Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Mar 1940

Vol. 78 No. 16

Supplementary and Additional Estimates, 1939-40. - Vote 55—Forestry.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Foraoiseachta (9 agus 10 Geo. 5, c. 58; agus Uimh. 34 de 1928), maraon le Deontas-i-gCabhair chun Talamh do Thógaint.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1940, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Forestry (9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 58, and No. 34 of 1928), including a Grant-in-Aid for Acquisition of Land.

At the close of the session before Christmas, a Forestry Vote for, approximately, £22,000 was passed. Deputy Mulcahy asked that an opportunity be given to debate Forestry and the present Token Vote has been introduced in fulfilment of the promise then given. The amount of money granted by way of Supplementary Vote was intended to increase the provision for the acquisition of land and to make additional provision for maintenance operations. There is a considerable amount of difficulty in securing suitable land for afforestation purposes. The Forestry Branch desire that such lands should be available in comparatively large blocks—several hundred acres, if possible. Recently the average acreage which has come in has been only about 100. Deputies will realise that the acquisition of land in such comparatively small blocks imposes a heavy strain on the finances of afforestation work. Another thing we have to bear in mind is that land of which we may make the greatest possible use for afforestation purposes should be within a reasonable distance of an existing forestry centre. Although we should like to extend forestry operations so as to give employment and distribute the benefits of the schemes widely over the country, Deputies will realise that there is a limit to the number of centres which can be established. We have a fairly large number of centres already, as Deputies saw in the comprehensive report, giving an account of the activities of the Department over a period of years, which was recently published. There is the further difficulty that, when land is actually acquired, local people very often say they have been accustomed to grazing the land, that it was in use for commonage purposes, and they object very strenuously to the Department carrying on planting operations. We have met with that difficulty in certain areas and considerable areas of land which have been acquired by the Forestry Branch are in dispute. We have not been able to get that co-operation from local people which we consider necessary to the successful exploitation of the land for afforestation purposes. In spite of all these difficulties and the length of time which elapses before questions of title are settled, fairly good progress has been made. The rate of progress in acquiring land has not been as great as we would desire. Nevertheless, in spite of the small acreage of the individual blocks which have come in and the other considerations which I have mentioned, very large and valuable areas were acquired during the present year.

With regard to labour costs, the expenditure in regard to which we had to make extra provision before the end of last year, was due, almost entirely, to the higher rates of wages payable to forestry labourers under the Agricultural Wages Order, 1938. The figures showing the full effect of this increase were not available when the Estimate for Afforestation for the year 1939-40 was being framed. The incidence of expenditure under the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939, to the benefit of which forestry labourers are entitled, and the increased expenditure in clearing the higher proportion of former demesne land acquired in recent years have also added to labour costs.

It was as a result of these increased labour charges that we had to provide an additional sum for cultural operations in order to ensure that the maximum output of planting operations would take place during the current year. The question of labour costs is very serious because, obviously, if there is, let us say, a 10 per cent. increase in labour costs, there will also be a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of persons employed. If we were employing 2,000 men before an increase of 10 per cent. was given in their wages, it would mean that we should have to knock off 200 men from employment, unless the Minister for Finance can provide me with additional finances, and I think that if the Government can provide me with sufficient resources to enable me to say to the House that we shall be able to carry on, more or less, on the same amounts as we had last year, we shall be doing very well indeed. I am not hopeful—although many people would desire it, and I would like to see it myself—that any increase can be made, and so I should like to take this opportunity to mention to the House that, if demands for increased wages have to be met, they must necessarily mean a decrease in the number of persons in employment.

The House might like to have a general account of the total amount of land which is in the possession of the Forestry Branch. These figures, Sir, are only approximate. The figures, in the different categories, which I shall read out, change almost monthly, and so Deputies will only be able to take these as approximate figures. At the end of January the Department had, roughly, 127,000 acres of land— 3,164 acres, roughly, have been acquired since November. About 86,000 acres consist of woods and plantations, and an area of 22,500 acres is unplantable. There is a further acreage of about 2,500 acres of scrub, and another area of, approximately, 3,500 acres, which is in dispute; that is to say, it is within the category of land where the local tenants, as I have explained, are contesting the right of the Forestry Branch to use the land for the purposes for which the Government purchased it. This means that we have, roughly, 12,500 acres as a reserve, and during the present year it is estimated that about 7,000 acres will be planted, which would leave about 5,000 acres for future planting. That amount provides for additional land which may be required for nurseries or, for example, the provision of houses for forestry employees.

The Minister has been described by his colleagues, and notably by Deputy Dowdall, as a Methuselah and a Rip Van Winkle in respect of forestry policy. I trust that Deputy Dowdall will intervene before this debate is over and substantiate that allegation. I shall certainly listen to the Deputy with interest if he should give the House his reasons for declaring the Minister to be a "has-been" in this matter. I see Deputy Peadar O'Loghlen over there, and I should like to have his opinion also as to how the Minister is getting on with regard to reafforestation in this country. I listened with great interest to both Deputy O'Loghlen and Deputy Dowdall painting pictures of the immense achievement that awaits doing, and finding fault with their own leaders for their lack of energy in pursuing this desirable end of forestry.

