Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 1960

Vol. 183 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Forestry (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a sum not exceeding £1,748,700 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, 1961, 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.— (Minister for Lands.)

It will be agreed between us all that the national investment in forestry is very substantial. We have gradually, over the years, stepped up the annual acreage planted from between 20,000 to 25,000 acres. It is extremely important from the point of view of the nation that this very large capital expenditure should begin to pay off as soon as can be reasonably expected.

I want to know have the restrictions which applied to the export of timber in the round been removed? I understand that at some stage—I think it was during the war period—it was felt that the scarcity of timber was such that it was legitimate to provide, if any Irish industry required supplies of timber, that that type of timber would be restricted and one could not export it in the round unless it had been submitted to some processing in Ireland. So long as there was a world scarcity of timber that may have been a legitimate restriction to maintain but now I suggest to the Minister and to the House that the forestry enterprise is entitled to sell its products in the most profitable market it can find.

I do not care whether they sell the product in Ireland or abroad but I think it vitally important that when they have timber to advertise for sale they should be entitled to consider the tender of anybody whencesoever he may come, and to sell timber to the highest bidder because now, if our timber goes abroad, it is perfectly easy to purchase timber from abroad and bring it in if any manufacturer here requires timber for the purposes of his particular industry. We can never make the forestry enterprise a profit-earning one if we impose upon it a permanent obligation to sell its produce below current market prices.

There is another aspect of this general question that I think requires at least consideration. Most of the land on which forests can be planted and successfully reared to maturity are capable of alternative user in the complex of sheep production. One of the strong arguments always advanced by forestry men to press the claim of forestry against that of livestock has been that forestry would provide employment on a larger scale in any given area than sheep or other livestock using the land.

I want to direct the attention of the House to two aspects of that question. Keeping sheep does not end with driving them out on to the mountain in the summer and bringing them down to the lowland pastures in the winter months because, apart from the natural multiplication of the sheep themselves, there is now the whole vast industry of wool and our export of wool this year amounted to approximately £5,000,000 sterling. A great part of that wool came from the backs of horny, mountain sheep who would not be there at all if the mountain grazing were not available to maintain them during the summer months. Therefore, you have in the sheep industry not only a natural multiplication of the animals on the land but the consequential employment involved by fellmongering, wool sorting and by the sale and handling of wool and the various ancillary activities associated with sheep and their by-products. If, however, the case is firmly established that you can get as good or a better monetary return from the land by utilising it for timber and at the same time that you can provide more employment through the medium of forestry than you could through sheep grazing, I can see that a powerful argument is made for diverting certain sheep lands to forestry.

I notice with some alarm, however, that the expansion of forestry output does not mean a proportionate increase in the employment of men. We have now the tendency for—I have forgotten what the name is—inducement schemes or something of that kind which are designed to increase output and reduce employment measured in terms of men. It may mean that individual men can earn a bit more than they otherwise would but, from the point of view of families maintained in the area, the tendency now is for the number of wage earners to diminish while their individual output expands. In the light of that tendency, and the general potentialities of the sheep market, I think the whole matter should be kept under review because it is not a desirable thing to depopulate large parts of rural Ireland substituting trees for men if by an alternative user of the land we can maintain families in areas where they have traditionally lived and which we are concerned to preserve as populated areas. These are the two matters about which I am at the moment concerned.

The last matter I should like to mention is this. The annual rate of planting has increased very considerably over the last 12 or 15 years. To maintain a rate of from 20,000 to 25,000 acres—which Deputies should bear in mind is a scale of planting which we have only attained in recent times—it is necessary to retain a reserve of land strictly proportionate to the annual planting programme. Perhaps the Minister would remind me—is it customary that the reserve should be three years' supply?

That means that we ought, if we are to maintain 25,000 acres yearly, to have a reserve of 75,000 acres in hand. It does not seem that we are able to maintain that reserve. I know the difficulty attendant on this whole problem and I do not want to suggest to the House that there is any easy solution of it. However, bearing in mind that forests come to maturity in 40 to 50 years from the date of planting, I wonder is our approach to the whole basis of the purchase price of forestry land fully realistic. I often think we are too conservative in paying for land which is otherwise suitable, that if we bid £2 or £3 an acre more, we would get larger areas of land and that extra cost spread over a term of 50 years would make relatively little difference to the end value.

There is another aspect of that purchase question, and I do not know whether it has been brought to the attention of the Minister. I know a case in Sligo where a man is rearing quite a big family of young children on a holding which is about five miles off the main road. Next to that holding, there is a considerable area of mountain grazing which is close to an existing forest. He is primarily concerned not so much with price, although, of course, that is a matter of great interest to him, as with getting a holding to which he can transfer his family. I should like to know if there is sufficiently intimate intercourse between the Department of Lands, on the one hand, and the Forestry Section, on the other, to enable the Minister in charge of Forestry to say to himself as Minister for Lands: "We should move the Land Commission to migrate this man to a suitable holding," because, without that inducement, no offer of money that we could make to this man would induce him to part with his land which could be advantageously incorporated into an existing forest. I should be glad to know from the Minister if the Land Commissioners are prepared to help the Forestry Section by arranging deals of that kind where forestry development would benefit by such an arrangement.

