Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Mar 1946

Vol. 99 No. 17

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

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

Mr. D. Morrissey

During the debate on this Bill last week Deputy Ua Donnchadha, gave it his enthusiastic support in the belief that it was going to do something for forestry that had never been attempted before; that, in fact, it was going to give us what we all wished for, a really genuine and determined attempt to bring this country, from the afforestation point of view, somewhat into line with most other European countries. When the debate adjourned I was trying to find out where Deputy Ua Donnchadha found in this Bill any ground for that belief. I want to say quite frankly that the only feeling one can have is a feeling of deep disappointment. The Bill is going to do very little for afforestation. It is purely a machinery Bill, and deals mainly with restrictions. In so far as it is going to have any effect on forestry, I am afraid it is going to have a bad effect, because a considerable portion of the Bill is taken up in giving the Minister power over trees, woods, groves and land which we had hoped would be planted by private individuals. A man who is considering putting a portion of his land under timber—we know that he is doing something that is not going to bring him any financial reward in his time—knows before he starts to plant that when those trees come to maturity, he will have no control over them, that wheather he can cut one, ten, 100, or 500, will be determined by the Minister, whoever he may be at the time, or by some official in the Department. I want to remind Deputy Ua Donnchadha and any others who may think that this Bill is going to do something for us, of what the Minister said in his introductory speech. I think that is the guide to the whole Bill and the guide to the whole policy of the Forestry Department. This is what the Minister said:—

"I wish 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."

I should like to hear from the Minister, or from somebody, what is meant by "the present scheme of expansion". At what rate are we expanding in afforestation or re-afforestation? We are told that it is adequate to meet the country's needs. Have the country's needs from the timber point of view been assessed? If so, when and how, and what are the needs? I must say that that statement in the Minister's speech conveys to me that there is going to be no real attempt made to put this country in the position that i should be put into with regard to re-afforestation.

For a long number of years most people in this country looked upon the planting of this country as one of the biggest problems we should be facing. It was regarded as one of the most important things that we would tackle when we got our liberty and our government. That was stressed not only by all Parties but by individuals and citizens outside who take a deep interest in the matter. The necessity for it was so well known that there was hardly any need to stress it but it was stressed from the point of view of its effect upon our climate, from the point of view of the valuable employment it would create and from the point of view of scenic value. After 25 years of native government, we have a Forestry Bill introduced that, undoubtedly, has been prepared after a lot of consideration, a good deal of work and a good deal of thought but, so far as I can see, the effect it will have on planting in this country will certainly not be appreciable.

I again stress that the policy of the Forestry Department and of the Minister in relation to this matter is summed up in these two sentences, that they are satisfied that the present rate of expansion is adequate and is best suited to meet the country's needs. This happens to be a matter of which I have some practical knowledge and practical experience. I say that the present rate of expansion as it is called, so far as we know it, so far as we can get proof of it, would not, in the next 30 years, compensate for the effect of the two wars, would not replace the timber that was removed during the 1914-18 war and the timber that was removed during the last six or seven years, much less make any advance on that position.

If this House is going to be satisfied with a forestry programme such as is before us—if I may describe it as a forestry programme at all—then we will not see any impression made on the position in regard to that matter during our time. I am rather surprised at the present Minister that he is not showing that imagination in dealing with this problem that I had expected from him. I do not mean imagination in the ordinary sense of the word. I do know that the Minister is interested in this matter. I do know that the Minister probably realises our needs in regard to timber as well as, if not better than, most members of this House, and I do know that, if he makes up his mind to face a problem, he can face it.

With regard to our needs, we have at the moment in this country, I might say, no commercial timber at all, good, bad or indifferent, or the commercial timber that is left is not worth talking about. The soft timber that is left in this country is merely warped, knotty, scrubby, fir and spruce, and so on, that was not worth the cost of cutting it down and has no commercial value whatever. A great deal, if not the vast bulk, of the hard-woods left in this country has no commercial value and is fit merely for firing. Does not that show a tremendous need? Does not that show a great urgency about this problem? We know to-day that not only have we no commercial timber of our own, not only have we no timber for housing, furniture, farm work or anything else, but we have very little hope or prospect of getting in commercial timber from outside. Bad as the position was during the emergency, bad as it is now and is likely to remain for some considerable time, can anyone visualise what it will be in 30 or 40 years' time, if we should have to go through another period such as we have experienced during the last six or seven years? We have to face the fact that at the moment we are not able to build a house because we have not the timber to do it. Within the last week I was talking to a building contractor in this city, a man who was certainly not losing very much time. He has 12 houses built; he has them roofed, but he cannot get sufficient timber to finish them—and we know the famine there is in regard to houses. I do not want to labour this thing too much. I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. I do not want to be repeating myself. There is hardly a person in this country who has given any thought to the matter, there is certainly not a farmer in this House, who will say that we can overrate the value of afforestation so far as our climate is concerned, so far as our land is concerned. We cannot. I am continually met by people who say that trees will not grow in certain places. We used to be told by the Department of Forestry that it was not economic to plant less than 200 acres, that that was the absolute minimum. That is all bosh. You cannot regard a national reafforestation scheme on a purely economic basis, on a purely cash basis. Its value cannot be measured in cash. Whatever the cost of it may be, in my opinion it is essential for this country that we should go in for planting on the biggest scale which is within our means.

