Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 May 1944

Vol. 93 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry (Resumed).

To continue, Sir, the story of the various sub-heads, I now come to sub-head D— Grants for Afforestation Purposes— amounting to £1,000. A review of the progress made under the earlier schemes shows that the rate of planting on private lands has been disappointingly small, and the Department has had under consideration for some time past the question of the best method of inducing and assisting landowners to plant trees on their own lands. The grant of £4 per acre which has been payable up to the present has been found to be inadequate, and the minimum of five acres required under the scheme ruled out many persons anxious to plant but who could not devote such a large area to the purpose. With the consent of the Minister for Finance I have, therefore, decided to increase the total amount of the grant from £4 to £10 per acre and to reduce to one acre the minimum area necessary to qualify for a grant. The grant will be payable in two instalments, one of £5 immediately after planting has been satisfactorily carried out, and a similar amount after a period of five years, provided the plantation has been satisfactorily maintained in the meantime. Maintenance will involve the replacement of failures, adequate fencing against stock and rabbits and such other attention as may be necessary to enable the plantation to establish itself successfully. At the present time stocks of plants in the commercial nurseries are limited and fencing wire almost unprocurable, so that no immediate increase in the rate of private planting can be expected, but it is hoped that in the near future as many landowners as possible will take advantage of this scheme and that there will be a considerable amount of private planting done to supplement the efforts of the State Forestry Service to increase the area of woodlands in the country and to provide from our own resources in the future a greater proportion of our needs in timber.

If the Department's hopes are to be realised, and if any great advantage is to be taken of these grants, it is essential that there should be adequate stocks of plants to be had, and it is hoped that nurseries which cater for the trade in forest trees, will, in their own and in the general interests, proceed to build up stocks of healthy young trees as rapidly as possible. Admittedly seed is at present both dear and hard to get, but the prospects of an assured market for the produce should encourage nurserymen to do their utmost to get supplies.

Sub-head H—Appropriations-in-Aid —comes to £54,140. There is a considerable decrease in the estimated revenue for this year as compared with last year mainly in consequence of a falling off in large sales of timber. Such a decrease is inevitable in view of the fact that the quantity of mature timber in the hands of the Forestry Division was limited and heavy inroads have been made into that stock. Sales to the same extent as in the past few years could only be made by disposing of all the remaining stands, and it is considered desirable to retain a few lots against possible urgent demands for vital national purposes. On the other hand, increases are expected in the returns from sale of sawn timber and small local sales of both timber and firewood.

During the past year about 35 large lots of timber, comprising 26,000 trees were advertised and sold, and 72 smaller lots, comprising approximately 10,000 trees and 60,000 poles, were sold locally either by tender or auction. As regards firewood, 3,925 tons of logs were sent to Fuel Importers and about 16,000 tons sold locally. The output of firewood blocks was disposed of to the extent of 3,393 tons sent to the Dublin Corporation and 7,000 tons sold locally. In addition, the Forestry Division has, at the request of the Department of Defence, arranged to make available for Army use some thousands of tons, and the work of felling and preparing this is already in hands. In view of the great demand and the limited supply of firewood now available in the State forests the proper disposal of lots as they become available is one of the Forestry Division's most difficult problems, and while it is impossible to satisfy all the demands made upon the Department, or to undertake to supply large quantities to particular firms or individuals, I am satisfied that the Forestry Division is doing its best and that its efforts to be fair and reasonable to everybody are meeting with success generally.

So far as the Forestry Act is concerned, the volume of felling on private estates shows no signs of abatement, but it is very disturbing to note that the amount of felling done illegally is increasing. There are no acceptable excuses for actions of this nature. Generally speaking, no obstacle is placed by my Department in the way of felling of small numbers of trees required by landowners for their own use, and a little forethought will enable any person who wishes to fell trees to comply with the requirements of the Forestry Act, and to secure consent to the felling of such trees as it is not essential to leave standing. The excuse is frequently made that immediate felling was necessary on account of tillage operations, and that the crop in a particular field was badly damaged the previous year by overshading trees, and so on. But surely the obvious course in such circumstances is to lodge a felling notice immediately and not to wait until the field is being ploughed and then proceed to fell either without lodging a felling notice at all or without waiting for the consent of the Department. Explanations of this kind are not good enough.

