Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 1963

Vol. 203 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Forestry.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £2,074,300 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Forestry, including a Grant-in-Aid for Acquisition of Land.

The net Estimate shows an increase of £245,490 over the 1962/63 net Estimate figures as revised by Supplementary Estimates. The increases in the individual expenditure subheads are as follows:

Subhead C.2—

£

Forest Development and Management

126,400

Subhead C.1—

Acquisition of Land

50,000

Subheads A and B—

Salaries, Wages, Allowances and Travelling Expenses

42,390

Minor Expenditure Subheads

1,700

These figures account for an increase of £220,490 in the gross Estimate. The Estimate provision for Appropriations-in-Aid (Subhead G) is down by £250,000.

Deputies will be particularly interested in Subhead C.—Acquisition of Land, Subhead C.2—Forest Development and Management, Subhead G— Appropriations-in-Aid and Subhead D —Grants for Afforestation Purposes. I propose to refer briefly to the remaining Subheads of the Vote before dealing with these in detail.

Subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—shows an increase of £29,840 on the provision for 1962-63. The rise in requirements is due mainly to increases in the Inspectorate and Forester staff, together with the usual allowances for incremental increases. Subhead B—Travelling Expenses—is higher by £12,550 than the provision for 1962-63. Of this £10,000 represents the increased cost of travelling and subsistence expenditure. The steady increases in the area of State Forest and field staff requirements make a steady rise in the provision for travelling and subsistence inevitable. The remainder of the increase is spread over advertising, publicity, telephones and other miscellaneous expenses and calls for no special comment.

Subhead C.3—Sawmilling—shows an increase of £900. This Subhead provides for the operation of the Department's fixed sawmills at Cong and Dundrum. The rise includes provision for increased wage outgoings to workers at the mills. The provision for Forestry Education—Subhead E— is up by £800 of which £500 arises under general expenses of management. It is expected that in the current year there will be an average of 90 trainee foresters undergoing instruction at the Department's two training establishments. Subhead F—Agency, Advisory and Special Services—shows no change from the provision for last year. The provision under this head is intended to cover the re-engagement of an industrial consultant for short periods in connection with Incentive Bonus Schemes.

Since the Estimate was framed, the Department has formalised arrangements with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards for the initiation of a programme of testing of Irish grown timber in the Institute's laboratories. The programme agreed with the Institute is designed to establish the mechanical properties of the tree species grown on a considerable scale in Ireland. Reliable scientific data are necessary as a basis for determination of size specifications of structural timbers, working quality for joinery purposes, etc. The programme will, in due course, be co-ordinated with the Department's own research activities in connection with seed provenance and tree improvement. Deputies will be quick to realise the increasing importance of research of this kind to a large scale producer of timber like the Forestry Division. The Forestry Estimate in future years will include a provision of about £10,000 under this Subhead towards the cost of this programme. The tests will be starting immediately but for this year the contribution can be met by savings on other subheads of the Vote.

Turning now to Subhead C.I— Acquisition of Land—it will be noted that provision has been made for an increase of £50,000 under this head. The balance in the Grant-in-Aid Fund on 31st March, 1963 was £155,351 so that with the new grant of £320,000 sought there will be a total of £475,351 available for the purchase of land in 1963/64. The House will recall that during 1962/63 I sought an additional sum of £135,000 in a Supplementary Estimate in order to be in a position to meet certain particularly large commitments then in hands. In fact the more significant commitments in question had not matured by 31st March, and the money was, therefore, carried forward in the balance on the Grant-in-Aid Fund. Apart even from these big cases there was some slowing-down in the progress of negotiations and title clearance work in the closing stages of 1962/63 because of the prolonged disruption of normal life in rural areas due to weather conditions.

The gross total area acquired for State forestry purposes last year was 25,380 acres of which about 23,000 acres were plantable. This was acquired in 528 separate transactions giving an average productive area of 43.5 acres per transaction compared with an average productive area of 45 acres in 1961/62, 51 acres in 1960/61 and 67 acres in 1959/60. The progressive decline in the average size of acquisition to which I referred in previous years has, therefore, continued and inevitably added to the difficulties being encountered by my Department in its efforts to increase the plantable reserve.

The effective plantable reserve on 1st April, 1962 was 51,600 acres. The drain on this reserve to meet the 1962/63 planting programme was eased by the inclusion in the programme of some 1,700 acres of land formerly classified as unplantable and woodland cleared for replanting. With the addition of the plantable area of 23,000 acres acquired in 1962/63 the effective reserve on the 1st April, 1963 was virtually unchanged.

The overall plantable reserve position is still unsatisfactory and continues to give rise to management problems at many forest centres. Until this position can be substantially improved the policy objective of stabilisation of local forest employment cannot be attained.

Substantial progress has been made during the year in the advancement of difficult land acquisition cases being handled under the Forestry Act, 1956. Proceedings were brought to a successful conclusion in four cases involving an area of 2,725 acres. These cases are all very troublesome and time-consuming. In a current total of 368 commonages cases in hands 3,353 separate interests were involved of which 2,829 were on offer to the Department. Despite the difficulties involved price agreement had been reached at 31st March, 1963 in 51 of these cases representing an area of 11,038 acres. Some of these cases can be brought to completion without the use of the 1956 Act procedure but 26 cases totalling 5,420 acres required Vesting Order procedure.