With regard to getting suitable land on which to plant trees, I know that in my own county there are huge areas, huge in the sense of such woods as we had in this country, that were cleared of trees. I was at the clearing of some of them myself. They grew some of the finest commercial timber ever grown in this country. In addition to these, there is right along these hillsides land fit to grow trees of similar commercial value which is practically of no value for any purpose except for planting. That land is lying there, and nothing is contemplated with regard to it. It may be a sort of hobby of mine, but I think most people who have given any thought to this matter, or who are as much interested in it as I am, appreciate the value to the country from every point of view of afforestation. For that reason, I am not only disappointed, but surprised, that the Minister has not given us a Bill which would show us that there is at least a desire and a will to improve greatly on anything done up to date with regard to forestry. What disappoints me completely is to be told that the Minister and the experts are quite satisfied that the present rate of expansion is adequate and suited to the needs of the country. I cannot accept that. I think the Minister will find it very hard to convince the House or the country that the present rate of expansion, as it is called, will in any way meet the problem or solve it.

Mr. Cogan

I do not think I can claim to be as great an expert with regard to timber as Deputy Morrissey, but I represent a constituency in which afforestation has been pressed forward perhaps more than in any other constituency in this State. Notwithstanding the fact that the planting of timber has been carried on so extensively in County Wicklow, I think there is room for very much further expansion, particularly in the western parts of the county where only comparatively little has been done. When we consider that there are many other counties with a great deal of land just as suitable for plantation as County Wicklow, which has hardly been touched at all, we must be disappointed with the Minister's statement and with his outline of the very modest programme which he has in view for the future.

There is hardly need to stress the advantages which would be conferred on this country by the expansion of the area under timber to something in relation to our national needs. We are embarking on a big building programme for which we have very little timber available. So far as any ordinary layman can foresee, timber is likely to be an essential requirement in building for many years to come. It is also likely to be the basic raw material for many important industries which are now only in their infancy. It should be the policy of the Government and this House to step up production as rapidly as possible so as to meet our national needs.

In introducing the Bill, the Minister gave a fairly comprehensive survey of his policy and of the provisions of the Bill. I have often wondered, however, why it is that the Minister has never submitted to this House a clear-cut statement of the costs of production of timber and of the value per acre of the land put under plantation. I think that is absolutely essential if we are to embark on an expansionist programme. We must know the actual expense of planting and producing every acre of timber, when that timber will be ready for use, and what its value is likely to be then. Such a calculation is absolutely necessary, because we are always faced with the comparative value of land for agricultural purposes as against plantation. We have always to consider in regard to our hillsides the value of the land for sheep grazing and such purposes in comparison with its value for afforestation. We must know exactly what the value of the land is for afforestation in order to make a comparison, because it is in that way we must be guided in regard to our programme. We know that timber is very essential, but we also know that mutton and wool are very important national needs.

We should also have from the Minister some information as to the extent to which research is being carried on in order to see how far waste land, which is perhaps at present considered unsuitable for planting, might be brought into production. The higher altitudes on some of our mountains are not considered suitable for planting. There is also an area of waterlogged land which, up to the present, has been found unsuitable. We should find out by intensive research if there are varieties of timber adaptable to land of that kind. We should find out also if it is possible by a system of drainage to drain some of our boglands for afforestation purposes. Not only should we be guided by what has become the orthodox policy of the Forestry Department, but I think the Minister, as a new Minister in this Department, should consider the adoption of new lines. Up to the present, it has been the policy of the Department to concentrate upon large areas for planting. It is considered, of course, more economic to plant a large area than a smaller area, but I think that eventually we will be forced to adopt an entirely different policy, that we will be forced to adopt a policy of planting what would be considered at the present time very small areas. Anyone who travels through the country must be aware of the fact that you frequently come across areas of comparatively waste land, which may not exceed five, 10 or 15 acres; that you will have steep inclines which are not suitable for grazing, or not very productive, at any rate, as grazing lands, but which, if put under plantation, would not only give a good return but would add to the scenic beauty of the countryside. Those areas are to be found scattered here and there throughout every county, and I think that the Forestry Department must face up to the task of putting such smaller areas under plantation.