As regards replanting operations to be undertaken as a condition of the issue of a licence to fell, the Department is aware that at present suitable plants are both scarce and expensive and fencing materials almost unprocurable. In these circumstances an extension of the period within which the planting must be done is granted in every case in which it is asked for, but this does not mean that the replanting condition has been waived. When conditions return to normal, and particularly in view of the considerably increased monetary assistance now being offered every case will be taken up again and prosecution will follow where it is clear that no serious attempt is being made by the licensee to comply with the obligations he has accepted. It is hoped, however, that such action will not be forced upon the Department but that in fact, with the aid of the increased grant, persons who have suitable land available will not only carry out their contracts but will undertake additional planting.

A very detailed report of the activities of the Forestry Division for the five years ended on 31st March, 1943, is at present being printed and copies will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as possible.

Owing to circumstances over which my Department has no control it was not possible during the past year to introduce the new legislation in regard to afforestation matters mentioned by my predecessor in introducing the Estimates for 1943-44. A Forestry Bill has now been drafted and I hope to be in a position to acquaint the House with its provisions in the course of the present year.

The main statement which was contained in the Minister's opening remarks was with reference to the increase of the grant for afforestation from £4 to £10 per acre. I am very glad to hear that, because I think that it will certainly help along afforestation, generally. I also think that wisdom has been shown in dividing the grant into two, because I am afraid that experience will show that the second half of a great number of grants will not be big. The defect, of course, in the original Forestry Act, as has been shown by practice, is that people who are bound to replant trees are quite prepared to plant ten trees for every one tree that they cut down, but there the matter stops, because you can buy young trees rather cheaply, stick them in the ground, and you do not care whether they grow up or not. Possibly half of these young trees are already dead before they are planted in the ground and the others are just struggling along. It will be very difficult to ensure that efficient replanting will take place, but there certainly is an inducement for efficient replanting and that trees will be put into places where they can get an opportunity of growing. For instance, you take a place where there has been a plantation, with drains cut and all that, some 70 or 100 years ago when the real planting of this country went on. If the plantation drains were allowed to be closed the old trees were able to absorb a good deal of moisture and fight against such moisture as there was, but the new trees die away because of the undrained condition of the soil. One of the difficulties which the private planter has got at the present moment is the want of wire fencing. It is impossible now to fence against rabbits and if you do not fence against rabbits you may be certain you will have 50 per cent. casualties among the trees you put out. I know, because I tried it myself. I did about an acre of planting this year. I was fortunate in having some trees, 4 or 5 ft. high, and the rabbits did not touch them; but anything that is about 2 or 3 ft. high, which is higher than you get out of the nursery—I had got mine from a nursery two or three years ago and they were much larger—the rabbits simply destroyed. It is mere waste of time unless you can fence out the rabbits. There is also another thing which I would suggest to the Minister on the question of replanting. I do not think you should entirely concentrate upon the conifers. I think that in planting, certainly in my own neighbourhood, the primary thing to do is to plant a particular type of timber which will satisfy the needs of that neighbourhood. I believe any country Deputy would agree with me that the three types of timber you want are: No. 1, larch; No. 2, ash, or, if you like, ash No. 1 and larch No. 2; and then you want for rafters and that sort of thing for which larch is not suited some sort of spruce that will not warp in the way larch warps. A Deputy in this House, tremendously keen on forestry, circulated to every one of us a book written by Mr. Mackay upon forestry in Ireland. I do not know what the views of the Department upon Mr. Mackay's books were, but from my little knowledge of trees I dissented very much from Mr. Mackay's views. He had the idea that we should plant nothing but sitka spruce solely for pulping and making into paper. Well, I am not in a position, and I do not know that anybody in this country is in a position to say that sitka spruce is a tree that one can plant with perfect security. I do not think that anybody can say that a tree that has not been in this country for more than 60 or 70 years, if I am not wrong, is a tree you can perfectly rely upon. I would very much rather rely on the old-established trees that we know do succeed. If you are going in for mere weight of timber I certainly would prefer to see a silver fir than a sitka spruce. But to get back to the point I was on, what the Irish farmer wants is larch for his carts and for his wooden gates, and he wants ash for his spade handles, harrows and anything in fact for which you want timber. I think it is a pity that there is not some ash among the trees which the Department directs to be planted; there should be no scarcity of it. There is great scarcity of larch. I do not know why there should be because larch, I understand, can be grown from the native seed; but if you write to any nursery you will find that you cannot get larch. It is almost unobtainable. I do not think, if you ask for 10,000, all the nursery men in Ireland could supply them to you.

