismissed for a very harmless letter in the newspapers. Now, if one Department of Government can take such action as that, is it unreasonable to assume that another Department will give more preference to applications for the felling of timber from members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party than from somebody opposed to it?

I do not think there is anything ridiculous in the suggestion, and similarly we saw recently, too, when we had a discussion here on the matter, when a Minister of the Government practically admitted that he had used his power to destroy the employment of a man who was opposed to him politically. He at least stated that he would not sanction or negotiate with a very good organisation simply because this man was connected with it. In face of examples of that kind, I suggest that the House should be rather careful about giving a Department such powers. However, it is not merely the Minister that we are trusting on this occasion. It is the Gárda Síochána. There is one section of the Act which says: "It shall not be lawful for any person to cut down or uproot any tree unless not less than 21 days before the commencement of the cutting down or uprooting of such tree the owner thereof or his predecessor in title, or some person on be half of such owner or predecessor in title, shall have given to the sergeant in charge of the Gárda Síochána station nearest to such tree a notice in writing (in this Act referred to as a felling notice) of intention to cut down or uproot such tree." There is nothing said of what proof there is to be of the delivery of this notice. If the sergeant likes to take it and deliver it, well and good. But if the sergeant likes to put it into the fire, the man who had gone to the trouble of giving this notice will have to bear the penalty either in the form of a fine or imprisonment. The whole Bill is full of pitfalls, and, further, I believe it does not represent the mind of the Government. I have correspondence here before me extending from 1923 right up to the present day which shows that the present Bill is not on the lines on which the Government intended to proceed at all. Here, for instance, is a communication from——

Is the Deputy now going to criticise what is not in the Bill?

I am going to show that the present Bill does not contain the mind and intentions of the Ministry on the subject at all.

At this stage of the Bill surely the Deputy knows that he can only discuss what is in the Bill? He cannot discuss what is not in it.

Am I not entitled to point out that things which they thought necessary two or three years ago to conserve the wood supply in the country are not now in this Bill at all?

Not at this stage.

I have this further remark to make, that with regard to the power that the Bill gives to the Ministry to hold up the raw material of important industries, this is a very dangerous measure. The wood-working industry—one or two of them at least— are showing signs of life at the moment; they are making a big bid for life in the country, and their position is at least not like that of many other industries—they are not declining. In this case, if they are to be depending for raw material on the whim of a Minister or the whim of a Government Department, upon all the delays and laxities that can take place in a human Department, then I do not see that they can ever have that confidence that industrialists require to have in order to carry on under the present competitive conditions. It will be a very serious matter if, when a furniture factory or a coach building firm are negotiating for the purchase of wood, and they send in their application for a licence, that application is unduly held up, held up a long time, so that they may say: "Can we get timber at home, or must we import it, and what is the difference going to be in our position, what does it mean in the way of cost and so on?" That will be a very serious position for any industry.

We would have welcomed a Bill to deal with afforestation if it had given security on these points, and particularly if it had dealt with the important question of restricting the export of timber. I think it is rather a strange thing that the Government should have, at the public expense, circulated a journal, the "Irish Trade Journal," which gives particulars from month to month of what other countries are doing to conserve their resources. Last month, for instance, the last number is entirely devoted to a survey of what other countries are doing to conserve their timber resources; what they are doing to encourage afforestation, and matters like that. In that survey there is mention of two or three European countries which have prohibited the export of timber. It is rather curious that the Government who have circulated that information now at the same time find fault with us for bringing up such a proposal—find fault with us for going to the extent of doing that, and going to the extent of introducing a Bill where that proposal could not even be considered, where it had to be ruled out by the Ceann Comhairle. I would like, if the Minister chooses to reply, he would explain that, because there are not such differences in the circumstances of this country and other countries. We have very little developed resources apart from the land at the moment, and if there is any country in which it could be held that there was reason to restrict or to prohibit the export of timber it is this country. If that were done I do not believe that any single owner of a plantation in Ireland would suffer one penny loss, and certainly I would prefer to see in the Bill a provision made for compensating such owners, so that the timber could be conserved. I believe it would be a good bargain between the nation and that individual if the Bill included a provision which would compensate the owner and, at the same time conserve the timber, so that before it was exported, if it were necessary to export it at all, it might include the labour ratio which all countries are endeavouring to ensure will be in their export products at the present time. It is with a good deal of reluctance that we have decided that we cannot vote for this Bill, but in face of the numerous defects which it contains, and in face of the serious risk it means to many industries, we can see no alternative to that course.