I know that there is a provision under which farmers are given grants to encourage them to put small areas of their land under trees, but when we consider the matter from a realistic point of view, I think we will find that those grants are not being availed of to a very great extent. I should like to have some information from the Minister as to the extent to which those grants are being availed of, and the area that has been planted as a result of the grants. It seems to me that very little use has been made of those grants in relation to the areas involved, but I can see very good reasons why the grants have not been availed of. First of all, planting is a very long-term proposition. The man who plants a tree to-day can hardly expect to see the harvest reaped in his own lifetime. We must also realise that the spirit of the age has changed very much from what it was three or four hundred years ago ago. Three or four hundred years ago we had very big land-owners in this country, and we had the feudal system in full course at that time. Those men looked forward to seeing their lands continuing in the possession of their families and their descendants for hundreds of years to come. That outlook, I think, has changed completely. We are living, perhaps, in a different age: an age of mass production and mass consumption. If some manufacturer were to put on the market to-day pre-fabricated trees, I suppose he would be able to sell them like hot cakes, but if it is a question of trying to induce even well-to-do people to put down trees to any great extent, I think you are up against a very difficult proposition. At the present time, we are faced with the problem, not of providing for generations to come, but of providing for our immediate needs. That may be a deplorable spirit, but it is the spirit of the age, and it is not confined to this country, but is a worldwide tendency.

Perhaps the destruction of the feudal system may have had something to do with that, or perhaps it is due to other causes; but apart from those considerations we must also remember that the man who plants trees is not embarking on a very remunerative business proposition, even taking the long view, or even taking the view of providing for his family and his descendants, because recent history has shown us that in a time of emergency the State takes almost complete control of all existing resources in the country, and, as I think Deputy Morrissey suggested, the man with imagination enough to see himself enjoying the shade of a tree which he has planted, or to see himself, in the person of his grandson or great-grandson, enjoying the shade of that tree, must realise that when his grandson or great-grandson comes to manhood, it may be found that that tree has been ruthlessly cut down by the State, confiscated in the national interest, because the State, perhaps necessarily, may have had to take such complete control over our timber resources, as the State had to do during the recent emergency.

That being so, I think it is idle to expect any wide extension of afforestation from private enterprise, even though assisted by such grants as are being provided. Therefore, I think we have to fall back on the alternative that the Forestry Department must be prepared to consider the planting of smaller areas than they have considered up to the present. I think that the main problem in regard to the planting of smaller areas is the problem of fancing. I admit that that is a difficult problem, but it is a problem that is capable of being solved, provided that we get down to it in a businesslike way.

In addition to what the Forestry Department may be able to do directly itself, it might be possible to make provision for the expansion of small-sized woodlands by encouraging local bodies to go in for planting such areas. A local body—whether a parish council, a county council, an urban council, or any local association of any kind: even a voluntary association—can take a longer view than a businessman might be inclined to take, and I suggest that such a local council or body might be tempted to embark on a policy of planting small-sized woodlands in the local areas, provided that assistance was given by the Forestry Department; and that assistance would require to be, not only financial assistance, but assistance in regard to the matter of the acquisition and development of the land for which the Forestry Department has sought fairly wide and extensive powers.

Now, in regard to the powers which the Minister demands for his Department, I think, first of all, that it is a matter for satisfaction that the Minister has departed from the ceiling which was fixed for the value of land to be acquired. I think it is a matter of satisfaction that lands are to be acquired at their market value, and I hope that in that connection justice will be done to everybody concerned.

There is another very important issue which is raised in one section of this Bill, and that is in regard to rights of way. That, of course, is a very thorny question in all rural areas, and I suppose that the Minister has found it to be a thorny question so far as the administration of afforestation is concerned. We know that a good deal of lands which have been acquired in the past, or that will be acquired in the future, for planting, are cut off from the public road by farms and agricultural holdings. That is only natural. Since the Forestry Department will be acquiring hills or hillsides, or pieces of land of that kind, it will be found that farms or agricultural lands will in most cases lie between those hills or hillsides and the public road. For that reason, I am sure that the Minister has found difficulty in gaining access to the lands which he acquires, but in seeking very far-reaching compulsory powers, I think it is necessary that the interests of landholders should be adequately safeguarded because, while I believe that justice will, in all likelihood, be done in regard to the acquisition of land, it is not equally as certain that justice will be done in regard to the acquisition of rights of way.

