Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Forestry Bill, 1945—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I wish to congratulate the Minister on the very excellent memorandum he prepared in connection with this Bill. It was certainly excellent in so far as its explanation of the provisions of the Bill was concerned. I should like to say at this stage that neither the Bill nor the memorandum gave ground for any suggestion that this major question of afforestation was going to be dealt with in the way that people would like. I am disappointed, having read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum, as I felt that the vacuum created by these two documents would be filled up by the Minister's statement. Again I must say that I was disappointed. It is true that the statement did not carry any suggestion of a feeling of confidence in afforestation so far as its general effects were concerned, and I think alongside that there was definitely a suggestion of a lack of enthusiasm or conviction that the necessary steps would be taken in years to come to implement this important work of afforestation. This Bill might be strictly described as a consolidating measure. The Minister used that term. The Bill consolidates the British Act of 1919 and our Act of 1928. The key to it may very well be found in the explanatory memorandum and the Minister's statement, when he said: "The Bill does not introduce any new principle and does not convey any new powers in any major sense." We must take it for granted that the efforts and activities of the forestry division in the years to come will be based mainly on the Act of 1928.

I should like to remind the Minister that when that measure was going through this House it was the subject of scathing criticism by members of this Government who were then in opposition. In that respect may I quote what was said by Deputy Dr. Ryan, the present Minister for Agriculture:—

"Every single section of the Bill states that the Minister has power to do so and so and, if passed, it will make the Minister a dictator in the timber trade."

Deputy Matt O'Reilly, speaking on the same Bill, is given in volume 24, column 485 as stating:—

"The timber which formerly beautified the country has been cut down and exported. You are putting nothing in its place; meantime, you are imposing on people an obligation to permit useless timber to remain standing and thus inflicting serious loss on its owners."

That is the measure which will now stand out as the lighthouse of afforestation in the years to come. As the Minister says it is a measure which makes no serious or major change either in the Acts of 1919 or 1928, except perhaps to the extent that new machinery is provided in chapter 3 in the assessment of compensation. I think the House will agree with the Minister's statement, that it is an advance as far as machinery is concerned. I am disappointed to find that the Minister's statement set no goal or target so far as afforestation is concerned in the years that lie ahead, particularly under his own administration. In that respect I might refer to a paragraph in the Minister's statement:—

"Since 1928 the forestry division has expanded its activities and were it not for the war it would by now probably have come close to attaining the rate of annual growth which was believed by experts to be the desirable aim for the country's needs. The war limited activities in some respects. With the restoration of normal conditions, for which we may now hope, it is probable that in a few years the services will realise this aim."

The Minister does not state what that aim is or seek to re-state what was his original conviction on that point which is found in the Report of the Department for the five years ending March 31st, 1943:

"The forest policy remains as laid down in previous reports, namely, to create a home supply of raw timber sufficient to meet home requirements, so far as it is possible to grow in this country the types of timber required. It has been estimated that the total national objective of both State and private woodlands should be 700,000 acres of afforested land, including 100,000 acres of protection forest and 600,000 acres of fully productive forest."

The Minister went on to say that enthusiasts for forestry would no doubt refer to the poverty of the position in this country in comparison with other countries, and I propose not to disappoint him, by giving figures which would be of interest to the House, regarding the position in European countries in relation to this country.

"The land surface of various countries under woods and forests (pre-war) was as follows:—

Finland, 73.4 per cent.; Sweden, 60.0 per cent.; Austria, 41.8 per cent.; Russia, 40.4 per cent.; Yugoslavia, 31.2 per cent.; Hungary, 27.9 per cent.; Bulgaria, 27.0 per cent.; Germany, 26.2 per cent.; Norway, 23.0 per cent.; Poland, 20.5 per cent.; France, 17.8 per cent.; Belgium, 17.7 per cent.; Denmark, 9.0 per cent.; Holland, 7.9 per cent.; Great Britain, 5.4 per cent.; Éire, 1.4 per cent."