In general, land acquisition prospects for the current year are good and the total of over £475,000 which, as I have explained, will be available this year is not unreasonably high in relation to the general tempo of progress.

Subhead C. 2—Forest Development and Management—totals £2,687,650, an increase of £126,400 on the Estimate for 1962/63. Expenditure on labour continues to account for the major part of expenditure under this subhead. The labour provision for 1962/63 as adjusted by Supplementary Estimate was £2,011,000. The corresponding provision in the 1963/64 Estimate is £2,080,500, an increase of £69,500 on the 1962/63 adjusted figure. The balance of the increase of £126,400 is spread over the non-labour heads.

The provision for Head (1)—State Forest Nurseries—shows an increase of £5,000 on the provision for 1962/63. This is almost entirely accounted for by increased labour costs, the remaining costs being virtually unchanged.

In pursuance of the policy of converting to large scale nurseries three of the smaller nurseries were closed down during the year. There are now nine large scale nurseries in production and it is expected that lands for another will be acquired shortly. Further areas are being considered for acquisition. The provision of plants to meet the planting programme will be much facilitated when the changeover is completed.

Head (2)—Establishment of Plantations—covers all expenditure on fencing, ground preparation, drainage and planting of land, apart from mechanical work charged to Head (6). The provision for 1963/64 is £675,000, an increase of £43,000 on the provision for 1962/63. £29,000 of the increase is in respect of increased labour costs. The remainder of the increase is mainly in respect of fencing materials and manures.

The total area of new plantations established in 1962/63 was 24,400 acres in addition to the reforestation of 325 acres from which the original State plantations had been marketed. 425 acres of plantations destroyed by fire, etc., were replanted during the year. I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the achievement of the Forestry Division in maintaining its reputation for completing its planting programme even in this past winter. Deputies will scarcely need— or wish—to be reminded of the winter of 1962/63. In many areas up to three months of the planting season were lost because the ground was frostbound and often snow covered so that planting was impossible. There was a grave danger that the planting programme would be seriously curtailed. In the light of this the virtual completion of the 25,000-acre programme was an achievement reflecting the greatest credit on all concerned.

By the end of 1962/63 the total woodland area held by my Department was 382,000 acres. Of 371,000 acres of State plantations it is of interest to note that 144,000 acres were planted in the last 6 years.

Planting is being continued at the rate of 25,000 acres this year.

Once again the western counties with some 40 per cent of the overall programme of 25,000 acres will occupy a prominent place. There has been a continuous intake of substantial areas of forest land in the western counties. Over 9,000 acres were acquired in western counties last year and almost half the lands at present being considered for acquisition are situated in that area. In pursuance of the policy of providing employment in this area where sources of productive employment are so badly needed, my Department is continuing its efforts to increase the pace of acquisition and planting there. In addition the Department's extensive research work aimed at achieving afforestation on less fertile peat soils and under other difficult conditions encountered in western regions is continuing.

At present employment is being provided for about 2,000 men in the area and the annual wage bill is in the neighbourhood of £800,000.

Head (3)—New Roads and Buildings —provides for an increase of £27,750 compared with the estimate for 1962/63. £11,000 of this increase is in respect of the labour provision. The remainder is in respect of increased provision for road materials and building. The road construction programme last year was seriously affected by adverse weather conditions. One hundred and seventy miles of road were, however, completed in the year. The provision for 1962/63 is adequate for the completion of 220 miles of roads. Budgeted expenditure of £131,250 on road metalling materials will relate mainly to the supply of stones and gravel by contractors and thus includes a substantial sum for indirect employment.

The provision for buildings is increased from £25,000 in 1962/63 to £35,000 in the current year. This includes a provision of £5,500 for direct labour.

Head (4)—General Forest Management — exceeds the provision for 1962/63 by £53,000, of which all but £7,000 is in respect of increased labour costs. To this head are charged all the expenses of maintenance and protection of State plantations. It is noteworthy that of the total provision of £958,000 under this head £921,000 is in respect of labour. A pattern of regular annual increases under this head is normal. The annual intake of new land and the present planting target of 25,000 acres inevitably involves increasing expenditure on such work as cleaning of young plantations, repairs to fences, drains, roads and buildings, pruning and protection of plantations.

The provision for Head (5)—Timber Conversion — is down by £30,000 compared with the 1962/63 provision. This is mainly due to an anticipated reduction in the availability of material suitable for transmission and telegraph poles. As I have mentioned on previous occasions direct labour felling by my Department is mainly confined to the felling of special orders such as transmission poles for the ESB and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and to areas being thinned for the first time. The bulk of forest produce continues to be sold standing to timber merchants who make their own arrangements for felling and extraction.

Head (6)—Mechanical Equipment for Forest Development and Management — is £27,650 in excess of last year. Of this £2,500 is in respect of increased labour costs, £5,000 is being provided for increased purchases of machinery and the balance is due to increased provision for running expenses and repairs.

