Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1955

Vol. 153 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Acquisition of Land for Afforestation—Motion.

Mr. Blaney

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion (a) that the legal machinery for the acquisition of land for afforestation is inadequate and that legislation to expedite acquisition should forthwith be introduced; and (b) that the policy for the Forestry Branch of the Department of Lands should be so directed that a greater proportion of its activities should be concentrated in the congested areas.

I and many members of my Party have for a considerable time been of the opinion that this motion is one which should be enshrined in the legislation of this House. One of the principal reasons for tabling the motion is that our experience of the workings of the Forestry Branch in the past has been that, in many cases along the western seaboard and in the West of Ireland generally, land suitable for afforestation has been land in the nature of commonage held by more than one person, unfenced and undivided. The result has been that very often, although the Department of Lands is agreeable to taking the land and the majority of the tenants are prepared to part with the land because of the benefit that would accrue to them by virtue of an afforestation scheme, a few interested parties in that commonage object and the fact that one, or more, object means that the scheme is immediately knocked on the head.

We all agree that a great deal can be done for the West and for the undeveloped areas generally through afforestation. Many, many schemes have been tried, and much thought has been given by the Department and successive Governments to the problem of providing work for the people in the West and in the congested areas. Many schemes have been mooted. Much money has been expended. But the one thing that can be done and the one thing that, if done, will prove a success is reafforestation. We have the land. We have the people to work the scheme. Everything is in our favour. Yet, while we are bending our energies in other directions and implementing other schemes for the relief of congestion in order to give employment in these areas, we have never given afforestation the place it should hold in our economy.

One of the chief reasons for our failure is that, irrespective of the attitude of the Department of Lands or whatever Minister may be in office, no great progress can be made in the West, where progress is most needed, unless there is a change in existing legislation in relation to the acquisition of land and the taking over of commonages. I have experience of what happens. There may be 20 tenants on a hill suitable for afforestation. Two of those tenants may be running 500 or 1,000 head of sheep each. The other 18 have no sheep. The 18 who have got nothing and are paying some rent and possibly some rates in respect of their portion of that holding, that mountain or hill, will, as soon as approached by the Minister's officials, agree to sell out their interest for a small figure per acre. But as soon as you approach the other two or three who have got the 500 or the 1,000 head of sheep there, you will find they will never, under present law, give their consent to taking a very good annual income from them for a small sum of money.

In getting around to doing this job, we must have some thoughts for the rights even of the few who have in the past been standing in the way of the progress of the forestry schemes. I believe that one way in which we could tackle the problem would be that we should regard the tenants of any commonage in much the same way as we would regard the members or the directors of a company, that it would be by the vote of a percentage, a percentage naturally greater than half, of those holders or tenants. If they indicated their willingness to part then the others should be bound by the majority rule.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I am afraid that that is not a good comparison.

Mr. Blaney

I am putting it to the Minister merely as something that I suggest should be worked. I am holding that if ten people own something and eight of them say: "We will sell at a fixed price", the other two should not be allowed to stand in the way of the progress of the country and of our afforestation schemes for their own personal gain. Whether the comparison I have made gets home to the Minister or not, is not really material. I think he understands what I am trying to get at and I believe that he appreciates the difficulty because he must have come up against this same difficulty himself during his present term of office and in his last term there also.

Another point is that apart from the specific question of acquiring commonages and asking that legislation be brought in to enable it to be taken over more easily, there is also in this motion a suggestion that the policy of the Department in future should be that a greater proportion of the afforestation programme should be concentrated in the congested areas. In the past we have had forestry schemes established and now flourishing in areas that were not congested. We have had lands planted that could have been better used for tillage or grazing or lands that could have been divided among land hungry people along the western seaboard.

It might be all very well to have that situation obtaining if we had already planted all the land which is not very much good for anything else. at the same time we should have planted in the areas giving the greatest amount of benefit by virtue of their employment potential. We have not been doing that. All we have to do is to go down the east coast and have a look at some of the very fine afforestation schemes or down to the Midlands and see exactly the same thing. I agree that afforestation is very good anywhere in a country such as ours where we have got so little of it and where so much is needed, but it should not be carried out on the better lands of the country or in the areas that are not congested. I strongly advocate that in future the policy of the Forestry Branch of the Department of Lands should be directed towards the extension of afforestation along the western seaboard from Donegal to Kerry.