Now, forestry is an extremely complicated business, and to any of us who have represented Gaeltacht constituencies this is a matter of very urgent interest. I never believe, however, in finding fault with the Administration if I am not prepared to recommend to them some means of mending their hand. So far as I have been able to find out, in the very limited time that I have had to go into the problem, and the comparatively few discussions that I have had with experts on this matter, it appears to me that the root of our difficulty in Ireland in this connection is that any land which will support a forest to maturity is also capable of reclamation for the accommodation of congests in that area. Now, you have got to choose between trees and men. I have reminded this House before that St. Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England at one time, and now a canonised saint, looked out of his window on one occasion, saw sheep grazing, and said that sheep were eating men—meaning that men were being displaced on the land in order to make room for the sheep to graze upon that land. Is it the policy of Deputies O'Loghlen and Dowdall to displace men in order to make room for trees? Now, it may be that some of the land upon which men can live would yield a larger return in cash if the men were put out and the trees installed in their place, but even if that land did yield a larger return in cash on that basis, I should still advocate leaving the men on the land and displacing the trees.

I think that the Minister ought to tell us what is the best advice he has been able to get on this matter. Unless this be the dilemma in which we are placed, I cannot see any defence at all for the inadequate progress that has been made, not only by the present Minister, but by his predecessors both in this Government and the previous Government. Considering the problem that forestry provides in this country, I think reasonably satisfactory progress has been made, and I do not anticipate that you are ever going to see in this country spectacular expanses of forestry until you can devise some method of making the land which is available, and which is incapable of supporting human life, capable of supporting trees. I am told that there is a number of people who claim that there are wind-swept and boggy areas which are incapable of reclamation for agriculture and which ought to be covered with forests, and that these people who make that claim make it because they say that, in their own experience, they have seen saplings grow there.

The difficulty which none of them seems prepared to grapple with is this, that nobody denies that you can grow saplings, but saplings are no good to anybody; what you want is mature trees, and the unsuitability of this land or environment does not make itself apparent until the tree is half way to maturity and then, if the land be boggy, the passing winds blow the trees down before they are fit for cutting, and, if the land be wind-swept, the prevailing winds bend the trees down and cut the tops of them. Maybe I am wrong; maybe my information is incorrect; but I think it behoves Deputy O'Loghlen to give us the authorities for the contrary contention before he stirs the public mind and leaves it to anticipate striking developments if he could have his way. I think it behoves Deputy O'Loghlen and Deputy Dowdall to produce their proof and if possible, to point to some object lesson of the theory to which they have referred. I have been unable to find out from either of them information of that kind. It is true that we are indebted to Deputy Dowdall for the wide circulation of a certain amount of literature on forestry by a Mr. McKay, and Mr. McKay has a bee in his bonnet, as many another decent man has had. It is not my fault if he has been invoked here.

I was not aware that the gentleman's name has been invoked here.

Every Deputy in the House was presented with a copy of the literature for which the gentleman was responsible.

The Deputy indeed has said nothing personally derogatory of the gentleman.

He is perfectly bona fide and is a zealous exponent of one point of view. I read what he said about the matter and I admit that if you take what he has said on its face value he makes a terrifically strong case.

Merely to mention that he has a bee in his bonnet is not uncomplimentary—each member of the Government has that.

It certainly is not uncomplimentary. If his case were founded on direct hypotheses, I admit that his contentious would be extremely practicable, but the trouble of it is that I do not think his hypotheses are correct: I think they are wishful thinking. We are all tempted to indulge in wishful thinking, particularly when our thoughts cannot be put to the test of proof until we are all peacefully interred in our graves. Nothing is greater fun than to engage in a violent argument with another man when you are perfectly certain that you cannot be proved to be wrong until the other disputant and yourself are in Glasnevin, because he will never have a chance of saying: "I told you so". It seems to me unreasonable, contrary to the ordinary rules of probability, if you set up a department of experts whose raison d'être is the extension of forestry, and if you were a Minister in office one of whose raisons d'être is the creation of forestry, to believe that all those men will spend their time conspiring against the extension of forestry unless they were all lunatics. Their jobs depend on forestry.

If there are any men in this country whose personal interest it is to ensure the wider and wider spread of forests, they are the officials, high and low, of the Department of Forestry. If there is any man in Ireland who can get a bit of kudos out of forestry, it is the present Minister. He has never been given any golden keys; he has never had any gilded scissors; he has never had any banquets. Just imagine him going to a forest and dancing with the Pipes of Pan through the walks thereof. As an entertainment, I venture to say that, although I have never gone to see the gilded scissors used, nor yet the golden key, if the Minister would undertake to dance with the Pipes of Pan through a new forest, I would turn up myself.

Or you might get the birds to cover him with leaves.