The sum provided for forest labour in 1963/64 is £2,098,000 against a provision of £2,028,500 in 1962/63 and an actual outturn of £1,993,000 for that year. The current year's provision is, therefore, £165,000 in excess of the 1962/63 outturn.

The average weekly number of men in the direct employment of my Department during 1962/63 was 4,663. The figure of 4,663 is, however, not comparable with previous employment figures as the severest winter in living memory created particular problems of employment in the forests where in many areas for weeks on end men were unable to get to work and in others work was impossible due to the prevailing weather conditions. Had the winter been normal, the employment pattern for the year would have differed only marginally from that of 1961/62, when the average employment level was 4,803.

The Estimate for 1963-64 is adequate to cover an average direct employment level of up to 5,000 men and should, therefore, be sufficient to meet all requirements for the year including the increased tempo of maintenance work.

Before passing from the forest employment position, it may be of interest to the House to point out that while productivity gains under the Incentive Bonus Scheme have enabled a steadily increasing work-load over the past five years to be handled with little change in total labour absorption, there has been a very substantial increase in total outgoings on wages over the period, due to a succession of substantial rises in wage rates. Total expenditure on forest labour in 1958-59 was £1.3 million. The expenditure of over £2 million contemplated by the Estimate now before the House represents an increase of almost £750,000.

That is a welcome boost to the local economy of the rural areas concerned in so far as it represents increased spending power which must have its effect on money circulation generally, but, unfortunately it also indicates a sharp rise in the cost of all forest operations. Forestry costs are particularly sensitive to wage variation because of the high employment content of all Forest work. It is reasonable to presume that in the long term rising timber prices will provide an offset but such a sharp rise in operating costs in a five-year period emphasises the need for the importance which the Department has been placing on the pursuit of maximum economy in production methods and costs. In these fields steady progress is still being made.

The total provision for receipts under Subhead G—Appropriations-in-Aid— at £578,000 is £25,000 less than the revised provision for 1962-63. Actual receipts for the latter year, however, amounted to £564,000 so that in fact we are budgeting for a slight increase over the level of receipts for 1962-63. Revenue from the minor heads, Sawmills, Rents and Miscellaneous is on much the same level as for the past few years but on the major head— Sales of Timber—the general tendency towards an expansion of income from sale of timber in both the sawlog and pulpwood categories has been largely offset in 1962-63 and will be so again in the current year by the drop, to which I have already referred, in the availability of material suitable for conversion to transmission poles for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and ESB markets. The market for timber of sawlog size has been generally good and there is every indication that the growing volume of material becoming available will find ready sale. The range of outlets for pulpwood was increased during the past year by the commencement of production at the new chipboard factory at Waterford. The total volume of material sold from State forests in 1962-63 was about 6¾ million cu. ft. of which 2½ million cu. ft. was of 8" quarter girth and upwards.

Turning finally to private forestry, the provision for Subhead D—Grants for Afforestation purposes—is the same as the revised figure for 1962/63. During last year, first instalment grants were sanctioned for newly established plantations totalling 1,307 acres. Most of this planting would have been done in the 1961/62 planting season. It is too soon to make more than a rough forecast of planting done in the 1962/63 season but I would not expect a substantial difference from the previous year's outturn. The Department continued its efforts to promote private planting during the past year. Extensive advertising of the Planting Grant Scheme was carried out and lectures on tree planting were given at seventeen Winter Farm School classes throughout the country.

The amount of planting carried out by private landowners has in recent years shown substantial improvement but I am satisfied that there is still room for considerable expansion in the private forestry sector. Since 1958 over 3,000 landowners have availed themselves of the free technical advisory service operated by my Department for Landowners interested in laying down plantations on their farms. This advisory service covers all aspects of the planting—ground preparation, fencing, species selection, planting techniques, etc. Over 13,000 acres have been inspected since 1958 and detailed advice on planting furnished to the owners but less than half that area has been planted so far. I would again appeal to those landowners who have been given detailed advice on the establishment of plantations on their lands to put the work in hands and avail themselves of the generous assistance for which they can qualify when the plantation has been established.

The current level of forest revenue at over £½ million a year is in itself an indication of the very considerable monetary value of our forests today. Total investment value of the State forests is now in excess of £40 million. That investment is something which we must all assist in safeguarding. Our experience already in this calendar year has not been happy; in the 3 months ended on 31st March last almost 100 fires occurred at or near State forests and a total of 102 acres of plantation was destroyed. Each member of the community can help to reduce this loss by promoting greater care in avoiding the risk of fire—the greatest threat to any forest's existence.

The first Government of this State, from 1922 to 1932, must be complimented on their great foresight regarding forestry, particularly when we see in recent years that those engaged in the building trade have more than once expressed appreciation of the manner in which Irish timber was available for building and constructional purposes.

We all realise that forestry does not yield an immediate financial return but it pays over a long period. The trees planted during the first Government's time in office have now been used in the construction of many of our homes and industrial buildings and have contributed in no small way to the building programme. It is a great satisfaction when a body such as the Master Builders' Association comment on the favourable quality of Irish timber which they say is superior to any imported timber for building purposes.