That is very unsatisfactory and as I say I do not see the reason for it. There is no difficulty in getting ash. I venture to think I could supply 20,000 seedling ash myself because in my part of the country all you have got to do is to fence a place around an ash or a sycamore tree and you will have so many ash and sycamores that the place will be an impenetrable thicket. There is no difficulty about seedlings as far as ash and sycamore are concerned. There is one other matter. It is a matter of detail which I think the Minister should consider for his new Bill. At the present moment there is no definition of a tree. Of course it is very easy to tell that a full grown ash, beech or larch is a tree, but there are border-line cases where it is very difficult to say whether the thing is a tree or whether it is not. For instance if you see, let me say, a seedling larch an inch high and you pull it out you have not cut down a forest tree. When it is a good ash plant you still have not cut down a forest tree but if it is of a diameter let me say something you put one hand round is it a tree or is it not? I think there ought to be some definition. I have known the Department in making clearings to declare things to be trees that I know I myself would not have thought are trees. I would have said it is a thing which in 25 or 30 years will be what you call a tree but I would not call it a tree now. Then there are border-line types of trees. I thought myself for example that a hazel would not be called a tree until I discovered that in the view of the Forestry Department a hazel is a tree, but an ordinary person would not have thought that it was. Then you take other types. Would you call a black sally a tree or would you not? These are matters which are very hard for the ordinary person to know. Though wishing to be a most law-abiding person I am afraid I have been breaking the law because I have allowed people to come into my place and cut down hazels. I did not think I was breaking the law but seemingly I was. I would like to have some definition of a tree—I know it is difficult— put into the Minister's new Bill so that we will know precisely where we are. You can name the types of things that will be improper to cut—you shall not cut beech, ash, oak or any conifer over a certain diameter—and then you can leave out all the other things which it does not matter whether you cut or not. In fact, hazel and alder are things which it is rather a blessing to cut. There is another thing I gather from the Minister that I am glad to hear and that is that we are to have an official record of work which the Forestry Department has done. From what I have seen by personal contact with officials of the Forestry Department both in the office and upon the land they seem to know their work extremely well. I think it will be a help to the people and especially to people who either by compulsion or for pleasure are anxious to do new planting that they should get and have ready for reference the views of the Department both as to the values of the trees they are planting and the soils upon which it is advisable that trees should be planted. You may make very bad blunders if you plant the right tree upon the wrong soil.

I am making a more or less serious complaint against the whole mental outlook towards forestry development. I am fully satisfied that to all intents and purposes forestry development does not exist. I am not blaming the Minister for that outlook. I think it has been in the country for the last 20 years. I am going to give you certain figures which I think ought to satisfy you that we are not forestry-minded in this country. Every other European country has a higher percentage of acreage under trees. In Germany there is 27 per cent. acreage under trees and, in fact, it is supposed to have reached 30 per cent. now. Norway, Sweden, Finland and Lapland have an equal percentage, but this country has only 3 per cent. under trees. Compared with the German acreage this is a ratio of 100 to one. In the United States at the present time the Forestry Department is counted the most important Department after the Department of Agriculture, and takes a place before industry. In Canada the Forestry Department is one of the most important of the whole lot and the acreage planted by the Governments of the two countries named is exceptionally high. I may be wrong in my conception of what the capabilities of this country are from the forestry development point of view, but I will give them to you for what they are worth.

