Deputy Dillon and Deputy Hughes have put before the House the principle of men versus trees. Deputy Hughes also referred to the difficulties of the forestry branch which I had previously mentioned in acquiring land by reason of claims from local graziers. As Deputies who have listened for years to the debates on afforestation will easily understand, reasonably good land is required for tree planting. The type of land which may grow trees and even belts of timber may not be sufficiently good to grow forests on an economic scale. What we have to bear in mind is that very considerable sums of money are being spent on planting and we want to see that when the time comes and these plantations have become mature, the country will reap a proper return from that expenditure. Land that is not reasonably fertile will not give that return. After a number of years it will be quite clear that the crop it gives is not going to be profitable. This branch has tried therefore to secure reasonably good land for its operations. Undoubtedly, there is a certain demand in the country that arable land which the forestry branch has been trying to acquire, or has acquired, should be divided amongst local persons who require it for ordinary agricultural purposes. But as Deputy Moore has very properly pointed out, if we are going to admit the principle that the forestry branch is not going to be allowed to secure suitable land which it requires or that it may not proceed to plant such suitable land after it has incurred expense, trouble and time in taking it over, that would be really making afforestation operations very difficult. There is, I need hardly say, a considerable amount of work in settling questions of title in acquiring these lands.
Unfortunately in the western areas we cannot go as far as we would like in the matter of afforestation schemes. It has, I think, already been explained to the House that the experts who have had this question under examination for a considerable time, and who have visited practically all those areas, are of opinion that from the point of view of large-scale afforestation work on an economic basis, it would be very difficult indeed to do much in some of the western areas. These experts have had experience, as practical administrative workers in this country over a long period of years, and are, in addition, men of the highest scientific standing in the work. Apart from the difficulty that a great many of these areas, which are suggested as suitable, are wind-swept, very exposed, and therefore extremely unlikely to be suitable for afforestation, you have the trouble also that the soil is not suitable. One may find certain areas in patches here and there reasonably sheltered, but the number of cases— Deputies who know the circumstances will themselves realise this—where there are also good soil foundations for planting, are comparatively limited. The Government and the branch would be only too happy to do more in these areas, but we have to keep in mind that a return is expected from this work, and it is our duty to see that the money which the Oireachtas places at our disposal is spent to the best advantage.
The case which Deputy Hughes cited is an example of the obstacles with which the Department has to contend in dealing with the claims of local graziers. That particular case occurred before I became responsible for the branch. It appears that a number of tenants who were in the habit of taking grazing from the owner claimed, after the place had been taken over and the branch was about to start operations, that they had certain rights. If the Department has waived its rights as the legal owner and given up its programme of planting in such cases, that does not mean that we are in the future going tamely to submit, after we have acquired land for planting and have gone to considerable expense in taking it over, to local claims which do not appear to have any legal foundation. The economic position of local people is taken into consideration by the very large and expensive Department for which I happen to be responsible at the moment—the Land Commission. I dare say that Deputy Hughes would be one of the first to complain that the Land Commission was, perhaps, too active and was extending its operations too widely in the country. We have heard that complaint frequently. Here is a large organisation which exists for the purpose of satisfying, so far as possible, the needs of uneconomic holders of the smaller type and for making land available for them. It does not seem fair, when the Forestry Branch takes over land, largely for the purpose of giving employment in the area and benefiting the district, that it should meet with these obstacles. I would not say so much about the matter were it not that there is such a large amount of land in dispute at the present time—about 4,800 acres. That is a very large proportion of the reserve of land which we have and, at least, 3,500 acres of that would be planted if the local people who claim to have these rights, which are very doubtful from the legal standpoint, would allow the branch to proceed. There is another important point at issue—whether Deputies and the community see clearly that it is the community that suffers in cases of this kind. A small number of individuals may benefit, if they succeed in having their claims upheld, but the community as a whole, and particularly the taxpayer, loses. A great deal more is required in the way of educating the public to appreciate that, when damage is done either by setting up claims of this nature or by destroying the property of the Forestry Branch or impeding the functions which it has to perform, it is the community which suffers. In the first place, it suffers financial loss. In the second place, if a wrong state of mind is allowed to prevail in connection with afforestation or any other operations under Government auspices, where is it going to stop?
Deputy Kennedy referred to the question of felling. It is the policy of the Department to insist upon replanting where felling takes place. Every day I am signing orders for prosecutions, but neither that fact nor the fact that a considerable number of cases is being reported to us by the Gárda necessarily means that all cases in which felling is illegally taking place have come under notice. The Forestry Act, 1928, requires that no tree be felled without the prior lodgment of a felling notice. Approximately 3,000 notices are received each year and, of these, about 90 per cent. are allowed to go unquestioned. In those cases, however, in which a large number of trees are involved or which constitute a large proportion of the total number of trees on the holding, it is necessary to have an inspection made in order to ascertain whether the felling may be permitted in whole or in part and whether any replanting condition should be imposed. The difficulty of importing timber under present conditions and the greatly increased cost of seed timber has stimulated the demand for native timber, preferably in large lots, and so has increased considerably the work thrown on the forestry division by the Act. The position is that any action in restraint of felling must be taken within 21 days of the date of the lodgment of the felling notice and as, in view of the numbers of cases now being dealt with and the limited number of inspectors available, it is not possible to ensure inspection and report within the period, prohibition orders are issued in all cases where inspection is considered necessary. The Gárdaí are requested, when serving such orders, to notify applicants that such is being done pending inspection, but sometimes applicants are under the impression, which may be quite wrong, that felling has been definitely and finally forbidden.