We must remember that from 1932 to 1948 very little attention was paid to the expansion or development of State forests. The development that has taken place recently, particularly from 1948 on, is something for which we must give credit and pay tribute to the efficiency and skill of the foresters in the various centres throughout the country. International recognition has been given to the high standard of our forestry experts. It is only right on such an occasion as this that we should avail of the opportunity to express our appreciation of the excellent services of our foresters.

We are glad that in recent years forestry training colleges were established having the most up-to-date technical advice. I fully realise the excellent standard of those engaged in the training colleges and I am sure the Minister is aware that these colleges are turning out experts in forestry and the forests which we see in West Cork or Wicklow or in many parts of the Midlands, in Laois and Offaly and elsewhere, are a tribute to the training they have got, because of their magnificent lay-out. That expression of appreciation is richly merited by these men.

Expansion of forestry provides employment and where we have forestry centres much needed employment is given. We already have 4,600 men engaged in forestry. After 40 years of native Government, that figure is not very gratifying. One would imagine that our forestry development would be able to carry something like 10,000 workers and the figure of 4,600 falls far short of the number which afforestation in general can carry. I often wondered why there is not greater co-operation between Bord na Móna and the Forestry Division. Bord na Móna employ large numbers of workers at seasonal periods, but we find at the end of those periods, there is no work for those workers in the district. The work of Bord na Móna and the Forestry Division should be dovetailed so that when the slack period of Bord na Móna comes, those workers can be turned over to the Forestry Division. They could be engaged in drainage and the preparation of land for forestry purposes. There must be a section of Bord na Móna who would be prepared to consider favourably co-operation with the Forestry Division.

I cannot understand why work cannot be commenced on the vast areas of bogland and cutaway bog in the west suitable for afforestation purposes. The idea is to have large forestry centres. That may be necessary to enable the forestry centres to be run economically, but you may have vast areas of land not convenient to large forestry centres. Afforestation in the west has not brought the results I should like to see. Certain areas there should be selected for small initial schemes and land should be drained and prepared for experimental forestry work.

I have often wondered why there has not been an extensive scheme of afforestation in the Shannon Valley. Many years ago, we heard that the Forestry Division were examining the question of an extensive plantation there. There are in the Shannon Valley large areas of land which, in the opinion of the experts, can be converted into suitable land for afforestation. The Forestry Division are slow in announcing their plans for the Shannon Valley. Year after year, we see extensive flooding there. In view of the fact that we have excellent drainage and afforestation experts, it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to provide suitable plantations in the areas and thus relieve flooding. Plantations have been carried out in Holland and the United States, and I feel the Forestry Division should pay special attention to the Shannon Valley.

In addition to the great benefit it would bestow on the area, it would provide much needed employment for the workers of Roscommon, Galway, Westmeath and Offaly. I would ask the Minister to let us know what progress has been made in that regard and whether there has been any discussion this year or any time concerning co-operation between his Department and Bord na Móna. I recall that some years ago the Forestry Division were about to enter into negotiations with Bord na Móna to see if their various schemes could be dovetailed so far as employment was concerned. I feel Bord na Móna and the Forestry Division could work with a greater degree of co-operation.

I would appeal to the Minister to make a close examination of the prices paid to owners of land acquired for afforestation purposes. Numerous persons throughout the country have offered land to the Forestry Division. During the lifetime of the inter-Party Government, an Act was passed enabling the Forestry Division to deal more quickly with questions of title. The Forestry Division are noted for not paying what we consider to be a proper price for land acquired for afforestation purposes. It would encourage the owners of waste land to offer their land to the Forestry Division, if they could be assured of a reasonable price.

The Forestry Division's estimate of the value of land does not coincide with the estimate of expert valuers. The Forestry Division should seek the advice of qualified valuers in regard to the value of waste land, bog land and other land suitable for afforestation. There has been a great conflict of opinion between civil servants and qualified foresters and the views expressed by qualified valuers, whose job it is to value conscientiously and fairly. If the Forestry Division availed of the advice of qualified valuers, it would be to the benefit not alone of the landowners but eventually of the Department.

I would recommend to the Forestry Division that in cases of dispute, where any doubt is expressed or where the landowner feels his case should be further considered, they should seek the advice of the local valuers, who know the value of land and who will express an honest opinion. Land valuers have been noted for the conscientious manner in which they give their views. That has been the experience in the Land Commission. In many cases, they have been responsible for negotiating successfully in a spirit of co-operation and understanding. The land valuer has a certain amount of experience that neither the civil servant nor those engaged in the Forestry Division have. I think more land would come the way of the Forestry Division if valuers were employed.

I would ask the Minister again to bring the values of land for afforestation purposes to a more reasonable rate. Land for agricultural purposes in any part of the country is fetching something like £130 an acre, while we have the Forestry Division still paying £5, £6 or £7 an acre, the same as they paid years ago. The time has come when we should solicit the co-operation of landowners who have land they consider suitable for planting. Voluntary offers of land for afforestation have been on the Department's books for years, from my constituency and from outside it, and it is time now that these should be cleared out of the Department, acquired and efforts made to plant them.