There may be a tendency on the part of any tribunal which has to assess compensation for rights of way to underestimate the damage or loss caused by those rights being acquired. This problem would arise to a considerable extent in Wicklow, because, in Wicklow, we have quite a number of woods which are reaching maturity and which may be harvested—if that is the correct word —in the near future. It will be necessary to haul the timber across the agricultural lands. The Bill provides for temporary rights of way over those lands. Owing to the nature of the loads which will have to be carried and owing to the nature of the land, which will be hilly, it may be necessary to cross the fields rather than keep close to the fences, so as to avoid steep inclines. Considerable damage may be done to those lands from the time that haulage gets under way. The full implications of such damage should be taken into consideration by any tribunal which may be set up.

Again, I expect that the laneways to farmers' houses will be used by the Forestry Department in order to get to their lands. The rights of way may extend to the farmers' yardway and haggards, which will constitute a serious infringement of the private rights of humble and poor people in many cases. The people concerned may have had to struggle to live in some of those backward areas and to carry on their little industry. They may be living a mile or two miles from the public roadway. Their one advantage up to the present was that they were, to a great extent, free from molestation and interference. There was little damage to their stock from road traffic. They were not even visited by the travelling fraternity— tinkers and tramps. Now, their privacy is to be seriously disturbed. Their laneways and, perhaps, their yardways will become thoroughfares for this national concern.

It is difficult to estimate fully the amount of injury that will be caused to those people. It is a matter which will have to be considered very sympathetically. I am not taking up an obstructionist attitude with regard to this Bill. We all realise the necessity for putting lands which are suitable under plantation. Having put those lands under plantation, we all realise that it is necessary the Department should have access to them. But the interests of the small landholders adjoining will have to be carefully considered.

Another section of the Bill gives the Minister power to go in upon agricultural holdings to destroy rabbits and vermin. This section is in some respects comparable with a certain section of the Public Health Bill, which will be under consideration shortly. It takes very wide powers in regard to private property. That may be necessary but it could constitute a very grave injustice. I should like the Minister to tell us if there is a corresponding provision in the Bill which would enable farmers on lands adjoining plantations to go in on those lands of the Forestry Department and destroy vermin which are injurious to their farms. If the Forestry Department claim the right to trespass upon the lands of the farmers so as to protect their plantations, the farmers should have an equal right to go in upon forestry lands so as to protect their property. In many areas in Wicklow we have an absolute plague of foxes which are nourished and protected on the lands of the Forestry Department. They are sheltered and protected there and, so far as I know—I have made inquiries—the Forestry Department does not accept any responsibility for the damage done to the poultry of the farmers by those animals. The poultry industry is a very important one. In matters of this kind, the State should regard itself as being on an equal footing with the ordinary private individual and should not claim rights which it is not prepared to give to the ordinary individual.

There is another section of this Bill which is, I think, appropriate to this particular month. That is the section which empowers the Minister to authorise the owner or occupier of land to destroy during a period not exceeding six months hares, the presence of which on the land is a source of potential damage to trees or plants. That seems to be a rather peculiar section in one way, inasmuch as it empowers the Minister "to authorise the owner". I do not know what that really means. Does it empower the Minister to compel the owner to destroy these hares, and if it does, how does the Minister propose that the farmer should set about that task? The section further provides that if the farmer fails to carry out this rather difficult operation, the Minister will send his agents in on the farmer's lands to catch the hares. This, I think, raises a rather important question, because farmers generally have always regarded hares as probably the least harmful of wild animals. We have also to bear in mind the fact that they may be of considerable value. I can foresee very serious implications and difficulties arising if the Minister's agents go in upon private lands and proceed to round up and destroy hares which are being preserved perhaps for a coursing match the following week. I think that, in a matter of that kind, the Bill should contain certain provisions in regard to sporting rights and amenities in the countryside. As pointed out, the Minister has been sheltering in his plantations animals which are very destructive to the farming industry, and I do not think he should claim such drastic powers to exterminate game which are certainly very useful and desirable as far as the sporting community are concerned.

Mr. Hughes

I do not think that every farmer wants hares.

Mr. Cogan

There is one other section with which I should like to deal briefly. In this Bill, as in practically every other Bill which has been introduced recently, provision is made for the setting up of a consultative committee. I have no objection to that except to say that these consultative committees or councils seem to be very popular with Ministers recently and it strikes me that Ministers, while they may derive a certain value from such bodies, also appreciate the fact that such bodies provide a certain amount of cover for Ministers. The consultative council is a kind of barrier behind which the Minister can retire when opposition to his actions becomes vocal. I, however, have no objection to a consultative council on that ground. I think the main objection to the Bill is that we have got no indication from the Minister of definite advances of or a real desire to advance in regard to afforestation. We want a much bigger expansion of the area under timber than the Minister appeared to be able to contemplate at the present time. When we compare the wooded vales of Wicklow with the bare barren landscapes in some of the western counties, we realise what an improvement, not only in the economic resources of the country but also in its scenic beauty, would be brought about if we could get other counties even up to the standard which has been reached in Wicklow. I think that we should not put this matter on the long finger. We should aim at a policy of making our country self-supporting in regard to timber supplies within a reasonable period. We should aim at a policy which will ensure that when our woodlands come to maturity, there will never again arise a position in which we shall be so deficient in timber supplies as we have been during the recent emergency.