I am interested in the question of the use of the term "forestry's national objective" as set out in the report for 1943, and in the steps we have taken or propose to take to reach at least that unambitious objective. Questions were asked as recently as the 7th February by Deputy Murphy and Deputy Corish as to the acreage planted and acquired over the period since the State started to operate here. In that respect, the figures are: total held at the end of March, 1945, 172,000 acres; amount planted, 117,000 acres. That was over a period of 21 years. If it is any solace to the Minister to throw the spotlight on the average plantings per year, during the period 1923 to 1945, these are the figures:—From 1923 to 1932, the average acreage planted was 3,000; from 1932 to 1945, it was 5,500. On that basis, I should like to remind the Minister that if his original estimate of 600,000 acres of commercial timber is to be realised in a period of, say, 21 to 25 years, it is obvious, on a simple calculation, that he would have to quadruple the planting of the peak period, 1938-39, when the figure, as far as I can recall, was in the region of 7,000 acres. In the reply given to the Deputies I have named, there was certain information as to the acreage planted in the Gaeltacht areas, and in that respect it is worthy of note that no acquisition at all took place within the past six years in Donegal, Clare or Mayo, while the total acquisition in Kerry was 2½ acres.

My fundamental disagreement with the Minister on this Bill is that he, in 1943, set a national target of 700,000 acres and it is obvious, despite all the difficulties which are, perhaps, more apparent to him because of his practical experience and the difficulties that naturally are associated with his administration, with which I am not connected, that if we continue even on the scale which was in operation in 1938-39, it would take a considerable length of time before that limited objective of the Minister's of 700,000 acres would be reached.

In relation to the requirements of this country so far as wood and wood products were concerned, the Minister for Agriculture, in his report for the year 1931-32, said:—

"Timber to the value of over £1,000,000 is imported annually. Of this the bulk takes the form of planks, boards, flooring, sleepers, staves, etc., representing about 200,000 tons. It is probably a safe assumption that three-fourths of the total imports are made up of pine and spruce from Northern Europe. Both of these species can be grown at home."

The figure of £1,000,000, in 1932, expanded to a figure of £3,000,000 prior to the war. Various experts have put the total acreage available for afforestation in this country as between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000, but taking a conservative estimate of 1,500,000 acres —I think there would be no dispute of that particular figure—as available for planting in this country and taking into consideration expert opinion that the soil and climate of this country are particularly favourable to afforestation and that even on the basis of pre-war there was a home market here of £3,000,000 for wood and wood products, and taking into consideration the fact that during the winter, which would be the planting season, there are in this country between 70,000 and 100,000 idle men living on public assistance, I suggest to the Minister that it is a matter for surprise at least that more effective steps are not being taken to exploit the possibility of national wealth which is vested in afforestation.

I am glad, in any case, that we have cleared up one position so far as afforestation is concerned in respect of the Minister and his predecessors, and that is on the question of the type of land that should be acquired for afforestation. In 1940, in this House, the then Minister for Lands, Mr. Derrig, said that the type of land that should be acquired would have to be of a fairly good arable quality. The Minister, in his speech, and in his reply to Deputy Murphy and Deputy Corish, indicated that that was not the case, and indicated the type of land as mountain land or waste land, of which the price would not exceed £4 per acre.

Section 23 of the Bill—the Minister referred to it at length, and quite rightly—deals with acquisition. So far as I know—I may be entirely wrong— the Minister had all the powers he needed so far as acquisition was concerned up to this date. He now proposes, under this Bill, to provide more elastic machinery, and I think the House will certainly support him in the new arrangement providing for a certificate, which can only be used within certain prescribed categories. What I am concerned with is this, that while the Minister takes all these elaborate precautions in so far as acquisition is concerned, he nevertheless, in a fairly long paragraph in his opening speech, made it quite clear that almost in all circumstances compulsory acquisition would not be resorted to—I say almost all—and he made the rather interesting revelation that so far as the operations of the Forestry Division were concerned, there were only two cases since 1919 where compulsory acquisition had to be resorted to.