We were led to believe during the last two years that afforestation was a most important thing as far as this country was concerned. It was dealt with under, as far as I can recollect, three different heads. That was from the point of view of the supply of timber for our own needs; secondly, for the purpose of having an effect on the climate, and thirdly, from the point of view of beautifying the landscape. The beginning of this Bill says: "It is an Act to make further and better provision for promoting afforestation." I think that this Bill, if it is meant to promote afforestation in this country, is only a joke. Because I do not see how it is going to have any effect at all on afforestation. There was one statement made here by Deputy O'Reilly. Like our friend, the Deputy gone out there, I am not Deputy O'Reilly's keeper. Deputy O'Reilly said that good land was required to grow trees. I do not agree with that at all.

Are we discussing land now?

Would Deputy Gorey like to make an interruption? I see his grin. I know he comes from Kilkenny.

Deputy Carney will continue.

As far as I know, you can go to any hillside bog in this country and find the remains there of coniferous woods. That is an undoubted fact. I want to say that if coniferous timber grew there at one time that it will grow there again. Strange to say, I do not see any of those hills being taken over and planted, and though you may tell me that it is only the things that are in the Bill that I should speak of, honestly there are so little and so few things in the Bill except what is nonsense, that it is hard to talk about it at all.

Do not try.

Except to talk nonsense about it.

I will talk about it, but you are responsible for the nonsense. It says:—

It shall not be lawful for any person to cut down or uproot any tree unless, not less than twenty-one days before the commencement of the cutting down or uprooting of such tree, the owner thereof or his predecessor entitled, or some person on behalf of such owner or predecessor shall have given to the sergeant in charge of the Gárda Síochána station nearest to such tree a notice in writing (in this Act referred to as a felling notice) of intention to cut down or uproot such tree.

That is where the nonsense comes in. Just imagine to yourself, if you know anything about timber at all, a timber cruiser going round a wood. He marks down trees to be felled. He goes around and finds out the different classes of wood. Let us say, for instance, that he wants beech, ash, Douglas fir, larch, pine—whatever you like. He has to take the cubical content of each tree if it is sound. First of all, he has to ascertain whether the tree is a sound one. Many trees look sound but they do not prove to be when you examine them. He has to find out whether there is enough wood in the tree to suit his purpose. Then he goes to the next tree and finds out how much is in that. Perhaps he is told off to mark down forty or fifty trees. When they are working at timber it is generally cut down in the winter time and a wood is not a very healthy or happy place to work in in the winter time, because the ground is generally soft and boggy. He has his work cut out to find out what he actually wants. Then he has to come along under this funny Bill and send in a statement in writing about each tree to the Civic Guard. Then the sergeant of the Gárda Síochána goes around and he cruises through the wood and looks after the timber. Probably he does not know what the timber is, because he might not know larch from beech. He has to see if all this thing is according to the law. I suppose it means that a batch of forms has to be signed about every tree in the wood. There is where the nonsense comes in. Now we come along:—

Every felling notice shall be in the prescribed form and shall state the name and address of the owner by or on whose behalf such notice is given, a place in Saorstát Eireann at which documents may be served under this Act and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

I will let that pass without comment.

Where a felling notice contains a statement that a tree is being cut down or uprooted for a specified purpose, it shall not be lawful for any person to use or deal with such tree or any substantial part thereof or cause or permit the same to be used or dealt with when cut down or uprooted in pursuance of such felling notice for any purpose other than the purpose so stated in such felling notice.