Great unemployment exists there and much emigration takes place year in and year out, in addition to which there is much migration as well. We can do something permanent there through afforestation. We can do it by concentrating our energies there. We can acquire land on the other hand by changing our legislation so as to enable the Department to acquire these commonages which form a great part of the total plantable land available in the western regions.

I would appeal to the Minister and to the Government to take heed of this motion, to accept it and to accept it wholeheartedly, knowing that in doing so they are doing something that will help in the general direction of enriching our country, providing employment, and reducing emigration. Very likely, as the forest regions spread throughout the West, the climate of that part of the country may well be affected and affected in a way advantageous to other lands adjacent to these forests. At this stage no one can give any definite indication as to the benefits of that work, but I think it can be taken fairly definitely for granted that if we can plant some of our rather steep hillsides surrounding some fertile valleys we will have in the West in the future less flooding of this fertile land in the lower regions.

We may also affect the climate in a way that may improve the fertility of that land and improve its production. If our forestry schemes can give us not only the benefits of the labour absorbed, trees producing timber that may be usefully used in the future, the establishment of factories for the manufacture, possibly, of pulp for paper production or other kindred articles, but in addition can improve the fertility of our small valleys of good land and improve their production, then surely that is a double reason why we should go all out to get the Government, the Department and the Forestry Branch in particular so geared as to enable them to go into the West and do something really worth while about planting there.

What we have been doing in the past has been quite good work. The number of acres planted each year is certainly a contribution but so little have we as a total at the moment and so great is the amount we still require and could usefully use, that we should be able to step up our production twofold and threefold. It would be no harm if we could step it up fourfold. That cannot be done unless we tap the resources of the suitable land in the West. Otherwise we must use, as has been used in the past, some of our fertile land, some of our land that could be better used in directions other than planting.

I want the Minister then to call to mind his own county where he knows conditions exist that I am trying to outline. They exist in his county as they do in mine and in several other counties in the West-large tracts of land unsuitable for anything much other than planting. There are large areas where there is congestion, no employment and no hope of employment in the future. All the talk of factories being established to absorb that unemployed labour is very nice and well but, by and large, the amount that can be done to absorb all the labour in the West and in the congested areas is so very little that far greater results would be obtained if afforestation were pushed ahead, as it should be. Something really worth while would then be done for the people of the West and, in addition, it would be a national asset.

I cannot understand why all the energies have been bent towards other areas and why so little has been done in the West, the part of the country where tree culture could be carried on so successfully, where the land and the people are available and where everything is in our favour. We should give to the Forestry Division the power to acquire land where the greater of the tenants are agreeable to sell their commonage.

I shall conclude by asking the Minister to regard this motion as a help to him as a Minister, within his own Government and Cabinet, an aid to get better and greater facilities in acquiring the lands about which I speak. We are putting the motion to the Minister in that way and not in any way for the purpose of vote-catching or of criticism. We are putting it as a help to him; we are asking him to meet us in that way and to accept it. If he does I believe much good will come of it now and in the future.

Mr. Derrig

I should like to second this motion. We had hoped that the Minister would have introduced his proposals before this. He put the Bill on the Order Paper before the recess, and we were led to believe that in a short time the House would have the Bill in hands and that we would know what the Minister's proposals were.

The question of extending the work of afforestation in the congested counties has been occupying our attention on this side of the House for some time. I am in the position that I am familiar with the difficulties and the case that can be made that a certain procedure has to be followed and certain matters observed in the acquisition of land and in proceeding with the afforestation programme generally. There is a general feeling, not confined to this side of the House, that more energetic steps ought to be taken to develop afforestation. Deputies who hold that view feel that the afforestation programme provides some solution, perhaps not a complete solution, to the question of unemployment and the solution of the emigration problem.