I should like to hear from the Minister, in reply, that he is prepared to adhere to his report of 1943 in regard to that limited objective of 700,000 acres—apparently he refrained from quoting or adverting to it in his speech last evening—and that he will give an assurance and an indication to the House that he will take vigorous and effective steps to ensure that that minimum objective, at least, will be achieved in the shortest possible time. Finally, may I ask the Minister if he would be good enough, when replying, to give us, as a matter of interest, the extent of the employment given by forestry in this country at the present time, and the rates of wages which are in operation?

Domhnall Ua Donnchadha

Regardless of what the last Deputy has said, I am inclined to do what is done in the part of the country which I know best when something of outstanding merit is done by a member of the family, that is, to put a notch on the mantel-shelf, because, for the first time since Fianna Fáil took office, for the second time since this State was established, and for the third time during the memory of man, an attempt has been made to legislate on forestry in this country. If we compare the present measure with the Acts of 1919 and 1928 we cannot but convince ourselves that the Minister has in mind doing something more than was done under the previous Acts. The Act of 1919 contains 11 sections; the Act of 1928 20 sections; the Bill before the House contains 64 sections. If and when it is enacted it will be the law of the land so far as forestry is concerned. Even though Deputy O'Sullivan is disappointed because the Minister has not stated categorically the area he will set about planting, a study of Section 9 (1) will show that this is not going to be the last word so far as forestry legislation is concerned, that it is simply the beginning of legislation.

Though very little has been done since the State was established, there is one thing to be said for the Forestry Department, and that is that it has been consistent. I should like to see, not five or six thousand acres planted per year, but five times that amount, as Deputy O'Sullivan suggested. But I would much prefer to see the Minister and the man responsible under him for forestry biting off only as much as they can chew. If you compare the acreage acquired and the acreage planted over any certain years from 1922 to 1943, the last year for which figures are available, you will find that there is a consistency there which one must admire. If we take the year 1922, we find we had only 14,415 acres acquired by the State. That was the amount that they took over from the Department of Agriculture that operated here during the British time. In 1930, the acreage acquired was 41,924 and the acreage planted 23,361. In 1932, when Fianna Fáil took office, 48,911 acres had been acquired and 30,570 planted. In 1943, 165,530 acres had been acquired and 94,530 planted.

The Minister in his opening statement yesterday said that the first serious attempt at restoring our forests was in 1904. History tells us, though history sometimes is not very accurate, that away back hundreds of years ago when our lands were planted, not with spruce or fir, but with people imported from Great Britain, one of the conditions under which the people got grants of 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 acres was that they would plant with forest a certain proportion of the lands given to them. In the year 1880 we had 340,000 acres of woodland, or 1.7 per cent. of the total area of the Thirty-Two Counties. From that on there was no respect for any tree in this country that was not worth money and these trees were cut down and exported.

In 1903 or 1904 the first serious attempt at Government control was introduced. There was an annual vote of £6,000 for the development of forestry in Ireland. That £6,000 does not compare very favourably with the amount for which the Minister asked for the year 1945-46 for the Twenty-Six Counties. He asked for £256,651. When comparing that figure with the total Vote, however, I was sadly disappointed, because it only represents 1/183 rd part of the total Vote, or 1.3d. in the pound. In fact when I saw that amount of a little over 1¼d. in the pound it reminded me of the story I heard of two lads, Padraic and Seán. They died and were being judged together. Seán was asked what good he had done on earth to merit his getting into heaven. He said that he had given a penny to a poor man. He had to think harder and then he remembered having given a penny to a poor woman on another occasion. He thought still harder and he remembered having given a halfpenny to a gossoon. He was told that that would not do. At this stage, Padraic was getting impatient and he told the big man at the gate to throw him his 2½d. and let him go to hell. I felt like that when I saw 1.3d. out of every pound being devoted to forestry which is a matter of such importance that I think the Minister himself said not long ago that he had no reason to believe otherwise than that at some future date our whole national economy would revolve around forestry. I agree with him. I think the Minister is serious about that, and that this measure is, as I suggested earlier, only the start.