We go a step further then, and we come to the Gárda Síochána sergeant. We suppose that he has ploughed through the mythical wood and has seen every tree is correct and according to the formal notice. The forms are sent along, we presume, to the saw miller and if he attempts to use any tree not according to the prescribed form he is liable to be prosecuted under the Act. Supposing that I were to cut down fifty trees out of a wood and I brought along the sergeant, and supposing the sergeant has enough knowledge of forestry to know if the trees I cut down are the trees entered on the prescribed form, then we go a step further and we come to the saw miller. How does the saw miller know that these were the trees cut according to the prescribed forms? If he does not know, he is liable to be prosecuted under the law. And we are told this is an Act to promote afforestation.

Whenever a felling notice has been given in respect of any tree the Minister may, unless such tree is an exempted tree within the meaning of this section...

We will suppose this is all right and proper. Is it the Minister or the Gárda Síochána sergeant who is to determine each provision in this Act? Perhaps the Minister would give us some explanation?

Mr. HOGAN

Indeed he will not. He has not the slightest intention.

I was thinking that.

Every prohibition order shall be served either by delivering the same to the person on whom it is to be served or by leaving it for him with a person of the age of sixteen years or upwards at the place named in the said felling notice for the service of documents under this Act.

A document for every tree!

Where a prohibition order has been made in respect of any tree and has been duly served in accordance with this section, it shall not be lawful for any person to cut down or uproot ...

I will read no more. That is all nonsense. I ask you, how are we going to promote afforestation under a Bill like that? We see the nonsense of it here. We have in this country hillsides that could grow coniferous timber, and it is a very valuable timber nowadays when they are even making silk stockings out of it. We have all these hills going to waste. We have unemployed, and we have a climate absolutely reeking with dampness. We are told, according to the scientists, that the effect of increased afforestation is to take some of the dampness out of the air—at least to put it in circulation and take it out of the ground. We have all the hillsides lying derelict. We have the stumps of what were formerly good honest pine trees still lying in the ground.

It might be well if the Deputy confined himself to what is in the Bill.

I am dealing with something that ought to be in the Bill. If the Minister could introduce anything at all in the Bill that might be helpful to afforestation——

He cannot at this stage.

Certainly not. That is why I oppose the Bill. I wish he could introduce something into it. I have examined the Bill and I can find nothing of value in it. How is it possible for a Gárda Síochána sergeant to go along and cruise around every tree in a wood that is going to be cut down for the purpose of making articles of furniture, for example? He could not possibly do it, because I daresay 90 per cent. of the Gárda Síochána could not tell you the difference between larch and pine. Here it devolves on the sergeant of the Gárda Síochána to go out with a timber cruiser and find out every tree that is to be cut down and see if it is entered on the forms. Why, you will have the Civic Guards running around the country like wet hens, not knowing whether they are going or coming back. In my opinion there should have been a forest ranger appointed. Trees could be planted on the hillsides, and the forest ranger could look after them, because he would know his job. Let him give around felling notices. This thing, otherwise, is all nonsense, and nobody could do otherwise than oppose the Bill on these grounds.

took the Chair.

I wish to offer my protest against one part of the Bill that I know will be broken. This Bill invites people to become law breakers, and I have a very strong objection to any Act being passed that is certain to be broken. In my part of the country ash trees grow from seedlings without being planted. In tillage land a man would commit a thousand breaches of the law by ploughing down seedlings in the spring time. If these young ash trees were allowed to grow on the hedges the land would become useless for tillage purposes. Deputy Gorey may laugh, but if he was compelled to allow seedlings to grow on his land in Kilkenny, he would find that it would be necessary to burrow like a rabbit to get rid of them or to leave open spaces. He would not, at any rate, succeed in getting an open course for his dogs. If we let the young trees grow on the hedges in County Longford, there would be no tillage or grazing land. As a matter of fact, people could not keep cattle, as they would destroy the young trees that we are supposed to protect. I think the Bill is a ridiculous one from that point of view, as well as from the point of view of not acquiring small portions of land for planting. These are the reasons that make me oppose this Bill.