There arises also the question of the exhaustion of peat resources during the coming generation. Both from the short-term point of view, as regards the giving of employment and the providing of opportunities in the West, and from the long-term point of view of building up our national resources as far as possible, we ought to ensure that, when a shortage of our peat resources occur, the people of the West, who depend to such a large extent on it for fuel, will have an alternative which will make up to some extent for any shortage of turf.

In following Deputy Blaney, I have only to say that Deputies representing western constituencies know that the progress of land acquisition has been very slow in certain areas. Even in those areas, where some advances have been made and a good deal of progress recorded, the vexed question of commonages arises. In counties like Mayo, Roscommon and Galway the intake of land is very far short of requirements, if we are to make any substantial advances in the provision of employment.

When Mr. Cameron wrote his report on the development of afforestation, he emphasised that in order to make forestry work really profitable and economical the blocks of afforested land should be up to 3,000 or 4,000 acres in extent. In fact, even in the oldest established forest in this country, we scarcely reach those figures, although we are there for more than 30 years. Efforts have been made for a great part of that time to build them up further. It is suggested by those who have an intimate knowledge of counties like Mayo that the difficulties arising in acquiring commonages are in great part the cause of the slowness in regard to acquisition. I know that Deputy Moran, who, is unfortunately absent as he did not expect the motion to come forward this evening, has a great deal of experience in the matter and believes that large numbers of holdings have become practically derelict, the greater number of the owners being in America.

If not, they are being let year after year for a long period of years. The question arises as to whether that state of affairs is to be allowed to continue or whether steps should not be taken, without any injury to the rights of the owners, who probably are not in this country at all, to devise means by which lands which are either derelict or being let year after year should be made available to the acquisition branch of the Forestry Department.

The Minister has the advantage of the liaison that exists with the Irish Land Commission and the experience they have had in framing legislation of the type whereby tenants were given the benefits of the vesting of their holdings, although the actual legal vesting of the land in the tenants did not take place for some time afterwards. It should be possible to enable the Forestry Division to go ahead with the acquisition of lands which are not being used for agricultural purposes, and in whose development otherwise there is no great interest. It should be possible to devise means whereby the rights of those people would not be made void, but whereby the Land Commission of the Forestry Branch would go ahead and acquire the lands and start the work which the House and the country expect them to do in these areas.

I mentioned in the debates on the annual Estimates that there should be a more detailed survey made of these areas. In the West of Ireland, there are areas like Slieveaugty where there are some plantations and valuable stands for timber at the present time; areas like Tourmakeady-Leenane, and the Ox Mountains where it seemed to be possible to acquire land, if the will and anxiety that exists on the part of all Parties in the House could be translated into action through the policy of the Government and the operations of the Forestry Branch, particularly the acquisition officers.

Apart from the question of employment and the question of providing a reserve of fuel, there is also the question of the future of afforestation work when the timber now planted matures. Whether one regards it from the point of view of the planting operations, or the thinning operations, or the felling operations and the possibility of the establishment of a pulp industry in due course, one realises that the larger the areas that can be dealt with, the better, particularly now that we are depending on mechanical means for drainage and preparation of these inferior lands on which the Forestry Branch has largely to depend. It seems clear that, if we are to make the fullest use of that machinery, we should endeavour to have much larger areas to work on.

During my time in the Department, I found that year by year the average acreage per transaction for the acquisition of land was declining. That was because we were depending on the acquisition of isolated mountain holdings. As I have said before in this House, the acquisition of a holding of 30 or 40 acres was just as troublesome, in the amount of the inspectors' time involved and from the point of view of legal procedure, as the acquisition of an estate of some thousands of acres. It was with a realisation of the difficulty of making progress if we were to continue along that line that I suggested a systematic survey of those areas which, in my view, are very important from the point of view of afforestation. Of course, they are not confined to the West. There are areas like the Devil's Bit, for example, and there are areas in Donegal and Leitrim where there seemed to be greater willingness to meet the acquisition officers and to come to terms. In fact, Donegal and Leitrim were entitled, from what I have seen, to a high priority in the attention that should be given by the Forestry Branch to particular areas. It seemed as if progress was being made, as if it was not too difficult to come to terms with mountain or other tenants in those areas.