Mr. Corry

I do not look upon this as a Forestry Bill at all. To my mind, it is just a Bill for clearing the road and I cannot look at it in any other way. There are no proposals in it in regard to the go-ahead policy which we expected to hear from the Department. Neither can I see in it all the pit-falls of which we heard for the last half-hour from Deputy Cogan. The Deputy's speech reminded me of the prophecy of Jeremiah—wail after wail and moan after moan. I do not think that the Bill is really as bad as all that. I should like in the first place to remind the House that trees which are going to be planted this year will not be put into a house next year. Everyone knows that we shall have to wait 40 years for the trees to mature and in 40 years' time we may not require any timber at all for housing. I think that what we have to discuss on this Bill is not what is in the Bill but what we think should be in it. The Bill is only a clearing of the road, which is rather necessary, as you cannot start to build a house until you prepare the foundations.

Mr. Murphy

It is taking a long time —35 years—to prepare it.

Mr. Corry

There are many enthusiasts about timber in this country and if I had some of them on a farm I happened to buy some years ago and had to plough, I would give them a nice job. We had to carry an axe around on the plough, to cut the roots as we came to them. That was on good land, which should never have seen a tree at all. I would like to see some proposals in this Bill to induce farmers to plant at least an acre per farm as a shelter belt or as trees around houses. That would get us somewhere, if done as an inducement and not by compulsion, and would improve the landscape immensely. There is no use in talking about planting big areas at present. All over the country there are glens which would grow better trees than one could grow anywhere else. Let them be planted first.

In regard to Deputy Cogan's statement about local authorities, does he not think they have to do enough? Does he want a rate of 4d. or 5d. in the £ clamped down on them by the Department of Local Government and have them put to planting trees? Does he not think the Government Departments have put enough on to the ratepayers, without making them woodsmen as well? If we are to go ahead in this matter, let us have a definite settled policy in regard to the area of State land to be taken over and how many thousand acres per year of those lands will be planted and in regard to proposals for planting by private individuals. I must admit Deputy Cogan is right, that the private individual has very little interest in this. The ordinary farmer is not going to plant trees so that his son can sit down under them. I would like also to see a definite proposal—a £10 Vote would cover it—to give some definite inducement to the farmer to plant trees, as he has very little interest in it at present. If he has trees to-day fit for cutting, he will not be let cut them to keep the fire lighting or to repair his own house. There are many rules and regulations governing timber to-day which will, perhaps, be necessary in the future and, under all the circumstances the private planter is faced with, I think it is purely a State job to induce him to plant sufficient timber, in shelter belts and otherwise.

I congratulate the Forestry Department on their work. One thing they have done completely knocks the bottom out of Deputy Morrissey's argument about the cutting of timber during the war. I do not think any timber was cut during the past six years except under a re-planting clause, which compelled the man who cut timber to put in at least four or five or a dozen trees for the one he cut. So I cannot see Deputy Morrissey's argument about the number of years it will take the Forestry Department to make up for the timber cut during the late war—whatever about the war before that. That was a very wise provision by the Department. It is a provision that has to be used with commonsense. In some cases, it is imposed on land that should never have been planted—good tillage land. If we are to go ahead with forestry as it should be done, we must plant small areas or induce people to plant them. That will give them some interest in the safety of the plantations. One cannot expect the Forestry Department to take ten acres here and 20 acres there, as that will call for fencing and care and protection afterwards, and it will not pay them. The only man it will pay to protect such woods is the farmer on whose lands they are.

When planting small areas, we must work on that basis and that basis only.

This Bill will have to be followed with some definite proposals in regard to future plantations. Anyone travelling around the country at present can see hundreds of acres, good for nothing else but plantation, spots that were once beauty spots, now cleared out and left barren. I would be anxious to see definite proposals in this Bill, which are not in it at present, regarding, first of all, planting by the Forestry Department and, secondly, by the private individual. Unless there is some inducement to the private landowner, we cannot go ahead with forestry as we wish to do in this country.