One or the other. Are we to believe that he eschews the pleasant function out of pure cantankerousness? I do not think so. If he would do the ceremonial dance I feel that no one would be better pleased than the Minister himself and, to give the devil his due, the poor man is, I think, doing his very best. He is confronted with very serious difficulties. I wonder sometimes if he is not remiss in one detail, and it is this. The types of land available for forestry not infrequently have attached to them the rights of commons which, in this country, are extremely obscure in their origin and excessively difficult to define. In England you had the commons; you had the Enclosure Acts, and you had a pretty satisfactory regulation of title and custom in regard to them; but, as far as I can find out, in Ireland such an institution as commons was never known to the law. Nevertheless, you do find tracts, of mountain particularly, on which adjacent tenants have enjoyed rights of commons for generations, and when you proceed to investigate those rights with a view to extinguishing them and compensating the owners, you come up against a blank wall. You cannot find who the owner is and you have the feeling that if you do extinguish one man's right, or as soon as you do, some other right may arise behind it and you wander off into a trackless desert of title in which it is impossible to find your way.

I think if difficulties of that kind confront a public service like Forestry, it is legitimate to pursue the procedure which I think the Land Commission, not infrequently, employs. That is to say: "Here is land which, for the public good, should be acquired. If we are to wait till the title investigation is completed, we will be all dead and buried before the acquisition goes through. Therefore, we are going to take the land and we are going to determine what the value of the land is in cash and we are going to give that cash to a body of trustees to hold while the title is being worked out in the interest of the parties who, it will appear when the title is clear, are entitled to a share." I would like the Minister to tell us why he does not use that procedure when acquiring land, if he is satisfied that compensation will equitably reward all interested parties and the only obstacle is the difficulty of acquiring a satisfactory title in the ordinary way to the parcel of land requisite for the forestry purposes that he has in mind.

I have spoken quite freely, because I am anxious to hear from Deputy O'Loghlen and Deputy Dowdall their views. I do not think they need be a bit vexed about it. I think everybody here is most anxious to help to promote forestry. But they ought to face this dilemma: if it be proved that any land capable of carrying trees to maturity is also capable of reclamation for the relief of congestion and the accommodation of human beings, do they choose trees or men? We choose men.

I have just a few observations to make on the Vote. I understood the Minister to say that 3,000 acres of land had been acquired in the last year of forestry.

Since last November. The figure for the year is 10,600 acres.

I take it that the Department know their own business best, and that, when they acquire a certain number of acres, a certain routine has to be followed. Title has to be proved and the land cleared and got ready for planting. I have not a word to say with regard to that aspect of the matter. I agree with Deputy Dillon that it would be absurd to grow trees on land that could be more profitably used for ordinary farming purposes. At the same time, trees have a very beautiful effect on the landscape and add to the amenities of a district. I take it that the Minister is in the fullest accord with the policy of increasing the number of trees planted as this leads ultimately to the production of more timber. At the same time I am sure he would not claim that the Government can solve this problem of the planting of trees at the rate they are proceeding or even at a much quicker rate.

I wonder if the Minister could see his way to help private land owners who desire to plant trees. I believe that an experiment was tried at one time to grant a remission of income-tax to persons who were able to show that they had incurred certain expense in preparing their land for the planting of timber. An individual, for instance, may have 50 acres or 100 acres that would be suitable for planting. The Department possesses a certain amount of plant and equipment which it would be hopeless for a private owner to acquire for the planting of 50 acres or 100 acres. What I have in mind is, whether the Minister has in operation any scheme by which, in cases of the kind, suitable areas of land might be planted, portion of the work being undertaken by the Department which has this plant and equipment. They might agree to undertake this work on behalf of private owners who would naturally pay in meal or in malt for the services rendered. Most of us here can remember when the hills around Dublin were planted with trees. The trees have now disappeared. I am not sure whether the bare tops of the hills could be planted with trees, but if they could it would add enormously to the amenities of the district and to the whole surrounding country.

In connection with the Appropriations-in-Aid set out in the White Paper, I observe that the original Estimate is referred to. The amount by which it has been reduced by these Appropriations-in-Aid is indicated. I see that in 1939-40 the sales of large timber amounted to £4,000. That is the same figure as for the previous year. Small sales and thinnings are said to have brought in £3,500. We all know that the price of timber to-day is twice what it was a year ago. I am anxious, therefore, to know why these Appropriations-in-Aid are only the same as they were the previous year. Surely, there must be something wrong from the point of view of business management, if a larger return in the case of these sales could not be obtained, considering the high price to which timber has gone. I hope the Minister, when replying, will tell us why we have not obtained increased moneys from the sales of timber.

The Minister to conclude?

Oh, no. Deputy O'Loghlen.

Deputy O'Loghlen will speak when it suits him, but not at the invitation of Deputy Dillon. The Deputy was trying to make a trap for me, but I am not going to walk into it for him.

Mr. McGilligan rose.

The Deputy had better move to report progress.

I move to report progress. Deputy O'Loghlen will have an opportunity to speak next week, an opportunity chosen freely by himself.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 5th March, 1940.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. to Tuesday, 5th March, 1940, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share