Even if the legislation which the Minister proposes deals with the question of title in some such manner as he has indicated, more will be necessary. Therefore, I suggested that, in addition to the survey of lands that are said to be available and the Plantable Survey, these areas should be zoned or scheduled and mentioned in the legislation as being areas which, in the opinion of the State and of the Executive, are potential forest lands. That would mean that the attention of the Minister and of the Forestry Branch would necessarily have to be directed to those particular areas.

At the present time, it must be confessed, the work of the Forestry Branch is made very difficult, if not impossible, by the fact that their activities are spread over such a large number of comparitively small centres, and, furthermore, that the searches for land have to be in the nature of hit and miss, rather too haphazard. The principle of compulsory acquisition does not seem to commend itself to the House. The Plantable Survey is quoted extensively, without due regard to the fact that the figure mentioned of 1,250,000 acres, or whatever it may have been, was the result of a rather rough survey of possible forest land and was not based on any close examination or research, parish by parish, of lands that might come into the hands of the Forestry Branch. It was simply a general survey as to the possibilities.

When the agricultural position of the country was discussed in former years, we generally spoke of 12,000,000 acres of arable land, but, if my memory serves me aright, when the compulsory tillage regulations were in operation, it was found that, in the best view of the Department of Agriculture, in face of the emergency, we had to take a lower figure of something in the nature of 10,000,000 acres of arable land.

In the same way if we come down to an exact appreciation of the situation, so far as land available for forestry in the different districts is concerned, having regard to the fact that lands that heretofore were not considered even potentially arable are now being made arable through the operations of the land project and through the work of the farming community, it seems to me that there is bound to be a reduction in these figures.

The Plantable Survey presumably included a great deal of mountain land that on close examination might be considered to be entirely uneconomic and unplantable. In the newspapers to-day, there is a letter from a legal gentleman in the West of Ireland stating that of a fairly large parcel of mountain land, which he was able to offer the Forestry Branch, they considered that only a comparatively small proportion of it was plantable or economic from their point of view.

All these factors must be taken into consideration. As I have said, the Plantable Survey was not done parish by parish or in a very close way from the point of view of examining in each district the actual possibilities. A great deal of the land mentioned therein might be of the type the Forestry Branch are refusing every day or which, when they do take it over as part of a large block, find that up to 20 per cent. is unplantable.

It is for that reason I would again ask the Minister to consider my suggestion of scheduling these areas where we know there are large tracts of land, and of considering asking the Forestry Branch to devote special attention to them in order that in the next 15 or 20 years comparatively large forests may be built up. I think it will be necessary to do that whatever amending legislation the Minister may propose in regard to the title of commonages or title of those isolated mountain holdings which are giving such a great deal of trouble at the present time.

Mr. S. Collins

We all welcome generally in principle any motion tending to make possible the speedier afforestation of the country. Much time has gone by that could have been utilised. The legislation now sought for in this motion, and some time ago promised by the Minister, should come before us with all due dispatch so that we can put it into effect and solve whatever difficulties the Minister has found in relation to commonage and certain isolated type of holdings where continued difficulties have existed in relation to title.

When speaking on the main Estimate for Forestry, I said I felt that we were doing too much talking and far too little work. I am still of that opinion. We have got to approach this matter realistically. On all sides of the House we talk with sanctimonious concern particularly for the people of the Gaeltacht, the congested districts and the people in the fastnesses of a county such as I represent and right along the Western seaboard and in parts of Kerry. There is no doubt that the realist, looking at the problem, will appreciate that if forestry had moved in there about a generation ago, we would have within those areas now substantial industry because I do not suppose that there is any more fruitful raw material for industry than wood.

When one envisages the tremendous diversity of manufacturing processes of which the raw material is wood, one has to ask oneself seriously the question whether we have ever been in earnest in our concern for those areas. We know that much of the area we are dealing with is not ever likely to be in the highly-rated arable class land or in any of us who approach this problem in any reasonable state of mind knows that if we had adequate forests throughout the areas to which this motion refers we would now be running into the period when we might be able to eliminate importing many of the goods that come in yearly to this country.