I urge the Minister to see that land suitable for agricultural purposes is not planted. This should be the policy particularly in regard to land owned by smallholders, even when it is situated convenient to existing forests. I know the Department have been exercising caution in this respect and I would ask them to continue this policy. It is encouraging to see that both the ESB and the Post Office are buying poles from our forests. The extent to which they are doing this is a tribute to those who have been in charge of our forests. My hope is that these activities will continue and, in fact, be extended.

The Minister should give us more definite information about the negotiations taking place in regard to the provision of adequate pension schemes for forestry workers. We all know that representations have been made by the trade unions, and forestry workers in my constituency are still awaiting the outcome. Forestry workers should be looked upon with special attention because they are a group of men who possess specialised knowledge. A greater degree of security would serve to promote greater enthusiasm in these workers.

It is high time that we launched a proper examination of the manner in which our timber by-products could be utilised. Very little has been done here in that regard—in fact, we are far behind other countries. I suggest that a special committee be set up to report to the Minister on the uses we could make of our timber by-products. There should also be an examination of ways and means of encouraging private planting on a greater scale. I recently attended a series of lectures given by Departmental experts on this subject. I would ask the Minister again to re-examine this scheme of encouragement of private planting. Most landowners would be inclined to plant an acre or two, if they were given financial support. If such support did not take the form of grants or bonuses, it would be given by way of relief of rates.

The progress made in afforestation during the past year is in line with that reported in previous years and suggests that we must tackle afforestation in a more courageous manner. When criticising the Department, we must, however, bear in mind that it is very easy to plant trees on paper but very difficult to do so on land. Afforestation involves the preparation of the land and of suitable plants, the later thinning of the young forests. If we are to tackle afforestation in the courageous way necessary, instead of employing 4,600 men, we need at least 10,000. We are capable of extending our programme as we pointed out in the Fine Gael Party programme for afforestation and begun by the inter-Party Government. A great need is the establishment of an organisation to market efficiently the products of Irish forests.

The Minister's Estimate does not suggest any revolutionary changes in the immediate future. He does not give us any hope that more men will be employed or that any greater acreage will be planted. It is like many other Departments of State. We should no longer be tinkering with afforestation. Let us get ahead and spend more lavishly than we have done in the past. Afforestation can serve the rural community as a means of providing employment. State forests beautify the countryside. Deputies who have seen our State forests will agree that they are among the best laid out in the world. I have already complimented those responsible for them.

There is room for considerable expansion in the afforestation drive. The Government are not dealing with this matter as seriously as they might. The Minister referred this evening to the changes envisaged in the new Land Bill. The time has come for recasting of legislation in relation to forestry, for drastic action and the setting up of efficient machinery to carry out the work. I agree that the last Bill in relation to forestry helped to simplify the acquisition of land for forestry purposes but it did not go far enough. There should be an all-out drive to double the numbers employed in forestry. As I have pointed out, and as the Minister agrees, afforestation will not give a return within a year or even five years of the expenditure of the money but will certainly repay that expenditure with very considerable dividends within 15 or 20 years. We should embark on an extensive programme of afforestation.

While I must agree that there has been continued progress in forestry over the last number of years and, according to the Estimate before us, it is proposed that afforestation should continue in the coming year at the same rate, nevertheless there are a number of aspects of the forestry programme on which I have to make critical comment.

The Minister has referred to the fact that the amount of land available for forestry is becoming scarcer and harder to get. That is bound to be the case. As years go on, the availability of land must become a problem. That being the case, why is it that sales have not been completed in so many cases where lands have been surveyed and negotiations have taken place for acquisition? There would appear to be a contradiction in that.

For instance, there may be a group of small farms consisting of marginal land. Each smallholder may have ten to 20 acres of such land which in all would represent a considerable acreage. If there is a long delay before acquisition takes place and if the farmers need money badly enough, the tendency is to sell the land privately and then the Forestry Division may say that the amount of land left would not be sufficient to warrant their acquiring it and they drop the scheme or the landowners become disinterested in selling.

I have in mind one holding beside an existing forest. A number of neighbouring landholders have agreed to sell portions of land. The persons concerned are anxious to dispose of the land for two reasons—first, because, like everybody else at the present time, they require ready cash; and, secondly, because of the fact that some of them are employed in the forests and feel it would safeguard their employment if this extra land were taken over. For some extraordinary reason the sale has not been completed. The persons concerned should be told definitely whether or not it is the intention of the Forestry Division to acquire this land. There may be a very good reason for the delay but it is unfair that the persons concerned should be left in that position.

The question of the amount being paid for land suitable for forestry is a matter of some concern. I agree that there is land such as the Minister referred to to-night, the poor law valuation of which is 2d. an acre. Usually that type of land is not suitable for forestry purposes. Even those whose land is of a low valuation do not like to give it away for nothing. There is a tendency on the part of the people negotiating the purchase of such land to say that it is very bad land which does not command a high price. I am aware of land taken over by the Forestry Division which was derelict and grown with rushes but when the rushes were taken off, it became apparent that wheat had been grown on that land many years ago. Elderly people in the area remembered that good crops of wheat had been taken off that land. It is rather ridiculous that a very small sum should be offered for such land, even though it may not be suitable for anything other than the growing of trees.