If we look at Section 9 (1) (i) we will find that the Minister proposes to undertake the collection, preparation, publication and distribution of statistics relating to forestry. In Section (j) he proposes to make "such inquiry, experiments and research and collect or aid in collecting such information as he thinks important for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry." I suggest seriously that what the Minister has in mind is making a survey to see what our requirements are.

It has been suggested that the Minister should set about planting 700,000 acres. Some Deputies have gone so far as to suggest that between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 acres should be the safety line. I suggest, that given this authority under this Bill, the Minister should estimate the amount of timber we require and then set about acquiring at least as much land as will carry sufficient trees to supply our own requirements. Deputy O'Sullivan suggests that enough timber should be provided to meet our requirements as far as boards, planks and timber of that kind go, but I am a firm believer in going much further than that. Our climate, the Deputy says, is admirable for the growing of trees. It is certainly admirable for the growing of trees but I do not know whether it is admirable for the growing of what the Minister or his experts would call commercial timber. If by commercial timber is meant timber which is used in building, that is a matter upon which I can offer no opinion but I do say that, judging by the amount of water we have in this country and the amount of land that is barely above sea level, there is no particular reason why we should not encourage the growing of trees which thrive on water. That brings us, apart from the building industry and the furniture industry which use up timber, to the paper industry. We import year after year hundreds and hundreds of tons of pulp. As a matter of fact coming up here on Tuesday I read that a ship, probably named after one of our trees, "The Poplar," was expected into port bringing 500 tons of wood pulp and 200 tons of cardboard. There is no particular reason why land, admirably suited for the growing of trees that thrive in water, should not be utilised to the fullest extent for producing such timber. It is not yet 12 months since we had to legislate here to provide machinery to remove some of the water from the land. The natural way to remove it would be to plant more and more trees that thrive on water.

In my constituency in South Kerry there is a place called Gleann na Beighe, the Glen of the Birch, a name that has been handed down for years and years, which shows that birch thrived there. We imported in 1938, the last normal year prior to the war, 15,250,000 square feet of plywood. Most of that came from Europe, and 80 per cent. of European plywood is made from birch. Therefore I see no reason why, in the Minister's proposals, a scheme should not be included for the growing of birch to supply our requirements in plywood. Taking again 1938, we find that paper and cardboard to the value of £1,500,000 was imported and that timber to the value of £1,500,000, or thereabouts, was imported. In addition, we imported 500 tons of newsprint and 120,000 tons of pulp. In the paper industry which could very easily depend, or be made to depend, on the timber industry, we had in 1938, 2,336 people employed, in the timber industry, 3,696, and in subsidiary industries, 2,809—making a total of 8,841 individuals earning £1,000,000. With the extra industries which could be started, had we our own forests, there is no reason why that number could not be multiplied, not by two or three, but by 10.

As a matter of fact I give the Minister credit for having that particular matter in mind, because under Part II of the Bill the Minister aims at the starting of woodland industries. To my mind, one way in which we can decentralise industry and de-urbanise labour is by having our woods centred in places as far away as possible from towns and cities. We could have them of such size that plants could be erected there. Work in these woodland industries could be carried through so economically that it would pay us to run these industries instead of importing either the raw material for manufacture in the towns and cities or the finished article. Under Part II, Section 9, the Minister intends carrying out experiments and to encourage forestry education. He has been doing that already. In his Estimate, last year, he catered for the education of young men who would take up forestry as a profession, but if and when the time comes when our whole economy will revolve around the timber or around forestry as the Minister himself suggested not very long ago, I think the amount to be set aside for forestry education must be increased considerably.

