This new piece of legislation, which is a codification of legislation dealing with forestry, is intended to tidy up existing legislation and to provide certain improvements in existing machinery. Having read the Bill I feel the Minister certainly ought to have under this Bill machinery adequate for the purpose. I was not here when the Minister spoke on the Second Reading but I have read his statement and I have been struck by the casual way in which he is dealing with this matter. In the circumstances in which we live and in the circumstances of the future, when there will be a huge demand on the world's supplies of timber for the tremendous amount of repair and reconstruction work that will have to be carried out in Europe, we might have got some review from the Minister as to the real position. I think we will experience great difficulty in getting supplies of timber for some time. As the Minister knows, foreign exchange will present a difficulty for a long time. The tremendous increase in the world demand for timber will undoubtedly make for a situation in which timber will be very expensive for a long time to come. I feel that the Minister might have availed of this opportunity to give us a survey of our position here: what has been achieved under existing legislation; what improvement has been effected in the quantity of afforestation; what success has attended the efforts of the forestry organisation under the Minister's control?
I feel that something has been achieved—that cannot be denied—but, at the same time, even before the first Great War this country suffered very severely so far as its timber supplies, woods and forests were concerned. I think the Minister was right when he pointed out that our landscape here is probably the most bleak in Europe, that we have very little timber resources. At the same time, I am convinced that very much more could be done in that respect. I do not think we will advance very much by dealing with this matter on a purely economic basis. Apart altogether from the commercial value of timber, it has many other advantages. There is the question of drainage which is affected by the timber in a country; the climate and, in fact, the health of the people of the country are also affected by the presence of the timber. These are aspects of the problem that can hardly be measured by hard cash. I agree with Deputy Dillon when he says that he does not stand for replacing men with trees; in other words, that the trees should not get preference over men. I do not think it is necessary to do that. I do not think we have gone that far at any time yet, and I do not think the Minister proposes to supersede men by trees.
I feel that in this country we should have some sort of central authority to deal with land utilisation which will decide in a strictly scientific way what land should be used for agricultural purposes, what land should be used for forestry purposes, and what land should be used for building purposes and that sort of thing around towns and cities. In view of the resolutions passed by many nations at conferences held in recent years and realising the marginal line so far as productive land in the world is concerned, although we have quite a lot of productive land in this country in proportion to the population that we carry, yet I think we should eliminate waste as far as possible and ensure that we have some authority here to decide scientifically how land should to be used to the best advantage nationally. In that respect, it often struck me that we should have that sort of body which would deal with the matter. We have not sufficient co-operation between the Minister, as Minister for Lands and the man responsible to this House for forestry, and the Minister for Agriculture on the other hand. I would be glad to hear from the Minister that the Minister for Agriculture is consulted on matters relating to land and land utilisation, especially where there is a question of whether the land is more suitable for the production of food or for the growing of trees. There is a good deal of mountain land suitable for the production of mutton, which would carry a considerable number of sheep. At the same time, it is ideal and for forestry purposes. The question arises there right away whether that land should be planted, or whether we should continue to produce food from that land, or, in fact, make an effort to improve the quality of the land with a view to further production.
I am glad that under this Bill the Minister takes power to set up a consultative committee. I welcome a committee that will deal with matters of that sort because there is a difference of opinion as to whether, from the point of view of food production, marginal land situated on high altitudes should be planted or not. There is the problem, so far as afforestation is concerned, of the smaller areas. So far as the Minister is concerned and the work done directly under his Department, there must be an area that is economic from the point of view of appointing a forester to look after it as a forest area. I think it comprises something like 200 acres. We can understand that in order to make it economical there must be a considerable amount of land available within a reasonable area for a forester to look after and keep in order. There are, however, many small pieces of land all over the country that could be planted and that ought to be planted. Under the system at present in operation, I think there is very little hope of ever getting that land planted. I suggest that that land ought to be planted and that we should not be approach the matter from an economic point of view at all. The preservation of timber in the country is a matter of wider consideration than the mere economic aspect of it. I think there is not sufficient inducement held out to local authorities to do anything in that respect.