The question of private planting has been referred to. That is one of my favourite topics. In my opinion, not half enough is being done to encourage private planting. I do not blame the Forestry Division for that. Every public representative and every body having contact with the general public, including the Press, the Churches, and so on, should encourage private planting. I am not referring to the planting of two or three or even 20 acres. I am talking about the person who has perhaps a quarter- or half-acre of bad land on his farm who could plant trees on it and eventually it would be a source of income for his family. That land would be effectively drained and would become good land and there would be a good return from the trees.

I recounted last year that in Central Europe it is quite a common thing that when a child is born, especially in the case of a girl, the farmer plants an acre of trees. By the time the girl is 21, she has an excellent dowry. It might solve many of our problems if such a practice were encouraged here. Small farmers and medium size farmers should be encouraged to grow trees on the portion of their farm which at present is lying idle.

Tribute has been paid here to those who work for the Forestry Division for the fact that during the bad weather they were unable to travel to their work or to carry out the work when they did travel and yet, despite that, production for the year was up to par. That is an excellent thing and a great tribute to the people concerned, both the technical and labouring staff. It is rather a pity that the people who were actually planting the trees—it is something that I feel sore about—did not get very much for their extra effort. It is all right for people who are employed in a certain position and are guaranteed a full week's wages or month's wages all the year round and who will carry out their work in a certain way. In the case of forestry labourers and the people directly over them who up to now have been regarded as casuals, irrespective of how hard they work, they get their week's wages only when they work and they get their bonus.

I should like again to say how glad I am the bonus scheme has worked well with the co-operation of the workers, the trade unions and the Forestry Division. Despite that, when we had wet or frosty weather, and when we had snow, those people got neither wages nor a bonus. The excuse was made that they were laid off because of the fact that they could sign on at the labour exchange, and by signing on, get some money. I do not think that is the proper way to deal with labourers without whom the Forestry Division could not carry on. The Forestry Division should realise that as well as the Minister and his senior and junior officials getting salaries, the people who work for them outside are also entitled to a fair deal. It is no use saying they are only labourers and can go to the labour exchange, sign on, and get a few shillings. That is what happened in many cases. I know they turned out as much work as they normally would in a whole year. Great credit is due to them.

I should like to refer now to the working hours of those people. Negotiations have been going on for a long time on their behalf seeking a 5-day working week. The Department offered a 48-hour 5-day week. That could not work because it would mean they would have to work a 9½-hour day. As we all know, during the winter period it is not possible to work anything like a 48-hour week, and the men have been working slightly over a 40-hour week during the winter period. As a result of a Labour Court recommendation, local authority employees have been working a 5-day, 45-hour week for almost two years. This year an innovation, which I recommend to the Forestry Division, has been introduced. It is known as an average 45-hour, 5-day week. In the summer time the men work longer than the normal 45 hours, and in the winter they work whatever time is required to ensure that over the year they are credited with 45 hours a week. That is a very fair way and, in fact, the Forestry Division would gain on the transaction if they were prepared to agree with it. I suggest the Minister should have a look at it with his officials and they might be able to agree to put it into operation. If they do, it would solve this whole burning problem.

For some time, it has been a question of what we call holding the line. Government Departments generally try to hold the line but it has been bulging in many cases now and it will break somewhere. There is a break in some Government Departments but, of course, the blind eye is turned on it. If members of the building trade or craft unions are employed by any Government Department there is no objection whatever to their working a 45-hour, 5-day week. If labourers are recruited from men who ordinarily work a 48-hour week they are put on the 45-hour, 5-day week, but as soon as they go back to the other job they become a different race and must work the 48-hour, 5½-day week. Let us forget about the White Paper and any other paper. This matter must be dealt with and the men should be dealt with fairly.

The pension scheme was mentioned by the previous speaker. I know well that the answer of the Forestry Division officials and the Minister is that they are casual workers and you cannot have a pension scheme for them. That is the stock answer, but employees of the Department of Local Government and of the county councils are also casual workers on a day to day basis, and they work a pension scheme. There is a very simple way of dealing with it. I suggest again that the Minister should have another look at the scheme which is being operated. It would give some security to the forestry workers.

Another question that is causing a lot of trouble is the question of the man who is out sick. If he is a local authority employee, he gets sick pay. He gets the difference between his social welfare benefits and his wages for two weeks, and something less for the next two weeks. In some counties, he gets more. Surely it is not too much to ask the Forestry Division to do something like that and to stretch the purse to do it. They do not do it. If a man has been out as a result of an accident or an illness and, if as a result, in the 12 months he completes less than 1,600 hours, the Department of Lands will not give him any holiday pay. That is stretching things a bit too far. It is a mean trick to play on anyone.

I do not know if there will be red faces in the Department because of this matter being raised here, but if there are not there should be, because everyone else in employment get their holiday pay except employees of the Department of Lands. They do not get it. I know that the Act will probably be thrown back at me and I will be told that the Act says they must work 1,600 hours in a whole year. They could dismiss them and give them cesser pay, but if they are not dismissed they do not get it. In every other Department, and in private employment, if a man is out sick, he certainly is not penalised by losing his holiday pay. It is coming the hound a bit to say these people must qualify for their holiday pay by working 1,600 hours in a year.

