Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 46—Forestry.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £90,250 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Forestry (No. 13 of 1946 and No. 6 of 1956), including a Grant-in-Aid for Acquisition of Land.

This Supplementary Estimate of £90,250 comprises heads of over-expenditure under Subhead B—Travelling Expenses—requiring an extra £9,000, Subhead C.2—Forest Development and Management—needing £137,000 and Subhead F—Agency, Advisory and Special Services—where an additional £4,000 is required.

Extra expenditure on travelling is due to the accelerated tempo of work in the field by foresters and inspectors. Extra inspectors were recruited during the year for acquisition work and additional travelling expenses have arisen from advisory work in connection with the private planting campaign.

The anticipated over-expenditure of £137,000 under Subhead C.2 arises primarily from additional labour charges amounting to £83,000 and additional spending of £70,000 on purchase of road materials. With regard to the anticipated excess on labour, the position is that average employment in the current financial year will turn out at a figure slightly in excess of 4,800 men whereas the original Estimate provided for a figure somewhat less than 4,800. Moreover, the level of production of labour under the Incentive Bonus Scheme now in course of application to all the forests in the country has been higher than was anticipated at the time of framing of the Estimate.

This means in effect that the men are being paid more and more work is being done. It represents a reduction in production costs but the cost per-man-employed has, of course, in consequence risen beyond the figure originally anticipated. A further factor contributing towards the excess cost of labour is the wage increase of 7/6 per week effective from the 2nd January, 1960, which has been granted in response to trade union demands; this increase is costing £22,000 in the current year.

Approximately £70,000 extra, that is, a total expenditure of £155,000 for the year, will be spent on road materials. Advantage was taken of the very favourable weather last summer to make outstanding progress with construction of new roads and in the first six months of the year, a greater yardage was done than in the whole of the previous year. We have for some years past been running in arrears with our road construction programme and the progress made towards overtaking that work is very welcome.

Further increased spending on subhead C.2 arises from the purchase of fencing materials which will cost this year about £16,000 more than anticipated. Our purchases of fencing materials for the past few years have been cushioned by the fact that we held a substantial reserve of netting wire but we have now come to the end of our stocks and increased purchases have had to be made during the year. There are other minor items of saving and excess within the subhead which combine to produce a net figure of £137,000 in excess of the original provision for C.2.

Excess spending of £4,000 on subhead F—Agency, Advisory and Special Services—arises from the continuing need to retain the services of a consultant in connection with the application of the Incentive Bonus Scheme.

These items of over-expenditure are off-set in part by savings on other subheads amounting to £10,250. Allowance can also be made for an additional revenue of £49,500 under subhead H—Appropriations in Aid. There is an increase of £37,000 expected under the head for sales of timber making a total provision for the year of £317,000 for this head. The demand for Irish timber during the past 12 months has proved very satisfactory and it is obvious that an increased output of timber in constructional sizes, if available, would meet a very favourable market.

There is now a readier acceptance of Irish timber by the building trade who are coming to recognise that the Irish-grown product, properly handled and seasoned, is equal to any of the imported grades. That is a heartening development and we may look forward to the time when the great bulk of the trade's requirements can be met from Irish grown stocks.

Another significant item contributing to our additional receipts is the head of Miscellaneous Receipts which is expected to bring in a total of £18,000 for the year, £11,500 in excess of the original Estimate. This additional revenue flows mainly from the sale of surplus plants. Favourable conditions in our nurseries for germination and growth over the past few years have combined to produce surpluses of various species which have been made available for sale to the nursery trade. We have thus been able to ensure that private planters have been able to obtain from the trade their full requirements of plants for the current season. I understand that demands for plants this year have been on an unprecedented scale and I look forward in due time, when the figures for acreages planted become available, to reporting further increases in the scale of private planting.

The target for the State planting programme this season is 25,000 acres and there is every indication that the target will be fully achieved.

The Minister is very tame—I might say he is almost down-in-the-mouth—in introducing this Supplementary Estimate. The Minister, or at least his Department, have every reason to be proud of the fact that 25,000 acres are to be planted next year. It is a pretty huge undertaking and something to be proud of. It is not something to be stuck into two lines at the very end of the Minister's speech. It is something which the country should know about and which should get very favourable publicity. The fact that 4,800 men are employed is also something to be proud of. I want to tell the Minister that the forestry section of his Department is the only employer of manual labour in the State on such a scale. If many other Departments had the same employment facilities for the ordinary working man, the ships carrying our youth across-channel would not be getting so much custom.

Under Subhead C.2 the Minister is looking for £137,000 and savings on other parts of the subhead amount to £34,000. I want to know where these savings come in. The Minister should have given us the answer at once in his brief. I expect it is on nurseries. If so, how? I do not see any other subhead where such savings could be made. One thing that surprised me was the amount spent on "road materials". What are "road materials"?