Mr. Murphy

It would be very hard to disguise, among people who have any interest in this subject, a feeling of more than usual disappointment at the emptiness, the complete barrenness, of this measure, which is just little more than a measure to tidy up the legislation dealing with forestry in this country. Deputy Corry has, in that agile way that he is a master of, described it as a Bill to clear the way for forestry. That certainly is a very optimistic view to take of a measure of this kind. The bald fact is that there has been a paralysis officially over the whole question of forestry for a great many years and that even people who have been most enthusiastic in denouncing the policy have become infected in the same way and stand now for continuing it.

Clearly, the whole position now becomes much more urgent than it was before, in, view of what has happened during the emergency. It is an unfortunate thing, it is a national desecration, that trees had to be cut down to the extent that they were cut, but obviously that was quite necessary. In connection with the provision for re-planting, I hope that will not be just a vague sort of thing extended over a number of years, but at least will be given effect to within a reasonably short time after the trees have been removed. I think long delay in this matter, and the possibility of the long delay being utilised for the purpose of enabling a colder view to be taken of it, would be dangerous generally.

I think the position can be quite easily understood when one considers the total aim of the Department in regard to forestry, which is ultimately to have planted 700,000 acres of land. As far back as 1908 a British commission in this country, which was presided over by the late Mr. T.P. Gill, recommended the planting of 1,000,000 acres of land. Going into the progress made in the years since a Forestry Department was set up in the country, it would seem to me that it will take considerably over 100 years to have this policy of securing 700,000 acres of land under trees realised, so that the Minister and all of us here will have long passed from any active consideration of this question, and many of the trees that will be put down during the next 15 or 20 years will have long disappeared before this aim of tree planting is achieved. Surely, it is a tragic waste of a great national opportunity?

The Minister's constituency in North Cork, and my own constituency in West Cork, provide two of the finest examples of complete failure in this matter that it would be possible to find in any part of the country. There were two or three plantations in North Cork and two or three in West Cork, and some others that were, in fact, established—there was at least one—before an Irish Government was put into office, and they represented 25 years' work and development. In every town and village in North and West Cork we have people signing day after day at the labour exchanges in order to get some public assistance, public charity— because that is really what it comes to —and we have not the courage, because of official obstacles, because of pettifogging delays, to take these people and put them to valuable work of this kind. The people who have been enthusiastic in his matter, who have been pioneers in it, when they got close to officialdom became as silent as their predecessors, and the whole policy of forestry has been a frozen policy from 1922 onwards.

I suggest this measure will be of no value in regard to early development in forestry. It is not tidy legislation we want, or a consolidation of Acts of Parliament. We want a forward and vigorous policy in forestry, one that will enable our people to earn wages, that will enable the country to be beautified, that will enable the ravages of the emergency years and years of official neglect to be repaired, and that will be some asset in giving dignity to workmen who are now the recipients of State charity. That is my plea for forestry, and, during the life of the present Government and of their predecessors, I never had the least patience with the innumerable obstacles that have been put in the way of a policy of this kind. Perhaps it may all be attributed to my own ignorance, my lack of knowledge of the difficulties, but there is nothing easier than to find difficulties when there is no enthusiasm about a policy of this kind.

The Minister has anticipated, in his explanatory statement, a number of the objections that would be raised on this Bill. His explanatory memorandum goes to show that there is at least some misgiving as to whether the viewpoint expressed in the Bill and the viewpoint held by the Forestry Department are at all popular in the country. I suggest they are not, and if the target set by the Department of 700,000 acres under trees is going to take 135 years to realise, then we are not serious in talking about this matter, and any question of clearing the road, as Deputy Corry suggested, does not arise, because there is no road to be cleared, no road on which we will be travelling in this Bill or in any of the efforts made up to the present.

I sincerely hope some change will be effected in this policy and that we will find some alternative to the arguments I have heard so often, that certain types of trees are not suitable in certain areas. May I suggest that it would be good business for the State to plant any kind of timber and enable people to get employment and wages out of it than to permit the present conditions to continue? Probably these may be described as the remarks of an ignorant amateur, a man who knows nothing about this subject, but at least I can congratulate myself on one thing, and that is, that I have preserved over 21 years some fragment of the enthusiasm that I had on the subject, and I regret that there are many people who have lost whatever enthusiasm or interest they had in the subject.

This Bill is a sad indictment of the present lack of forestry policy and, in my opinion, it represents no advance such as we should have at the present time. I hope this policy will be changed and, before this Bill finally leaves the House, I hope the members of all Parties will express what I believe is really in the minds of many of them, that no progress has been made in this matter and that a great national opportunity for employment and for beautifying the country and doing many other things is being lost, as it has been lost during the years gone by.