Deputies who remember the wholesale felling of timber during the last war and the lack of replanting to replace the timber felled will agree that this must not be allowed to occur again. The number of inspectors available for this work, is, however, limited and these officers have a considerable amount of other work to do in connection with the purchase of land for State planting and the supervision of the existing forest areas, so that it is not always possible to deal immediately with all the notices received but every effort is being made to reduce delays to a minimum. Applicants themselves can assist to this end by seeing that the trees to be felled are plainly marked.
To meet the increased demand for native timber, the forestry division is putting on the market as many lots of timber as possible compatible with sylvicultural requirements. Trees have occasionally to be retained on an area for shelter or amenity purposes or for seeding purposes where natural regeneration can be effected and the cost of planting saved. The Department is not, however, prepared to allow timber merchants to select individual trees here and there throughout the woods to suit their own immediate requirements. Timber will generally be sold only in blocks to clear the ground for replanting. Private owners would be well advised to adopt a similar procedure. The removal of the best trees in any wood means usually that when the owner comes to sell the remainder he gets only a very poor price and finds the cost of replanting excessive.
Deputy Kennedy referred to the slowness in dealing with correspondence. All I can say is that the inspectors are very busy and can scarcely cope with the additional work that has been imposed upon them in connection with the inspection of lands to be acquired and also in connection with felling. Not alone is there a yearly growth in the total acreage under timber, but the amount of thinnings that has to be dealt with is increasing considerably. Last year, for example, 1,000 acres had to be thinned, and that takes up a considerable amount of the inspectors' time. I would ask Deputies, therefore, to have a little patience and, if there are some delays in connection with the acquisition of land or in connection with the felling of trees, to remember that the inspectors are doing the best they can. I know that the Forestry Branch is doing its utmost under the new conditions, and I have not heard any great complaints with regard to slowness in dealing with the acquisition of land.
Deputy MacEoin referred to a case in Longford. It does not seem that the particular lands referred to there have been acquired. The prices that the Forestry Branch are prepared to offer there, and which they consider right, are, evidently, not considered sufficiently attractive, and we prefer to acquire land by voluntary agreement so far as possible. If suitable areas could be acquired, even though they be far below 300 acres in extent, so long as they are within easy distance of a forestry centre, I am sure that the Forestry Branch would be very glad to investigate the possibility of acquiring such lands. We are constantly acquiring lands—in Wicklow, for example— which are much less in extent than 300 acres, but we only acquire such lands where they are adjacent to a forestry centre. In such a case it might be economical to acquire such lands, whereas there might be other cases where it might not be an economic proposition to take over an area for forestry purposes, even though a great deal more than 300 acres might be available.
Deputy O'Neill referred to certain types of hard wood. I think that Deputies may rest assured that, whereever the lands are suitable for the cultivation of such woods, the Forestry Branch will do its utmost to see that hard wood is planted in a fair proportion. About 12 per cent. hard wood is being planted at present.
Deputy Dockrell referred to the Appropriations-in-Aid. It is quite true that the amount mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate, taken last November or December, has been exceeded. The Estimate, which was set down at £12,000 then, was made out under somewhat different conditions to those which now obtain. We were not aware then that prices would increase at the rate at which they have increased, but in any case the amount of sales would have been controlled to approximate to the Estimate of £12,000, as the quantity of timber in the hands of the Forestry Branch, which is matured and marketable, is a very limited quantity indeed. The resources of the branch are not large; they are very limited, and it is necessary to ration out the amounts which are for sale, but owing to pressure from various sources, that more timber should be placed on the market, since the last Supplementary Estimate was introduced the income has exceeded the Estimate very substantially and should approach somestantiall thing like £17,500 for the current year. There is a considerable demand—and we hope that it will be a very profitable one—for pit timber. The Forestry Branch is going into the question of the supply of such timber, and it is possible that a very profitable series of transactions may result.
Deputy Dockrell also referred to the matter of income-tax in this connection. I think I may say that the Forestry Branch will be very glad to give any land owner particulars as to the Schedules under which a private woodland owner may be assessed for income-tax in this regard. Of course, the Revenue Commissioners are the real authority in such matters, but the Department will be glad to advise such owners who contemplate planting as to how they may secure legitimate relief from income-tax. I should be glad if Deputy Dockrell, or any other person, would send me particulars of owners of such land who would be prepared to pay the Department for carrying on plantation work for them, and I shall have the matter investigated. We would be only too glad to encourage private owners, and to give them all the assistance in our power to enable them to go on with planting work. I think, Sir, that these are the chief points to be dealt with.