Mainly gravel and stone. This figure, I understand, also includes pipes and bridge material for bridges erected in the past year.

A hangover from last year's work?

No. An expert bridge builder was lent to the Forestry Section of my Department and a considerable amount of road-making and bridge-building went on as a result. This figure represents not alone gravel, stone and such material, but also pipes and some bridge material and concrete.

Access roads to forests are just as essential as the forests themselves. Even a schoolboy knows that there is no sense in planting a forest miles away from a road, without providing some means of getting out the thinnings, and later on, the mature timber. Proper roads through a forest are as much part of a good forest as fencing and the trees themselves and I am only too glad to see that the road-making arrears existing for the past 25 or 30 years are now being overtaken.

The Minister has told us that 4,800 men are employed now. I remember that during the last year I was in office, 4,500 men were working and at that time, the planting programme had reached the 17,500 acre mark per annum. I presume that 22,500 acres will be put down in the present planting season and, if so, I am disappointed that a greater number of men have not been put to work. Without straying too far from the Estimate, I would like to say that this Government—and it is true of all Governments—are not spending enough of the revenue that comes to them on the employment of working men, if only for the purpose of stopping emigration and trying to give a living to a few more young men in their own country.

In that connection, I am disappointed that the planting programme at present in full swing, the programme inaugurated by the first inter-Party Government, is not giving employment to more men. I had hoped that it would give work to about 6,000 men.

I note that the Minister, further on in his speech, tells us that this year £155,000 will be spent on road materials. When he is replying, perhaps he might tell us what mileage of roads is being made? Also, has there been a complete departure from the system obtaining when I was Minister, of using materials readily available on forest sites, thus giving employment to forestry labourers? I am speaking of gravel and stones and I should like to know if these are now being purchased from outside the forests and lorried in. It would appear to me that there would be an economy in using materials available on forest sites, and there is hardly any forest which has not got these materials, except, of course, concrete, steel, and pipes for culverts.

I also note that fencing material will cost £16,000 more than anticipated and I take it that is because there was a running out of the stocks acquired five, six or seven years ago at the time of the Korean war scare. Is that so?

Partly—only partly.

The Minister also stated:

Excess spending of £4,000 on Subhead F—Agency, Advisory and Special Services—arises from the continuing need to retain the services of a consultant in connection with the application of the Incentive Bonus Scheme.

I welcomed the Incentive Bonus Scheme which Deputy Childers introduced when he was Minister for Lands, but it certainly gives me a bit of a shock to find £4,000 being spent for the services of a consultant. The Minister also tells us, in regard to the Incentive Bonus Scheme, that it means in effect that the men are being paid more and that more work is being done.

I want to put it straight to the Minister: is it a fact that fewer men are being employed and that the lesser number are drawing more wages just because they are fewer in number? If that is the case, and if we are paying £4,000 to a man to tell us how to run that type of scheme, I think it is a dreadful kind of economy to effect. I should like to see that £4,000 spent on giving work to men who possibly might not be giving as great an output of work as some of their colleagues in the game, because I do not see what we gain by spending perhaps more money to get the same amount of work done, and have fewer men to do it. I am completely disappointed with the picture the Minister has revealed and I think what we are doing is making progress backwards instead of forwards.

When I was in charge of the Department, one of my principal objectives in expanding forestry was to give greater employment and to stem the running tide of emigration as much as I could. I admit, however, that all the men that forestry could employ would only plug a small hole, as far as emigration is concerned. Even if 6,000 were employed, we would still be exporting 40,000 of our youngsters each year, but I believe that giving forestry work was a move in the right direction.

One of the reasons the Local Authorities (Works) Act was brought in during the régime of the first inter-Party Government, one of the reasons the Land Project was introduced, and one of the reasons the arterial drainage scheme—which, incidentally, had been hung up for four or five years—was put into operation was that it was the idea of all Ministers in the inter-Party Government to provide more employment.

Now I must confess that I am frankly disappointed with the picture the Minister has just given us. By this time, I should have thought another 1,000 men would have been employed in forestry. If, at the same time, the Incentive Bonus Scheme has resulted in a lessening of employment, and forestry is costing the State just as much as it cost previously, I fail to see where economy lies. As I have said, when Deputy Childers introduced that scheme, I thought it would lead to a better quality work and, perhaps, a greater output, but I did not visualise that it would have the effect of reducing the number of men employed, nor did I think it would cost £4,000 to pay a man to tell the Department how to run it.

Will the Minister tell us how the savings of £34,000 were made on "other parts" of Subhead C.2? He has told us at the end of his speech that there has been a surplus in the various species of young transplants, and that these have been made available to the nursery trade from his Department. Does that mean that the private nurseries are not able, or are not growing enough on their own to meet private demands? If so, on what terms are private nurseries getting plants from the Department? What kind of arrangement exists between them?