In marking my objection to the Bill, I do so because I feel it is entirely aimed at the setting up of a form of control over property that I hold belongs to the individual. The result of it will be that it will have an opposite effect to that of developing afforestation. There can be no doubt about it, that, up to the present, there has been only one form of incentive for the planting of timber, mainly to beautify a district. Perhaps another incentive would be its commercial value. That work has been undertaken by individuals. What has been done by the State, so far as results go, is practically nil. The tendency in this Bill is to take property out of the hands of the owners. Timber is property just as much as any other thing. The moment you interfere with property you tighten up every source from which enterprise would have a chance of developing. This Bill deliberately aims at taking control from the owners of timber—a control which they had a reasonable belief they were empowered to exercise—and hands it over to an authority set up by the Dáil, with power to say what shall be done. That is very arbitrary. It is incredible that this system should be extended. If logically extended, in a short time farmers may be told by an Act passed in this House that they can only do such and such with whatever stock they have on their farms, or that they shall do such and such with their crops or other chattels.

If it is thought that farming, or the development of any industry in this country, can best be served by abolishing private ownership, without establishing some form of State compensation, or taking over and running industries under State direction, individual enterprise and development will come to a standstill. I have a fair amount of experience of timber growing, and I have a fair amount of experience of the conversion of timber into a commercial asset, and I find, undoubtedly, that in recent years the clearance of timber has been greatest. At the same time during a period of great depression timber has been very useful for firewood, but if the Dáil thinks that this is a suitable time for interfering, especially when employment is so scarce, the result will be that there will be a tightening up of industrial development and a number of saw-mills must close down. Does the State consider that this is a suitable time to cause more unemployment? If there was any real sincerity about this Bill, granting that there is necessity for conserving our timber supplies, I think the State should first set a good example. I know properties that were taken over by the State during the last few years on which a considerable amount of timber was growing. That timber was sold, not in the ordinary way, but at a much cheaper rate. As a matter of fact, I heard of a property that was taken over by the Land Commission where the timber was sold for a few pounds an acre. In other cases I know that timber has been ruthlessly cut down. The owner got the timber on the farm, and is simply using it for commercial purposes. What the value of that land will be subsequently is problematical. I am sure it will not be able to bear the annuity fixed on it.

I am sure, from my experience, that the land will not be able to bear the annuity that is put on it, and I am also satisfied that, as some of the people who have been given this property do not belong to this country at all, as soon as they have taken the timber off it they will clear away back to their own country, leaving the land valueless to the person who gets it, and there will consequently be a loss to the State.

In the Sligo end of my constituency there is Lough Gill, which is a very pretty place and regarded as a beauty resort, and there is some fine timber around there. I am told that land there came into the hands of the Land Commission recently and they are scarifying the beauty of the place by cutting the timber away. Very severe protests have been made by the local people against that. If the Government were really sincere in their desire to maintain these beauty spots and conserve the timber they would, first of all, see that they made the best use of those plantations that came into their hands, but instead of that they are the great scarifiers themselves. In this Bill they make no attempt at all to provide any form of compensation to the owners for the rights that they are taking over from them. There has been a good deal of talk in this House, and generally all over the country, about Russia and about the Bolshies in Russia and in this country, but this is really a very Bolshevist Bill and a very big advance in the direction of what has been condemned as very unfavourable. I can easily see that the Bill will undoubtedly inflict very great hardships on people who purchased forests during the last few years with the definite objective in view of cutting the timber and making use of it. If these people are handicapped by the Bill, as presumably they will be, quite a recent investment will be tied up. Perhaps these people had weighed the whole situation and had intended to turn over their money in the course of the next few years, but now that money is lost. It comes to this, that it will practically mean the end of any possibility of encouraging investment, with the immediate result that the Bill will inevitably lead to an increase in unemployment. It will also add in an extended and in a more dangerous way to the impossibility of any immediate improvement, or any improvement at any time, with regard to the investment of money with a view to the development of further industrial projects.