We have about 4,000,000 acres of grazing land not fit for tillage and that grazing land could not by any stretch of the imagination be converted to tillage by reclamation or otherwise. Of that grazing land 2,000,000 acres might be brought under forestry. It would take about 40 years, 35 to 40 years, to plant that 2,000,000 acres and for it to reach maturity, which would give you on the average about 60,000 acres to be planted per year, and once it reached the age of maturity you would get an output—and I disagree with the last Deputy who spoke as to the quality of wood we should grow—you would get an output of wood pulp equal in value to 25 to 30 million pounds. I am giving you that figure based upon the price of pre-war wood pulp. The demand for wood pulp is increasing day by day, the virgin forests of the world are being cut down; and any country, after the war, that can produce spruce trees will have an opportunity of producing cellulose and other things, including artificial silk, and that country is going to score on the double. As I said earlier I am not blaming the Minister one way or the other but something must happen to rouse us as to how we are neglecting the development of forestry. Nobody can say we are developing forestry when only 3 per cent. of the land is under forest and you have 30 per cent. in Germany, with nearly an equal figure in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Lapland, and a rapid development of the acreage taking place in the United States and Canada. I am blaming the Minister for one thing only and that is slowness in the acquisition of land. I am not asking him immediately to proceed with the big scheme I put forward but I do say that certain places, and some of them big stretches of land, have been offered to the Department of Forestry in Kerry. I believe that most of that land grew forest before and is able to grow it again. I am satisfied that the officials of the Department have too conservative a mental outlook towards the acquisition of land. It is all very well to hold out the plea of a dead safety line and say "I am not going to take the risk." I am not asking the Department to take a risk I am asking them to acquire land that has been offered in places such as Cordell, Scartaglen, Kilgarvan, Glencar and Kenmare. I see nothing to prevent the acquisition of land in the areas I have named. I do not wish to say very much more, but I would like to ask the House to take the question of the acquisition of land very seriously. Once the chemist enters the field, we must remember that he has put wood pulp into 2,000 articles, 500 of which are almost in daily use, so that, if we choose to think in terms only of furniture factories, our acreage might be small, but if we consider what other countries are doing and the possibilities of wood pulp and cellulose, our output should be far greater. I am not blaming the Minister. Our mental outlook as regards forestry for the past 20 years and the mental outlook of the Irish people is responsible. In five or 10 years, when we become more forestry-minded, a high compliment will be paid to Mackay for the book he published.

I do not know very much about the technical end of forestry and I shall not delay the House in pretending that I do. But I do know the price of a suit of clothes and the price of bread, butter, milk, and other necessaries of life. It is to the effect of these on the employees of the Department of Forestry that I desire to draw the attention of the House. The Book of Estimates shows us very conclusively that the foresters of Ireland are about half-paid. The foremen and trappers are also only half-paid. Practically every Deputy has said at some time that, in matters of wages and conditions of employment, the State should give a lead. In this case, the State is lagging far behind. I think that no member of the House will deny that. The Book of Estimates shows that Grade I foresters receive from £170 to £210, that Grade II foresters are on a scale of £130—£170, and that foremen receive £120. These figures are a disgrace to the community, especially when we realise the great importance of the work they are doing. That has often been emphasised in this House. I am told that some of these men have university degrees. In the first place, they have to go through three or four years of gruelling training. Then they have to go back and take a degree in agricultural science or some similar subject. When one thinks of the years they have to devote to training and when one thinks of the hard and important work they are doing, it is not an exaggeration to say that they are about half-paid. If we could get the Minister to press for their establishment as civil servants, with pension rights and cost-of-living bonus, it would be a good day's work. I ask the House to join me in urging on the Minister that that be done. The allowances granted to foresters are also meagre in the extreme. Foresters must supply their own bicycles, for which they are granted an allowance of £2 per annum, which would not buy a couple of tyres at present prices. Their lodging allowance of 7/6 is not a great deal for the State to offer its employees, either.

I want to direct the attention of the Minister to part of his answer to a question of mine last week when he said that foremen may occasionally be placed in charge of small forestry units and while so employed are paid a special allowance of 5/- per week in addition to ordinary remuneration. If a foreman is in charge of a small forestry unit, surely he has, while so engaged, to do the same work as a forester, and surely he has the same responsibilities as a forester. I asked a question last week also as regards the holidays granted to members of the forester and foreman grades. I asked the Minister, and I repeat the request now, to remember that these men are stationed in places which are at the back of Godspeed. It takes them a great deal of time to get to civilisation for a start, and then if a man has to travel, say, from Cork to Mayo, he will spend a long time in so doing. In these circumstances, two or four days extra should be allowed to foresters, so that they will have sufficient time to get home.

The Minister said that the holiday allowances are considered adequate, having regard to the leave allowances of analogous classes in the Civil Service generally, and in outside employment. Why should these holidays be fixed in accordance with those allowed in outside employment? Should not the State give a lead in these matters? It has brought in Conditions of Employment Acts and a Holidays (Employees) Act to endeavour to get outside employers to grant decent conditions to their employees. I submit that the first thing the State should do is to grant those conditions to its own employees. Let them give a lead instead of trailing behind, as they have been doing. We had an Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs last week, and it was obvious that that Department is one of the worst in this respect. I suggest to Deputies who are interested in the progress of forestry that the Department of Forestry is not very much better than the Post Office. It is said that, in the post-war years, there will be necessity for large-scale employment. One of the things often mentioned in that connection is large-scale forestry activity. If returned emigrants and demobilised soldiers are to be asked to take up forestry work, we should ensure that they get a fair return for their labour.