Mr. Roddy

I would not go quite so far as Deputy Murphy when he says that there has been no progress in the reafforestation of this country. Some progress has been made, however tardy it may have been. I am, like other Deputies, disappointed with the Bill. I thought it would indicate some more thoroughgoing policy than has been pursued by the Minister and his Department for years past and, after the lessons of the past six years, I thought surely that the Minister would have taken his courage in his hands and would have made provision for a more forward move in the future. I think we will have to depend more and more on our own timber resources for the future. That is one lesson we have learned from the war and, judging by the present condition of affairs in the world, it looks as if supplies from outside sources will be closed to us to a certain extent.

We never know when we may find ourselves in the throes of another war. I sincerely hope it will not take place, but certainly anybody studying conditions in the world to-day cannot but come to the conclusion that war is quite likely some time in the future. I hope it is a long way off, but in any event the Minister should have envisaged the circumstances that will arise if we do find ourselves confronted with another emergency, and when framing this Bill, should have made provision for our future requirements.

The Minister candidly and frankly admitted in his introductory speech that this is the worst wooded country in the world. As a matter of fact, I saw it stated somewhere some years ago that the percentage of our woodland to other land is only about 1.7—the lowest of any country in Europe. Despite this, the Minister said that the policy he is pursuing at the moment is the only policy which is suited to the needs and requirements of this country. I think the Minister said that the rate of progress on reafforestation here is about 6,000 acres per year in recent years—in the earlier years, the acreage was much lower. I do not know at the moment how many acres have been dealt with since the Forestry Commission started. I have a hazy recollection of reading somewhere that about 100,000 odd acres have been planted, but in 1920 an estimate was made by a foreign expert that there were about 791,000 acres of waste land suitable for planting, with a chance of direct monetary profit.

Deputy Corry or some other Deputy mentioned that the total forestry requirements of the country are about 700,000 acres, that we want to get 700,000 acres planted to be reasonably secure in the matter of timber supplies. I do not know whether the Minister has made an estimate of the area of waste land available for planting, but I do not imagine such an estimate has been made, at least from the forestry point of view. He probably would be able to find from the records of the Land Commission the actual acreage of waste land, but he would not be in a position to say what proportion of it was suitable for planting. That, however, is the estimate made by a foreign expert who travelled all over the country and went to great pains to ensure that his estimate was accurate in every detail.

The Minister went on to say:—

"The forestry service has expanded its activities in extent and were it not for the recent war the service would by now probably have come close to attaining the rate of annual growth which is believed by the experts to be the desirable aim for this country's needs."

One can only read into that statement that his experts have standardised the rate of planting for each year; in other words, they aim at getting a certain number of acres planted each year, and, if they get that number, they are quite satisfied. But it seems to me that the aim of the Minister and the Department should be to continue expanding each year and to ensure that each year a greater number of acres are planted than the year before.

The Minister then proceeded to have a tilt at the enthusiasts, as he calls them, "whose zeal for more rapid restoration of Irish woodlands refuses to be trammelled by practical considerations", but the enthusiasts at whom the Minister goes out of his way to have a tilt were responsible in the first instance for the establishment of the Forestry Commission and responsible, to some extent at all events, for the progress made in the reafforestation of this country. It may be that, in their enthusiasm, they did not always take into consideration the practical considerations involved in reafforestation, but they at all events kept up their propaganda and it is largely due to their propaganda that we are in the position in which we are to-day, however backward it may be.

Deputy Morrissey referred to the Minister's statement that the present scheme of afforestation is adequate for the needs of the country. Like Deputy Morrissey, I do not know exactly what the Minister means by that statement. If the Minister means that the present scheme of reafforestation, if carried to its full development, will be capable of supplying the entire commercial needs of the country, I doubt it very much. As a matter of fact, I do not see that it would be capable of supplying all the commercial needs of the country because the Minister has limited himself to £4 per acre in the purchase of land for reafforestation purposes. That is the maximum he will pay for land for reafforestation purposes. Surely the Minister, if he is to get land suitable for the production of the best class of timber, will have to pay much more than that for land.

I understand that the average price paid by the Forestry Department for land is somewhere between 30/- and 50/- per acre, and the Minister said that if a greater sum than £4 were paid for land, it would upset the economics of these forestry schemes. In any event, I want to emphasise again that if reafforestation is to be carried out successfully, we should aim at producing all classes and kinds of commercial timber, and the Minister should not allow himself to be hampered, too much at all events, by financial restrictions. He should take his courage in his hands, and, if necessary, pay a higher price for land for the purpose of producing the best quality of commercial timber. I do not believe the Dáil would have any hesitation in giving him sanction to spend money, and to spend a great deal of money, for that purpose.