We cannot compare the importance of forestry at the moment with the importance of agriculture, but we look forward to the time when it will be as useful to us as agriculture. The same difference cannot and must not lie between the amount devoted to forestry education and that voted to agricultural education. During the present year, the Minister asked for £1,547, while the Minister for Agriculture asked for £80,444,52 times the amount, for agricultural education. The Minister appears to be principally concerned with State forestry but he is also determined to encourage private enterprise. Anyone reading Section 9 (1) (f) will be glad that he is so inclined. He proposes there to make advances by grant or loan, or partly in one way and partly in another, to persons, including local authorities, in respect of afforestation of lands belonging to those persons. I am glad the Minister has thought seriously about that.

Someone suggested yesterday that most of the trees and forests we had here up to the setting up of the State and subsequently were planted on private estates. Now that the number of private estates is diminishing, when the lands are being divided and given to landless men, it is evident that policy can no longer obtain and that the efforts of local authorities and individuals must supplement the State forests, if we are ever to arrive at that point when we can safely say we have enough wood to meet the timber and paper requirements of our own State.

There is another reason why the private individual should be encouraged to plant. We cannot find 100 per cent. respect for public property just yet. There is scarcely a week that young fellows are not charged with throwing stones at the cups along the railway. We hear appeals to councils and other bodies to dissuade young fellows from defacing walls or painting on them. There are appeals even to political bodies not to put the slogans on the roads. There is a danger that, even after spending millions on forests, the carelessness or the lack of interest in them by our people might start fires or cause irreparable damage.

The way to avoid that is to encourage the people to realise that these forests are their own and it would be hard to do that until they become interested in the growing of trees. That is best achieved by getting them to plant trees. Even if a person planted but one tree and saw it growing, there is something in it which appeals to the individual. Such a tree actually talks to people. The more people who can be got to grow trees, regardless of whether they are commercial trees or otherwise, the more widespread will be the respect for the State forests and the surer we will be to have them protected by public opinion.

Some time ago, a society of foresters was formed here in Dublin and I believe that it was extended to include people interested in forestry and the growing of trees. I do not know what progress that society has made, or what its aims are, though I have an invitation to attend the next meeting. If the Minister were to take my advice, instead of forming a society for the purposes of encouraging forestry, he would ask some of the existing societies to co-operate with him in his drive.

At the present moment, we can legislate only for the Twenty-Six Counties, but we are all looking forward to the time when we will be able to legislate for the Thirty-two. In the meantime, any voluntary effort which has to be made should be spread not through the Twenty-six but through the Thirty-two, and any organisation having branches over the Thirty-two Counties should be asked to co-operate in this drive. I think it was in Ulster that compulsory planning was first started and the earliest date I can trace it to is 1609. If they planted then, there is no reason why they would not plant now. There is one organisation which spreads through Ulster as well as through Munster, Leinster and Connaught—the Gaelic Athletic Association. It has branches in every parish and the Minister should encourage that body to take over voluntarily the development of tree planting. We did it in the early days of the war in Kerry and the Kerry County Board agreed to give a present of 1,000 forest trees to the team winning the County Championship. With the slightest little bit of drive and the encouragement of the Minister and this House, something similar could be done all over the country. Other organisations beside the Gaelic Athletic Association might be encouraged to do the same.

I agree with the speakers who said that the Forestry Department is going slowly but, on an examination of the figures, I am satisfied they have moved slowly but moved surely. A start is being made with this Bill and there is no reason why, within the next five years, another measure would not be introduced giving wider powers if necessary. The Minister admits that some of the powers sought under this Bill go much further than the powers held under the 1928 Act.