As long as I am a member of the Dáil I shall keep on insisting that we get more and more forests planted. I do not want in any way to discredit the effort that is being made by the Forestry Department. On analysis, we find that in the course of the past five, six or seven years expansion has been rapid and continuous but it is the very fact of what we were able to do in a short period of years that forces us to press for still greater development.

You can go through the import list any time you like and there readily available for your information you will see the millions and millions of pounds spent annually on the import of various wood products or wood byproducts. When one considers the immense difficulty of the problem of the Gaeltacht and the congested districts, one gets impatient that there are not forests now coming to hand that could be a source of gainful employment for people within the area with the assurance of continuity as replanting became necessary and continuity of supply of raw materials as industry developed.

I do not suppose that anybody in this House will cavil at the Minister getting powers to enable him to use land suitable for forests if he pays a reasonable price. I think nobody in this House will cavil at simplifying the machinery of acquisition or simplifying the machinery whereby his Department can find title. I want to see industry developed in this country as much as possible from raw materials that we can produce within this country. There is no doubt at all that the more forests we put down the greater will be the supply of raw materials for a myriad wood products.

I am not at all in favour of over-scheduling anything. I would be far more in favour of trying to step-up the procedure of the Department to get a larger and wider intake than trying in any way to involve it in the difficulties of scheduled priority because it may well be that, in the scheduled priority system, difficulties might hold up something in the priority group and aggravate a situation where the Department might have been able to go ahead in other areas which were not on the priority schedule.

It is only a few weeks since the Minister opened the forestry centre at Glengariff and since then—I am quite sure the Minister will confirm what I am saying—the impetus that has been given to the offering of land in that whole area is extraordinary. People down there now feel that the Forestry Department are in earnest and that, if they offer them their land, they will take it and do something with it. That is a simple little answer to the Minister's problem. The Minister will find that, as rapidly as he can set up worthwhile forestry centres, the problem of getting land for forestry will ease itself. People will see the practical working of it in their areas, and, at the same time, they will give their neighbours the incentive to offer land which they feel the Department will take.

I am going to support this motion. I believe the Minister should accept it in the spirit in which it is moved, as something to give him a further earnest of the unanimity and goodwill that is on all sides of the House for a forward impetus in relation to afforestation. I said in this House—other Deputies also said it; I listened to Deputies MacBride saying it—let the Minister bring in to the House the legislation he contemplates. Let him come to this House to ask what support he wants in his drive for forestry and he will find an ever-increasing feeling of goodwill, if he shows an earnest of forward movement.

We have got to face basic facts. Apart from what we can produce on the land or the harvest we can reap from the sea, the most practical and the most reasonable avenue of development is afforestation. Not only will it enhance the beauty of the countryside, but it will be an ever-increasing valuable national asset. We invest money in this State in all kinds of development. People can watch from year to year timber growing to maturity, knowing that, as it matures, it will provide worth while raw material for industry. It will give immense employment and, at the same time, it will start again the cycle of replanting.

There is all that potential available. It is not a fairy tale or a pipe dream. The work has been done in the Scandinavian countries and in the Black Forest areas of Germany. It is something which has been done in all wooded countries where there have been built up substantial pulping industries, match-making industries, box-making industries and subsidiary industries from all the various byproducts of wood down to charcoal. I tell to the Minister to come into this House any time he likes and he will get support, as long as he shows a real earnest of his desire to get the work done. The sooner this work is done, the sooner will we find ourselves in a position in certain parts of the Gaeltacht and the congested districts to do something lasting and enduring to keep the people within their own areas employed in industry.

Mr. MacBride

It is needless for me to say that I agree with everything Deputy Collins said, as, indeed, I agree with the terms of this motion. I think it would be superfluous at this stage to reiterate all the arguments that can be advanced in favour of forestry. Suffice it to say that, as far as agricultural employment is concerned, forestry is the only form of additional employment which is open. From the point of view of increasing the productivity of the country and of increasing the national income, forestry is the readiest source from which we can produce industrial raw materials that can provide the raw materials necessary for the building of numberless secondary industries.