So far as the private individual is concerned, there is no encouragement. The whole picture has changed in recent years since the farmer became the owner of his land and the big landlord disappeared. The old landlord, who controlled a very substantial estate and who thought that it was going to pass down in his family for generations was quite satisfied to plant and to improve the estate. To-day, the picture has changed completely. The smallholder has no interest at all in the matter when he knows that, if he wants to cut timber at any time, he has to have the sanction of the Minister. I feel, therefore, that there is very little hope of inducing the individual farmer to plant timber to any extent. I feel that the only way you can have these small plantations put in and cared for is by utilising the local authorities to the maximum.
The Minister is taking power and has power under the existing law to provide facilities in the way of loans and advances. One aspect of that again arises. If we are to do that, we ought to have cheap money. If money is advanced at 4 per cent. or over 4 per cent., and if the local authority has to wait 30 or 40 years to realise on the money invested, it means that there is a very substantial increase in the original outlay. If we are to make any real advance, I submit that the Minister should make every effort to convince the Minister for Finance that money should be advanced at the lowest possible rate and that we should provide a substantial subsidy for the local authorities and induce every local authority to be interested in planting small patches which are waste land at present. It will increase the beauty of the country and will have very definite advantages, apart altogether from the economic aspect.
I should like to know how many local authorities are really interested in afforestation, and how many have a forester in their service. I think they are very few, and I suggest that the Minister should examine the whole matter of inducing local authorities to take an interest in small woodlands in their respective administrative districts. If we are really interested in this problem of planting trees, we will make reasonable financial provision and will thereby get many local authorities interested, and get very useful work done. The Minister should also give the information, for which many Deputies have asked, as to the present position and the rate of expansion over a number of years past. We appreciate the difficulty with which the Minister was faced during the emergency years, particularly with regard to securing wire netting to keep out vermin. There is very little use in planting small young trees if you are unable to protect them from attack by vermin.
Another aspect of this problem is the aspect of research, in respect of which sufficient work has not been done. We are often told that a lot of land is not suitable for forestry purposes and we have been told time and time again that a reasonable degree of fertility is necessary to produce commercial timber and that there are certain lands whose condition makes them unsuited to forestry. Soils may be highly acid or deficient in certain things necessary for tree production. I admit that I have not read very much about it, but I remember reading of successes achieved in other countries through research. In a certain type of bog land, trees have been established by not digging any hole but merely planting the young tree on top of the turf and building turf around the roots. So far as acidity is concerned, we ought to try to correct that condition, just as we must correct it in agricultural land, and I should like to hear that a substantial sum of money is set aside for research purposes.
If we feel that we should not utilise agricultural land—even marginal land —which is suitable for the production of different classes of food—and if the Minister is of opinion that such land should not be utilised for forestry purposes, then we appreciate immediately that we are up against a problem. Land outside that class is land of a low degree of fertility, in which there are deficiencies which research and experimentation may get over to a very great extent, and I should like to hear from the Minister that his Department is paying attention to the matter of finding a solution of the difficulties which operate against the possibility of growing timber on land of that sort.
I should like to hear from him also what his programme is with regard to deciduous timber, because I think we have not done enough in the matter of hardwoods. There appears to be a general shortage—a shortage not merely in this country but in others— of hardwoods. The supplies of softwoods in the past have presented no great difficulty at all and a real world shortage will show up in hardwoods long before it is possible for it to show up in softwoods. I think we can produce, as a class, better hardwoods than softwoods in this country. That is only a personal opinion, but I think very little hardwood is planted by the Department and surely that does not show foresight or any attempt to anticipate what conditions are likely to be in the next 40 or 60 years. We realise—and I suppose this has had some effect on policy—that softwoods will come to maturity much earlier than hardwoods, and it is possible to cash in years earlier on the capital invested if forests are planted with softwoods than with hardwoods. Nevertheless, I think we should devote an increased proportion of the acreage planted annually to deciduous timber.