Are any of the transplants exported, or is there any exchange at the present time between the British Forestry Commission, the Scottish Forestry Commission and the Irish Forestry Section of the Department of Lands such as took place in days gone by? Such exchanges produced a lot of useful information in the past, created good feeling between the groups I have mentioned, and generally did a lot of good. There is an increase of £37,000 expected under the head of sales of timber. Is that sales of standing timber, thinnings or sawn timber at the sawmills? Would the Minister tell us what it is?

Sales generally.

The £37,000 could be broken down a little finer than that.

I can do so if the Deputy needs it.

Will the Minister say which is the major sale? Is it sales of standing timber or sawn timber?

The Minister has made welcome reference to the fact that there is now a readier acceptance of Irish timber by the building trade who are coming to recognise that the Irish grown product, properly handled and seasoned, is equal to any of the imported grades. I wish to tell the Minister, without appearing to sound my own trumpet, that one of the difficulties I found early in 1948 was that there was no respect for Irish timber amongst the building trade. That was justifiable because at that time Irish timber was not properly presented. It went straight from the saw-bench to the dealer with the sap still running out of it, in contradistinction to foreign timber, which was properly seasoned.

One of the things I set about at that time—I am glad it has borne fruit even now—was to impress on the Forestry Department and on private timber merchants that it was absolutely necessary that Irish grown timber should be presented in proper condition. If that has taken effect even now, I am very proud. Prior to 1948, the handling of Irish grown timber was disgraceful. I had it on good authority from the trade that Irish grown timber, if properly handled, was as good as, if not better than, the imported product.

I hope the Minister will enlighten us on some of the points I have raised. The money spent on road materials seems high. However, I am in favour of having forests properly roaded. If roads are not made now in the forests, in some years' time we might have to bulldoze growing trees in order to make roads.

I should like to know how the savings on the other subheads have been effected and if the incentive bonus scheme is adversely affecting the number of men employed. With regard to the £4,000 paid for the advisory service in connection with the incentive bonus scheme, I suggest that that is putting the whole machine into reverse and certainly not the way in which I visualise the Forestry Department should be run.

Reading over the records of this House I cannot help recalling that when the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government embarked on a policy of afforestation they were criticised. That criticism came from the Party of the Minister for Lands. Yet he can come into the House today and boast that there is readier acceptance of Irish timber by the building trade, who are coming to recognise that the Irish grown product, properly handled and seasoned, is equal to any of the imported grades. Where did the timber used in the building trade today come from? Is it not only now that we are reaping the benefit, in the sales of timber, of the wise policy expounded in this House by the late Mr. Martin Roddy, when Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands? Afforestation does not give immediate dividends but repays doubly eventually.

The Minister for Lands boasts, and we on this side of the House are delighted to share in the boast, that there is Irish timber ready for the building trade today, well seasoned and in good condition. There are Deputies in the House today who remember that when the trees that are now being sold were being planted and which, it is the proud boast of the Minister, are second to none, the Minister and his Party saw fit to offer the severest possible criticism.

Would the Deputy quote me or my Party?

The Deputy was not in the Dáil at the time. I do not think the Minister was a member.

The Deputy might put up or shut up.

I can remember clearly that, from this side of the House, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party was criticised. We have had the second conversion in this day from the Minister.

Another invention from the Deputy.

He now admits that Irish timber is suitable in every respect for the building trade. We hope that trend will continue. It is the desire of everybody interested in forestry that, in so far as possible, Irish timber will be used in the building trade.

I was rather disappointed at the Minister's statement that there are only 4,800 men employed in forestry. I was eagerly awaiting the Minister's introductory statement and anticipated that he would tell us of an increase in the number employed. If there is one way in which employment can be provided, one way in which the Taoiseach's policy of providing employment can be implemented, it is afforestation. There are, according to the Minister, 4,800 men employed in forestry whereas we all know that forestry is capable of expansion to the stage where at least twice that number could be productively employed.

I want to express disappointment at the increased expenditure on travelling, which is stated to be due to the high gear in which the Department is working. I would not be honest if I did not pay very special tribute to the magnificent work that the Forestry Division are doing in my own constituency but I do not consider the dimensions satisfactory. There is great scope for development and extension.

The Minister for Lands states that the target for the State planting programme this season is 25,000 acres and that there is every indication that the target will be fully achieved. How was that made possible for the Minister? Was not that made possible because of the efforts of the inter-Party Government in putting legislation through the House that simplified the acquisition of land for forestry? Was not that mainly responsible? Is that not one of the main reasons why the Minister can tell us today that a target of 25,000 acres may be achieved? Is it not also true to say that forestry was at a standstill, that our forests were in a state of dire neglect, that no progress was made in the provision of employment or increased expenditure on forestry until the inter-Party Government made the first move in that direction? It is that move which is responsible for the progress for which the Minister now seems to claim credit. That progress mainly derived from the fact that the law was simplified so that the Forestry Division could acquire lands which otherwise it would have been impossible for them to acquire.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share