All these things are so obvious that they do not need to be restated at this stage of our history. I am glad to see that there now appears to be a realisation on all sides that a greater degree of importance must be attached to forestry. What worries me, what disheartens me, though, is the lack of progress. It is six years now since it was decided that there should be an annual plantation rate of 25,000 acres. That is the target which the present Minister accepts. We are very far short of that target. I gather that the highest hopes of the Minister this year are that 15,000 acres will be planted— which is 10,000 acres short of the target which is agreed upon as being the minimum annual plantation rate.

Numberless different excuses over the past 20 years have been offered by successive Ministers for the lack of progress. We were told on occasions that it was lack of barbed wire; we were told there were too many rabbits; we were told there were not enough skilled foresters. I remember, I think, on one occasion that some statement was issued, in reply to some criticism that I had dared to advance, that they could not get enough axes. That is quite so; that was put forward, I remember, as one of the reasons for lack of progress at one stage during the war —as if you needed axes to buy land and plant trees. Now we are told that it is because we cannot buy the land, because there are too many difficulties in acquiring land. We were told that last year; we were told it early this year. The Minister announced as far back as last April his intention of introducing a Bill that would facilitate land acquisition. We were told in April or May—I am not quite certain of the month—that the Bill was on its way, that it was cluttered up in the parliamentary draftsman's office. This is the month of November, we have not seen that Bill yet. Where is the Bill? When are we going to see the Bill? What is the Bill going to contain? I am impatient and I think public opinion in the country is impatient.

Deputy Collins has said that he hoped that the Minister would accept this motion. I agree with that. I hope the Minister will accept it, as I accept it. Deputy Collins went on to say that he hoped the Minister would accept it in the spirit in which it was offered. There I disagree with Deputy Collins. The motion is offered by Deputy Derrig and some of his colleagues who, for 20 years, sat back and did not introduce such a Bill. I hope it will not be accepted by the Minister in the same spirit. I hope he is not going to accept this motion and then sit back in his office for another 20 years and allow forestry to dawdle in the way it has been dawdling.

We are not here discussing anything other than the subject of the motion. I am not going to level a certain amount of criticism that I feel should be levelled at the way in which forestry is run. I am going to confine my remarks to the motion. The motion was tabled, I think, as soon as the Minister announced that he intended to introduce a Bill. We could all accept that motion, but what I want, and what I think the country wants, is the Bill itself. What we want is some action. I would suggest, if this course is acceptable to the movers of the motion, that we should adjourn the further consideration of this motion until we get the Bill and we should insist on getting from the Minister to-night a date-line by which that Bill is going to be presented to the House.

The Dáil is doing practically nothing these days. I gather we will finish the business to-night and not even sit tomorrow. If whoever is responsible for that Bill—whether it is the Minister's Department or the parliamentary draftsman, or someone else—had been doing his job, we could pass that Bill in this House to-morrow. We could have passed it a week ago, a fortnight or a month ago. Could I impress upon the Government and upon the Minister that those of us who have a clear conception of the economic difficulties of this country are losing patience, when the Government and the Departments responsible fail to take the obvious remedies that are open to us to deal with at least a certain percentage of our economic problems?

I am not going to say any more to-night. I have already indicated, and I indicate it again, that, as far as I am concerned, I do not mind if it is necessary to bring down this Government— I will bring it down unless I find that a more serious attitude is adopted in regard to forestry. I am in deadly earnest about that, because, in my view, the lack of progress in forestry is largely responsible for a big slice of the unemployment and emigration problems from which we are suffering.

I know that the Minister himself is anxious that progress should be made, and I would like to compliment the Minister on the progress that has been made, but it is still 10,000 acres a year short of what it should be. I know that many of the problems which confront the Minister—and I am sure confront the Minister for Lands—do not arise from lack of interest, but merely from a difficulty in getting the slow wheels of the departmental machinery to turn. If it was agreed as far back as April or May last that such a Bill was necessary, if the Minister was able to tell us last April or May what was going to be in the Bill, what excuse is there for not having the Bill before the House now? It is a matter of urgency and the country regards it as a matter of urgency.

Debate adjourned.