There is nothing decent in the Bill; there is nothing honest in it. If there was any show of sincerity on the part of the people who introduced it, they would first show a good example with the property that they have in their own hands, with which they can do what they like. They are handing it over to Englishmen engaged in saw-milling as tenants and allowing the trees to be cut down and used for commercial purposes by these people, who will only use the land as long as there is any money to be made out of the timber. As long as I see that attitude and know that they have done practically nothing by way of tackling this problem of afforestation in a big way, as it requires to be tackled, I am certainly opposed to the Bill. The House should be very careful about giving a mandate of this sort to a Government to allow them to gather up all the control they are aiming at, which is really to direct the farmer as to what he should do with his own goods. Before giving that control into the hands of any man in this House, or in this country, the House should carefully consider it and see what it amounts to. As I say, I do not see any use in the Bill. I see many things that are very dangerous in it, and I do not believe that the people who introduced it have any honest intention. Their tendency is very largely to get control of all the business, power and influence in the country, and their aim is directly at a dictatorship. A tendency towards a dictatorship is a bad thing. It has not had good results in any country that has had experience of it. Mexico is a sufficient example of a dictatorship. In other countries similarly we condemned it, but still every move that we have been making in this big scheme of centralising, of taking the rights, liberties and powers from individuals and vesting them in any one person, is tending in a direction which will inevitably react and leave this country in a very dangerous position.

Is the eloquent Deputy who has just spoken aware of the fact that he has voted for the Second Reading of this Bill?

I move:—

"That the question be now put."

The Minister claims to move that the question be now put. The Report Stage of this Bill was ordered for last Thursday and postponed until to-day for the purpose of having amendments put down. No amendments were put down. There have been eight speeches on the motion that the Bill be received for final consideration. I therefore accept the motion that the question be now put.

I understand that merely clerical errors can be corrected at this stage without any particular opposition.

Not even a clerical error?

There is a most obvious error in this Bill.

It cannot be corrected now.

Question put.
The Dáil divided:—Ta: 73; Níl, 50.

  • William P. Aird.
  • Ernest Henry Alton.
  • James Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Ernest Blythe.
  • Séamus A. Bourke.
  • Michael Brennan.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Edmund Carey.
  • John James Cole.
  • Mrs. Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll.
  • Martin Conlon.
  • Michael P. Connolly.
  • Bryan Ricco Cooper.
  • William T. Cosgrave.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • James Crowley.
  • John Daly.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Eugene Doherty.
  • James N. Dolan.
  • Peadar Seán Doyle.
  • Edmund John Duggan.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Barry M. Egan.
  • Osmond Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • John Good.
  • Denis J. Gorey.
  • Alexander Haslett.
  • John J. Hassett.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • Michael Joseph Hennessy.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Michael Jordan.
  • Patrick Michael Kelly.
  • Myles Keogh.
  • Hugh Alexander Law.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Finian Lynch.
  • Arthur Patrick Mathews.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • Michael Og McFadden.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Richard Mulcahy.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • John Thomas Nolan.
  • Bartholomew O'Connor.
  • John F. O'Hanlon.
  • Daniel O'Leary.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • John J. O'Reilly.
  • Gearoid O'Sullivan.
  • John Marcus O'Sullivan.
  • Vincent Rice.
  • Martin Roddy.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
  • William Edward Thrift.
  • Michael Tierney.
  • Daniel Vaughan.
  • John White.
  • Vincent Joseph White.
  • George Wolfe.
  • Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Níl