When the bonus scheme was first introduced, it was tried in one forest, then another, and eventually it was extended. Arrangements were made, not verbally, but in writing, between the trade unions and the Forestry Division, that, when the bonus system had extended to all forests, a wages tribunal would be set up. If my memory serves me correctly, the bonus system came into operation in the last forest two years ago last February, and we have not yet got a wages tribunal. I understand there is something called an inter-Departmental Committee which is taking an interest and has so far stymied any effort made to set up that tribunal by saying that if the forestry workers got it other Departments would also look for one. I see no reason at all why one should not be set up to deal with Government Departments.

The forestry workers, like other employees of the Department of Local Government are the only people in the country who have no right to a tribunal on the question of wages. Local government employees have been brought in as a result of the 1956 Act. We have been claiming on the trade union side that wages and conditions of employment were to be discussed by the tribunal although, strictly speaking, the agreement is on wages only. I believe I could prove that you cannot discuss wages without discussing hours of work and other conditions. It is reasonable to say that, even though the agreement says wages only, if the tribunal is set up, it must, of necessity, deal with all matters which would affect wages.

Would I be asking too much of the Minister if I ask him to look into this matter and honour the agreement which was made in good faith and accepted in good faith by the Department and by the trade unions so many years ago? We are not asking for something which will put the Department to a great deal of expense. As a matter of fact, I think it will be found that wages will follow a certain pattern. However, these workers are entitled to have some way of settling their wage claims.

There was a long drawn out battle over wages in a couple of sawmills and that was straightened out eventually. There was a long drawn out battle about a man who carries a saw into the forest. It is a heavy saw and he gets a couple of pence a day extra for carrying it around. By the time the forestry officials had discussed it with the trade unions and the Minister, and they made a recommendation to him and it went back again to the Department of Finance, months and months passed by. It is one of those stupid things that should not be allowed to continue. This is a progressive Department. The Forestry Division have proved in every other way they are all in favour of progress and the Minister has given it his full backing, but this question of wages should be dealt with in a proper way, and it could be so dealt with without upsetting things too much.

Reference has already been made to the question of continuity of employment. Since the Department are progressive, they must make changes, and one of the changes they have been making recently is in regard to the nursery system. While it is stated they have been a success, it is just too bad for people who have been employed a long number of years and who have become experts at their job to find that because the Department changed the system, they are out of a job.

I referred today to Mulroy Forest which is in the constituency of the Minister for Local Government. I hope it did not embarrass him to be sitting beside the Minister when the question was answered. Deputy Harte is in the same constituency but these people had written to me as the general secretary of their trade union saying that a number of workers had been let go and that the nursery is to be closed down completely in the near future. The Minister's reply today confirmed this fact. The Minister said the Department have always tried to find employment for people they displace, and I agree that is so. Nevertheless, there is a fear, a very real fear, that when the forest nursery closes, there will not be employment near enough to those people. They may be in an area where employment is not easy to get and may be out of a job. More consideration should be given to the effect on local employees when such changes are being made rather than to say: "This is in the best interests of the country and, therefore, we must do it irrespective of who is affected."

One of the things we must bear in mind is that forestry work is productive work. When employment is discussed or the means of giving employment to people, we often hear it said that the work they are doing is not productive and that is used as an argument why it should not be continued. Forestry work is productive work but, in addition, in areas such as Mulroy in areas west of the Shannon referred to here tonight, it is also, as I am sure Deputy Geoghegan will agree, a social benefit because the people who are employed there, as well as doing a good job are actually improving the whole area by virtue of the fact that they are spending their earnings in that area. I am sure that is not being lost sight of, and the fact that so much of the forestry work is being done in Connacht and in such areas where there is not much other employment proves that the Department are well aware of the situation, but I wonder if something more cannot be done.

Reference was made earlier to the situation in bog areas where Bord na Móna lay off a number of people at the end of the season and, according as the bogs become more mechanised, the number of men who are laid off becomes greater. Could some arrangement not be made with Bord na Móna whereby some of the marginal areas around the bogs, cut-away portions of those bogs which have been partly reclaimed and left there, could be taken over and used for forestry purposes? I know that difficulties might arise from people being transferred from semi-State employment to State employment and from the fact that the Bord na Móna people now have a pension scheme, although I hope the Forestry Division, if they ever introduce a pension scheme, will not follow that pattern. I am sure arrangements could be made that the Forestry Division could give the necessary technical advice and that Bord na Móna could carry out the work there themselves. I suggest that the Minister would give serious consideration to that.

It has been said that the ESB and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were to be complimented on using Irish timber for poles. I do not think there is any compliment due to them. In fact, they should be blamed for not doing it many years earlier because if you go to any country in the world where those poles are being put up, it does not matter whether they are crooked or twisted, native timber will be used. Until very recently, it was the practice here that nothing less than Norwegian or Finnish timber was any use for our telegraph or ESB poles. It was about time that those responsible woke up to the fact that we have timber suitable for this work. The only thing I cannot understand is that the Minister says the supply of certain types of timber seems to be reducing. One would imagine that the opposite should be the case, that the supply would be bound to increase as more timber matures over the years but again possibly there is a technical reason for that which I do not understand.