There was one bright spot in the statement of the Minister in introducing his Estimate. That was when he said that during the year he expected to introduce a Forestry Bill. I hope that I did not misunderstand the Minister's statement in that respect. That is one thing to which the people are looking forward, especially in the west of Ireland, where there are thousands of acres of land that could never be made arable, lands that, to all intents and purposes, are waste at present. If we tackled this problem, say, 20 years ago, as I hope the present Minister will now tackle it in the Bill which he has promised to bring forward, what a happy condition as regards timber we would be in to-day. To indicate what is possible in this direction one has only to go down to Recess in Connemara—I am sorry that Deputy Mongan is not here at the moment to bear me out in this—to see what has been done by a foreigner. It was left to the foreigner to come in and show us what could be done in the wilds of Connemara. If the Minister would only go down there and see what has been done in that desolate region I am sure it would be a revelation to him.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has spoken in praise of the proposal to advance from £4 to £10 per acre to assist forestry. Of course, that represents an improvement, but does the Minister or his Department seriously suggest that any considerable progress in afforestation will be made in that way? What is required, I suggest, is large scale planting on these thousands of acres of land that can never be made arable. If that were done, as I say, 20 years ago we would find ourselves in a very satisfactory position as regards timber to-day. The Minister has proved himself to be a very successful organiser in other spheres of activity, and I expect that the new measure which he has promised will be one of a far-reaching character, so that the people of this country will be under no illusion as far as forestry is concerned. I hope the Minister will not say, as he said in replying to some remarks of mine on another Estimate, that I am trying to stand on two different props when I make reference to a certain area in my constituency where his Department appears to have taken over from the Land Commission a certain area of arable land. At the moment it appears to be their intention to plant portion of this arable land. I put down a question in relation to this matter some time ago, and when I made an effort to refer to it last week I was told that it was a matter for this Estimate. It appears to be very hard to separate Land Commission functions from those of the Forestry Department. I certainly find it hard to separate them, as both Departments are administered by the one Minister. The lands to which I refer are situate on the Ashtown Estate in the Woodlawn area. Some of that land is being fenced and is taken over by the Forestry Department. It is land which is definitely arable, and would be badly needed for tillage purposes. Considering that there are some thousands of acres of land which is not arable and which would be very suitable for afforestation, I would ask the Minister not to reserve this arable land for forestry purposes.

I think that one of the things that hampers forestry activity and operations in this country is the anxiety of the forestry section of the Department to avoid incurring public criticism because of mistakes they have made. I believe that the Forestry Department have some skeletons in the cupboard, and they are most anxious to keep them in the cupboard. It should be remembered that quite a lot of the work carried out by the Department is experimental work. We are anxious to plant land that is not arable and not suitable from the agricultural point of view. Deputy Donnellan has advocated a policy of that kind just now. Of course, if we are going to produce commercial timber, we must have some degree of fertility in the land in which it is planted. That is why it is so easy to criticise the Department for failure to plant areas that are not arable. What I mean by skeletons in the cupboard is that there are undoubtedly cases where plantations have failed. These plantations have failed possibly because the soil had not been examined. There is a high degree of iron in some soils which operates against plant life. In the same way the problem of planting a lot of bog land has to be considered, as, where it is possible to get young trees established at all, you may meet with success. There again a good deal of experimental work is required. I believe that problem has been solved in other countries by simply turning up one sod on the other and putting in the young trees. In that way you can secure the establishment of the young plants.

I should like to say that we should not be inclined to criticise whatever failures may have occurred in that respect in the work of the Department, because, as I have stated, a lot of this work is experimental, and if failure occurs, it occurs from conditions over which the Department have no control. If we want to strike out on a bold scheme of afforestation, we must be prepared to incur a number of failures. I can understand, of course, the attitude of trying to hide those failures, because our Parliamentary system obviously makes for a situation where a Deputy who observes such failure will take the opportunity to expose it. The reaction of the Department is to try to hide the failure. I want to say that should not be the spirit that animates the forestry section, because I think we all appreciate that failures are inevitable in the circumstances. I think that much more experimental work should be carried out with regard to the planting of certain areas that are almost waste and useless from the agricultural point of view.