The Bill deals with some of the enemies of afforestation. One enemy has always been the fellow who wants to exploit a wood and not replace it, and I think the Minister is right in putting responsibility for replanting on the owner. Hereto fore, the policy has been to grant a licence for the felling of timber to a man who does not own the land, and, once he had cleared it, nothing could be done about it and it was not possible to compel the owner to replant. For this reason, the Minister is right in granting a felling licence only to the owner and compelling him to replant. We have examples all over the country of the tremendous slaughter of timber which took place, especially during the first great war, which has not been replaced even to this day. It has resulted in unsightly areas, and if we can avoid it in future by providing that wherever such slaughter takes place, the trees will be replaced at the earliest possible moment, it will be a step in the right direction.
In that connection, I would expect the Minister to inform the House of the amount of slaughter which took place during the recent emergency and of what is the position so far as replacement, the nursery position, is concerned. Has the Department expanded the nurseries in anticipation of an expanded scheme of planting immediately wire and other materials become available, the shortage of which hampered activities during the emergency? The Minister should be more vigorous in his attitude and his policy on afforestation. I am not, however, one of the enthusiasts who are boiling over with enthusiasm and who put forestry before anything else. I put the production of food and other matters before forestry, but I still think that much more could be done.
Section 9 empowers the Minister to make advances by way of grant or loan and to give advice. There again, I think there is very little propaganda. I have never seen a leaflet from the Department as propaganda for the planting of trees. Money spent on that sort of propaganda might induce private individuals to take part. I have not much hope of the private owner doing very much, as the whole situation has changed completely from that of 50, 60 or 100 years ago. However, a certain amount of propaganda should be done by the Department to encourage individuals to plant trees. There is no use in stressing the economic aspect, since the planting of timber is very valuable in itself, apart altogether from the economic aspect.
The Minister is taking power to extinguish existing rights over forest lands, even in the case of land that he acquires at present or in the future for forestry purposes. This problem of rights-of-way is a very difficult one, and I can appreciate the anxiety of the Department to eliminate trespassing and the damage that might be done by people passing through forests. I appreciate that the Bill provides for appeals from the Land Commission to an appeals tribunal, but hardships might definitely occur where the Minister extinguishes a right. Where there is a number of interests involved, the Minister can acquire land by agreement and, where there may be one individual with a right-of-way, holding up the agreement, the Minister is taking power to extinguish that right. I believe that the Minister should not press for the extinguishing of that right, if there is any hardship involved.
In the same way, in the question of providing facilities for a temporary right-of-way over a farm, for the purpose of removing timber from a forest, it may be that, from the Department's point of view, those facilities may be of advantage or may be absolutely essential, as there may be no other access to the public road. However, as a farmer, I can appreciate that very considerable damage could be done to a farm adjoining a forest, especially if the timber were removed over soft ground in the winter time. The men would simply cart all over the place and there would be very considerable damage to property. I would not like to be the owner of a farm adjoining a forest where a considerable quantity of timber had to be removed across my place. I would anticipate a tremendous amount of damage being done. I suppose there is no alternative, but great caution should be exercised in the granting of facilities of this sort. There may be a long and difficult approach to a wood by a lane, in very bad condition, while at the other side of the wood there may be a field belonging to a local farmer, intervening between the road and the forest. There will be a tendency, in a case like that, to look for facilities to cross the field, instead of attempting to use the difficult approach by the lane on the other side.
I do not like all the facilities the Minister is looking for here. I admit that fairly elaborate provision is made to assess compensation and that, where the owner is not satisfied, he has a right to appeal. I am very doubtful whether the Land Commission are the right people to assess and fix compensation. The Minister paid great tribute to the capacity of the Land Commission and said, in column 1601:
"The Land Commission is the most competent and most independent body in this country to assess the value of land of the type with which we are concerned in this Bill."
The Land Commission confiscated a lot of land in the 30's, in the last decade, they took any amount of very valuable land from individuals in this country, and paid them little or no compensation.