The use of native timber for housing has also been referred to and, while it is very good that every effort should be made to use native timber, there should be a proviso that only properly seasoned Irish timber will be allowed in any building. I am sure most of us have had experience of timber being used which was not seasoned when put into the roof, the doors or the window frames of houses, with disastrous results. People handling timber should have a very strict rule laid down for them that only timber which has been treated properly and dried properly will be used for this purpose.

The question of having native industries based on Irish timber is also important. In my own constituency, there are a number of small sawmills which are depending on what they get from the forests to carry on. If at all possible, I should like to see every concession given to those people because, as well as using up the products of the forests, they are giving local employment. It does happen that from time to time supplies run out and they have to travel very long distances to get supplies from other forests. Every effort should be made to facilitate those people.

With reference to employment, there is one bone of contention which most outdoor employees of the Forestry Division have and that is in relation to income tax. Particularly since the bonus system was introduced quite a number have to pay income tax. I can see no reason, nor can they, why income tax cannot be collected from them weekly. Many people will be surprised to hear that while PAYE applies to practically everyone those people pay the same rate but the tax is not collected weekly and very often coming to the end of the year they get a nasty jolt when they are informed that the income tax has fallen due and, therefore, the next week's wages must be short of a considerable amount of money.

Would that be a matter for another Minister?

It is a matter for the Minister for Lands. He is the person who pays these people and who acts as an agent for the Department of Finance and deducts income tax from them.

He proposes to make every shopkeeper in Ireland a tax gatherer now.

If the shopkeepers comply with the new law, we may be able to abolish this law in the category referred to.

Perhaps you could reduce surtax again.

Is the Deputy joining with Fine Gael in crying about the increased tax on the big company?

The fact that you are saying it will not make it true.

North-East Dublin has them addled.

Forestry workers are having income tax deducted as it was being deducted from other people before the introduction of PAYE. I would be grateful if the Minister would pass along the word to whoever is responsible and ask that the deductions be made every week as in the case of every other employee who pays under PAYE. Another matter referred to is the grave loss caused to the Forestry Division through forest fires. We all deplore——

There will be no forest fires today.

——the action of the person who lights a fire near a forest and who leaves it without making sure that it is out, or the person who throws bottles, particularly broken bottles, into a forest. Having regard to the weather we have been enjoying, it is extraordinary that we have not had more forest fires caused by the sun's rays on these broken bottles. To a certain extent I blame the Forestry Division because while they have a nominal fire service and have fire watchers who do a nominal amount of patrolling, I think, in view of the loss caused by the destruction of even a couple of acres of forestry, they could usefully spend a considerable amount of money employing firewatchers during the particularly dangerous season. More attention should be given to the combating of fires when they occur because it may not be much use telephoning a fire brigade which is located in a town 20 miles away. It should be possible to have in every forest some type of mobile unit which could deal with a smaller type of fire. It is no use attacking a fire with a bush or with the back of a shovel. More attention should be given to training people to put out fires.

I would recommend the Minister to have a greater number of firewatchers. Over the whole year there would be a net gain. If he succeeded in stopping half the fires which occur the gain would be considerable. Reference has been made also to an increase which has resulted from higher travelling expenses. I agree that it is only right that they should be kept in line with other workers and officials. They are entitled to the same expenses as everybody else is getting and we must provide for them. I find great pleasure in dealing with the Department of Lands. Despite the fact that on many occasions they may say no usually they say it politely. They will at least discuss matters fully and while we complain that we have not got the results we were looking for, nevertheless, our dealings with the officials have been cordial. They are courteous people who deal with the public as best they can.

One aspect of workmen's compensation which has arisen again and again is the question of a worker who is injured when working in a forest. He is entitled to workmen's compensation. Usually he has to go to the doctor and in too many cases the question of the doctor's fees has to be taken up with the trade unions before the bill is paid. While eventually they are paid they should be straightened out immediately. There is a limit of £5 and usually the doctor's bill comes to much less. While it may be a very small amount to the Department of Lands it is a considerable sum to a forestry worker, particularly if he is out on workmen's compensation at the rate of £4 10s. for a number of weeks. The matter should be dealt with as quickly as possible and embarrassment should not be caused to everybody concerned.

I thought the employer was not liable for it unless agreement had been recorded for the £5.

Yes, but if the Department wanted it that way the easiest thing to do is consult a solicitor and have the solicitor's fees added to the £5. Usually the employers are clever enough, and that includes the Department of Lands, to pay the original bill rather than have that happen. I know that legal people like to see agreement recorded.

Would the Deputy kindly enlighten some of his less well informed colleagues as to what is an agreement recorded?

In court. If a solicitor takes the matter up with the Department and there is agreement recorded, then the £5 can be paid within the law but usually most companies as well as private employers take the easy way out and pay without going into court. Otherwise, they would have to pay much more.

The employer is not liable for £5 unless agreement is recorded under the Act.

But if he does not agree to pay it, then there is no doubt it can be recorded. The accident occurred in his employment and the person is liable to pay and he can take the matter to court and have extra expense. The private employer and the Government Department usually pay without going to court.

It is a mystery to me.

Well, strange things happen.

It seems a roundabout way of paying expenses.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 12th June, 1963.
Top
Share