Provision is made in the Bill for the setting up of a consultative committee. I approve of that step. I think a consultative committee can do an enormous lot of good, and, provided it is composed of the right class of people, will be of considerable help and assistance to the Minister. I suggest to the Minister, however, that he should appoint a foreign forestry expert as a member of that committee, if he can get such an expert at present, and I imagine that, if he is anxious to secure such a person, he will have no difficulty in getting him. It will cost money, but I imagine it would be money very well spent. I do not believe for a moment that we have all the expert knowledge we require so far as forestry development is concerned in this country. I believe it is necessary to increase that knowledge, or, if you like, to reinforce it, by the knowledge of experts from other countries, and the Minister would be very well advised in the interests of the country to appoint some foreign experts as members of the consultative committee. Their experience in other countries would be invaluable, as I am sure they would be able to give the Minister's experts assistance which would redound to the advantage of this country.

I realise very well that, as far as the acquisition of land is concerned, the Minister will be confronted with many difficulties, as he will have to take into consideration our agricultural needs. There are certain sections in the Bill which, to a certain extent, prohibit him taking land if it is suitable for agricultural purposes, as well as land belonging to local authorities and holdings in the neighbourhood of mines. In that way the Minister is limited in his selection. Even within these limitations there is a good deal of land that could be acquired. If it is to be acquired the Minister will certainly have to pay higher compensation than that mentioned in his statement, a maximum sum of £4 an acre. I make no apology for returning to that question, as it is very important that at this stage, and in present circumstances, the Minister should not allow £4 to be the maximum. He should be prepared to pay higher compensation where it is necessary to secure better class land for the production of timber of higher quality and value. After all, if the aim in our forestry policy is to produce timber for the requirements of this country, the Minister must not limit himself as to the class or quality of land that he must secure, or the price that he is to pay for it.

I realise that the Minister must be facilitated in regard to haulage facilities, if mature timber is to be taken from existing plantations. The arrangement in such cases should be mutual. I had experience in recent years of trouble with the forestry section, inasmuch as the Minister was reluctant to allow people to bring turbary to their homes through a plantation. I know perfectly well that the Minister has had rather sad experience, and that plantations were damaged through the carelessness, in many instances, of people working on bogs. In all cases where the Minister gets a guarantee that proper care will be exercised, and that plantations will not be damaged, I think he should see that people who have to pass through them are facilitated. In the case I was interested in, the people were facilitated on the distinct understanding that they would not again approach the Department for similar facilities. That bog was at the far end of the plantation, and while people have to go to it for turf, they will have to continue asking the Department for permission to pass through it.

The Minister in that case got a guarantee from the senior men engaged in turf cutting that they would exercise special care, so that the plantation would not be damaged. There are instances where the Minister will have to take into consideration special circumstances of that kind. I am not worried by Deputy Cogan's statement that these people would not be compensated for the trouble and inconvenience they are likely to suffer. I am sure the Land Commission will give them fair compensation. I know instances where the Minister had to get certain facilities, and those who gave them were adequately compensated.

Mr. O'Donnell

Any of these roads will not be wanted when the trees have grown up.

Mr. Roddy

It is not often that I find myself in agreement with Deputy Corry, but if we are to expand the forestry area with a reasonable degree of rapidity we should concentrate more on the work of private individuals. More encouragement should be held out to private landowners to plant trees, even though it means increasing the amount of compensation at present being paid. The Minister will have to take steps to encourage planting by private individuals if any worthwhile impression is to be made on forestry. I suggest to him that, perhaps by propaganda and through the efforts of officials of the Land Commission, more people could be induced to embark on the planting of trees and to devote some land to that purpose. Certain small portions of many farms could very properly be devoted to the planting of trees. That is one way in which we could hasten a solution of the forestry problem and, for that reason, I suggest to the Minister that it is worth while to give that aspect consideration. I believe he will find that if there is the right class of propaganda, and if the right class of people are approached, good results will be obtained.

Mr. T. Brennan

Many Deputies who spoke in this debate do not appear to be satisfied that the Minister indicated the progress he intends to make with forestry in the future. Deputy Corry stated that the Bill was one to clear the way for such work. I agree with that. While the Minister may not have stated the exact amount of work that he intends to have done in the future, I maintain that he has put no limit on the amount of work that the Department can do. I stress this point, that it is of the greatest importance that the Minister should keep in mind the type of timber to be planted, particularly timber with a commercial value. There is no doubt that for the past six years there has been a very heavy demand for timber of a commercial type. I think that from the commercial point of view, Irish timber has stood up to that demand very well. Deputy Morrissey quoted the case of a contractor in the City of Dublin who had erected and roofed 12 houses and then could not proceed any further with the work. Speaking from practical experience, I think that contractor got on very well, because the amount of timber he would require to finish the houses is of such a nature that it may take time to secure it. It depends on the particular timber merchant he was dealing with in Dublin. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, March 8th, 1946.