  • Frank Aiken.
  • Denis Allen.
  • Neal Blaney.
  • Gerald Boland.
  • Patrick Boland.
  • Seán Brady.
  • Robert Briscoe.
  • Daniel Buckley.
  • Frank Carney.
  • Frank Carty.
  • Archie J. Cassidy.
  • Patrick Clancy.
  • Michael Cleary.
  • James Coburn.
  • Hugh Colohan.
  • Eamon Cooney.
  • Martin John Corry.
  • Willam Davin.
  • Thomas Derrig.
  • Eamon de Valera.
  • James Everett.
  • Frank Fahy.
  • Hugo Flinn.
  • Andrew Fogarty.
  • Seán Hayes.
  • Patrick Hogan (Clare).
  • Patrick Houlihan.
  • Stephen Jordan.
  • Michael Joseph Kennedy.
  • William R. Kent.
  • James Joseph Killane.
  • Mark Killilea.
  • Michael Kilroy.
  • Seán F. Lemass.
  • Patrick John Little.
  • Ben. Maguire.
  • Seán MacEntee.
  • Séamus Moore.
  • Thomas J. O'Connell.
  • Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
  • Seán T. O'Kelly.
  • Matthew O'Reilly.
  • Thomas O'Reilly.
  • James Ryan.
  • Martin Sexton.
  • Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
  • Patrick Smith.
  • John Tubridy.
  • Richard Walsh.
  • Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration," put.
The Dáil divided. Tá: 81; Níl: 42.

  • William P. Aird.
  • Ernest Henry Alton.
  • James Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Ernest Blythe.
  • Séamus A. Bourke.
  • Michael Brennan.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Edmund Carey.
  • Archie J. Cassidy.
  • Patrick Clancy.
  • James Coburn.
  • John James Cole.
  • Mrs. Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll.
  • Hugh Colohan.
  • Martin Conlon.
  • Michael P. Connolly.
  • Bryan Ricco Cooper.
  • William T. Cosgrave.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • James Crowley.
  • John Daly.
  • William Davin.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Eugene Doherty.
  • James N. Dolan.
  • Peadar Seán Doyle,
  • Edmund John Duggan.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Barry M. Egan.
  • Osmond Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
  • James Everett.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • John Good.
  • Denis J. Gorey.
  • Alexander Haslett.
  • John J. Hassett.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • Michael Joseph Hennessy.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Clare).
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Michael Jordan.
  • Patrick Michael Kelly.
  • Myles Keogh.
  • Hugh Alexander Law.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Finian Lynch.
  • Arthur Patrick Mathews.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • Michael Og McFadden.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Richard Mulcahy.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • John Thomas Nolan.
  • Thomas J. O'Connell.
  • Bartholomew O'Connor.
  • John F. O'Hanlon.
  • Daniel O'Leary.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • John J. O'Reilly.
  • Gearoid O'Sullivan.
  • John Marcus O'Sullivan.
  • Vincent Rice.
  • Martin Roddy.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
  • William Edward Thrift.
  • Michael Tierney.
  • Daniel Vaughan.
  • John White.
  • Vincent Joseph White.
  • George Wolfe.
  • Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Níl

  • Frank Aiken,.
  • Denis Allen.
  • Neal Blaney.
  • Gerald Boland.
  • Patrick Boland.
  • Seán Brady.
  • Robert Briscoe.
  • Daniel Buckley.
  • Frank Carney.
  • Frank Carty.
  • Michael Clery.
  • Eamon Cooney.
  • Martin John Corry.
  • Thomas Derrig.
  • Eamon de Valera.
  • Frank Fahy.
  • Hugo Flinn.
  • Andrew Fogarty.
  • Seán Hayes.
  • Patrick Houlihan.
  • Stephen Jordan.
  • Michael Joseph Kennedy.
  • William R. Kent.
  • James Joseph Killane.
  • Mark Killilea.
  • Michael Kilroy.
  • Seán F. Lemass.
  • Patrick John Little.
  • Ben. Maguire.
  • Seán MacEntee.
  • Séamus Moore.
  • Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
  • Seán T. O'Kelly.
  • Matthew O'Reilly.
  • Thomas O'Reilly.
  • James Ryan.
  • Martin Sexton.
  • Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
  • Patrick Smith.
  • John Tubridy.
  • Richard Walsh.
  • Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Fifth Stage ordered for Friday.
Top
Share