I come from a county where over 50 per cent. of the land is not fit for growing crops. I am much concerned with that because of the number of people there who claim to have rights of grazing over land which I believe is suitable only for the growing of trees. The Minister proposes to abolish some of these rights. He alluded to the rights which do not go so far as ownership and my suggestion is, for peace sake, instead of abolishing the right altogether, that they will get an absolute right over a smaller amount—instead of having the right to graze over ten or 20 acres, that they will get an absolute right over one or two acres. Unless there is compromise like that, the Minister or this House cannot hope to have the goodwill of the people who will be living adjacent to the forests when they are planted there.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer and that is planting by the sea coast. Somebody here said that there was scarcely any planting done in the Gaeltacht districts. I think the simple reason is that it is maintained that the trees would not flourish along by the sea coast where the Gaeltacht is. I agree that the first and second and third line of trees grown adjacent to the sea will not flourish, but there is no particular reason why experiments such as have been carried out, I think, in Sligo, would not be carried out generally along by the sea coast. Anybody going along the western coast of France, by the Bay of Biscay, cannot fail to see trees growing there in the very sand. I saw them myself. If you look up the history of how these trees came to grow there you will find that towards the end of the 18th century France was being threatened by the sea, it was being eaten away. At the end of the century a society was formed for the purpose of protecting the coast and of promoting the interests of forestry. Rows and rows of Corsican pines were planted there and, even though the rows nearest the sea grew as cailihini, the trees further in thrived and the land was protected.

Now, with the exception of a part of the western coast, there is no particular reason why all the rest of our coast would not be planted, and I think that a start should be made, not along the parts where you are almost sure they will grow, but, talking of Kerry, along the western coast of Kerry where no trees stronger than the fuchsia thrive there at the moment, and it would encourage people who grow some trees from seeds there with very little success. People tell me that the inroads of the western wind are such that it would take not one or two, but maybe 20, rows of trees to break it.

I would like the Minister to make a start with the coast of Kerry. I asked a number of people in the parish of Ballyferriter if they would co-operate with the Minister in any experiment he might carry out, and they told me they would be delighted to put a strip of land there at his disposal. I am throwing out the suggestion to him now that he should accept the invitation and experiment there, with the view of growing trees along there, and helping not only to beautify the place, but to make the lands further inland capable of carrying more cattle than they are carrying at the moment.

I agree with previous speakers who maintain that the amount of planting done in this country since the State was established is very small, that it is inadequate, but I am satisfied on account of the consistency with which they have worked. I am satisfied with the measure before us, and with the promise of the Minister that this is not the last word in forestry, and that within a few years we will have a measure giving the Minister even wider powers than he is asking for in this Bill.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I think it is quite obvious that the last speaker has a deep interest in this matter of forestry, and that he has gone to some pains to keep himself fully informed on the matter. He has very optimistic hopes for the future of forestry—enthusiastic hopes. I am sorry that the Deputy's hopes as to what will grow out of the forestry business in this country, if I may so put it, are likely to be shattered. I think it is a pity that the Deputy did not give the same close attention to the Minister's explanatory statement, which was circulated, that he apparently gave to the Bill, because, if he had, I do not see how he could have any hope for the future of forestry, or how he could think there will be any forestry in the future in this country. If the Deputy will look at the first page of the Minister's statement he will see this:

"It is not the object of this Bill to provide for any radical changes in policy and plans in relation to the furtherance of forest needs but rather to improve in divers minor respects the statutory machinery under which the business of forestry is carried on."

He goes on:—

"The needs of Irish forestry are keenly appreciated in all quarters; indeed, the forestry service is frequently the butt of criticism by enthusiasts whose zeal for a more rapid restoration of Irish woodlands refuses to be trammelled by practical considerations. Ireland, is, as Deputies will probably stress in the course of this debate, comparatively the worst situated of all European countries in its home-grown timber supplies and Deputies will probably be disappointed that thé measure now before the House does not contain more virile provisions aimed at remedying that state of affairs."

The next part of it is the part to which I want to draw the attention of the Deputy who has spoken. Here is summed up the Minister's whole policy and philosophy in connection with forestry:—

"I wish, therefore, to make it quite clear that it is my view, and the view of the experts who are responsible for the technical control of forestry work, that the present scheme of expansion is adequate, and is best suited to meet the country's needs."

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy now move the adjournment?

Mr. D. Morrissey

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned accordingly.