Of course, the question of afforestation has very much wider aspects than merely the provision of timber for commercial purposes. Trees, we know, affect the climate, the rainfall, and the health of the people generally. Looking at the question on the whole, and attempting to forecast what the supply of timber in the post-war period is likely to be, I think the House is wise in urging on the Minister the necessity of going ahead with an expanding scheme of plantation, because the enormous destruction that has occurred in Europe during the war will strain the timber resources of the world in the post-war period to a very great extent. There is no doubt that we cannot look forward in our time to cheap timber, even for years after the war. I believe that no cheap timber will be available in our time, or perhaps for a considerable time afterwards. For that reason I join with other Deputies in urging the Minister to lay plans now for the further planting of trees. Little can be done at present because as the Minister has wisely pointed out, we must have a certain amount of wire available to keep off the vermin which destroy young plants. There is also the question of the capacity of our nurseries to produce the necessary young plants, and the question of the acquisition of land; but we could be preparing the way for future years in the acquisition of land for this purpose, and by carrying out more experimental work.

Deputy Fred Crowley referred to the people of this nation becoming forestry-minded. I think the biggest culprit in the destruction of trees in this country was and is the tenant farmer. I have seen estates divided in my own constituency, in the rest of Leinster and in the west where the tenant-farmers were not satisfied until they cut down every tree and bush. It was a suicidal policy but that happened, and every Deputy who would admit facts knows that has happened all over the country. Certainly we need to create a forestry mind here. Deputy Hughes was correct in his statement that barren land will not grow good timber; it requires reasonably good land. It is from the reasonably good land that the cities and towns are now getting their supply of firewood. It is not from the barren soil, it is not from the cut-away bogs. You may get a Scotch fir there but it is no use and would probably set the house on fire. The good elms and ash and other good trees are grown on reasonably good land. As I said before on this Vote, if there was one redeeming feature in connection with the old landlords—I never held a brief for them and I think they were a good riddance—it is that they preserved any timber and any bushes that were preserved in this country. That must be admitted and put to their credit. The minute the estates were divided, every whin bush was cut down.

I am glad to see the present Minister in charge of this Department because I have listened to him on this subject and I hope he will put his theories into practice and not let the dead hand of the Civil Service paralyse his efforts—as I heard a very distinguished citizen of this State say about all Governments.

That is treason.

Is that treason? Well, I am in the House at present. The Minister said in connection with the felling notices issued during the present emergency that the Forestry Department will enforce the provision in regard to replanting. I sincerely hope that that will be done. It has never been enforced. Outside Wicklow, the county I represent is the greatest timber-producing county in Ireland, on statistics. I have seen thousands of trees cut there and exported in the years preceding this war, particularly ash for aeroplane construction, and not a whin bush has been set. I put a point to the Minister: Several large farms on which that timber grew have changed hands. Several estates have been sold. Will compulsory powers be enforced on the new owners? That is a nice point for consideration. If we are to do the work laid down in the Act in regard to the replacement of timber cut down, that point will have to be considered seriously by the Government.

The Forestry Department have laid down that beyond a certain height you cannot grow timber in this country. In the northern part of my county where there is a considerable acreage of timber and where a forestry unit is in existence some mountains or hills have been left bare although the butts of old trees are to be found in these places. I have gone through Connemara several times, to which Deputy Donnellan referred, and in places where the Forestry Department contend that trees cannot be grown I have seen the roots of substantial trees unearthed by people working the bog. I should like an answer from the Forestry Department to this question: If trees could be grown to maturity in these places 50 or 60 years ago, what has happened that they cannot be grown there now? I think the Department have no answer to that and that they are simply throwing dust in the eyes of the people who are interested in afforestation in this country.

The Minister referred to a timber census. We should like particulars in regard to that. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney referred to certain types of trees which are native to this country. I think that theory can be developed to a great extent because in places subject to gales and storms, particularly in the west and south, in Kerry, and other places, if technical knowledge is applied to the problem, good results may follow. We should study the experience in Norway, where trees grow at enormous heights over cliffs where one could not imagine how they could take root. If the system practised in the north of Scotland, where they start with scutch grass, bent grass, furze, and follow that with bushes, and then follow with timber, were adopted here by the Department, I think it would be successful. There was a gentleman over here from Germany—I do not know if he is in the Department at the present time— who did some good work. If he had special knowledge in regard to this matter and if it were applied to this particular aspect of afforestation, it would be all to the good.

In connection with the export of ash to English factories and saw-mills, in the years preceding the war, a very considerable amount of ditch ash was cut down and exported. Particularly in the midlands, it was quite a common thing on a large farm to cut down 100 to 300 trees of ditch ash. In the reconstruction of ditches under the farm improvements scheme, planting of ditch ash should be encouraged. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share