The last matter to which I want to refer is the question of the development of the game potentialities of the forests. Here again I realise there are two sides to the question. Foresters are not always eager to welcome all and sundry into the forests, owing to the hazards of fire, interference with fences and so forth. I am told that the natural game amenities of forests could be materially improved if due regard were had to the advice of experts in this matter in the construction of rides through the forest. We cannot do much to alter these forests as woodcock shoots because woodcock are migratory birds, but I am told if the necessary forestry facilities are developed in a particular way, the sporting amenities of such forests can be promoted. In the modern world in which we live, such sporting amenities are very rare and one of the most eagerly sought of such amenities is that of woodcock shoots. I think that is worthy of examination in any case.

Whether it is worth while deliberately cultivating pheasants in certain forests, I do not know, but I am sure of this, that when we consider forest amenities, we should seek to avoid, in so far as we can, competition with Blackpool, Coney Island, Paris and Rome. We have neither the climate nor the facilities that are readily available in centres of that kind. We should seek to develop the amenities that are available here and which are not readily available anywhere else in the world and these largely consist of fishing and game shooting.

I am told woodcock shoots command immense prices in Great Britain and France. I am told that pheasant shoots can command huge prices both throughout Great Britain and the Continent of Europe and that one frequently finds wealthy Americans going to Spain where partridge is the principal game. One can well imagine that the creation of sporting preserves in some of our forests could provide a very substantial income for the Forestry Section. It would be very well worth the Minister's while to discuss with Bord Fáilte and the experts of whom it disposes as to where and in what manner the sporting facilities of our forests may be enhanced and whether there is reasonable ground for belief that if they were so improved, there would be any prospect of their producing an economic return.

I am grateful to the House for the manner in which this Estimate has been received and for the helpful suggestions I have got from all sides of the House in connection with the working of the Department. To take first some of the last matters raised, the whole question of game development is under consideration by me. As far as forest property is concerned, it is true to state that already we have made some forest areas available to local sporting organisations for the purpose of establishing preserves, and in this business, as in any other business, we must crawl before we can walk.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that many of our people do not still realise the very grave danger of fire particularly at this time of the year. In countries where forestry development has been in existence for generations, people realise the danger of fire at certain times of the year and take adequate precautions. Here we have not yet reached that stage and I should like to appeal today to all concerned to realise the vast amount of damage that can be done to forestry by trippers or other people going through State forests. That is one of the problems connected with the point raised by Deputy Dillon. However, the whole question is under examination by my Department in conjunction with the game development movement. I expect that ultimately we shall work out some method that will be satisfactory to all but it will take some time.

Apart from the question of game being trapped in forests, there is the other side of the question, complaints that the forests are a source of annoyance to local farmers because of vermin being fostered there, particularly foxes. It is difficult to meet both sides of the question but that will be examined in conjunction with the propositions in respect of game development.

Some of the restrictions referred to by Deputy Dillon on the export of timber have been removed. This is a matter which comes under the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is the Department whose concern it is to ensure the provision of the raw materials for certain industries here. It is their duty to keep the position under constant review. I agree with the Deputy that there is this question of alternative user. It has been found elsewhere, particularly in Scotland, that of all the schemes tried in the Highlands, where they have to meet problems similar to those we are faced with here from the point of view of population moving out, forestry has had the most lasting effect in arresting migration and keeping the people in the areas in employment.

They have also found, and I think this is generally agreed now, that both projects can go on side by side. Where you have intelligent forestry in mountain areas, the provision of shelter, together with the improvement of the remaining areas, has the effect of increasing sheep output. There is, in fact, no conflict between the two. There can, indeed, be worthwhile development by marrying, if I may use that expression, afforestation to sheep farming. They have got excellent results in Scotland and there is no reason why we should not achieve the same results here.

May I interrupt the Minister? He glided very blandly over the question of the views of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to getting supplies of raw material for wood-using industries here. What answer does the Minister for Industry and Commerce make? Let them go and buy their raw material. Why should they buy it cheap from the Forestry Branch which has to pay its way?

I am quite sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce is fully alive to the necessity for getting the best price for the raw material available. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has a duty in this case just as he has a duty in the case of any other raw material based on the country. He must keep an eye on the requirements of particular industries. He is fully conscious of the needs of industries depending on wood or wood pulp just as he is conscious of the needs of the fellmongering or leather industry. Surely it is the function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ensure that the raw material is made available here in order to maintain these industries? I do not accept the suggestion—the Deputy did not make it in so many words—that the raw material from forestry is given away scot-free.

At an uneconomic price.

Should it be sold at a competitive price?

The Deputy will appreciate that there are a great many industries, and large industries, utilising the products of our forests now. The Minister for Industry and Commerce must ensure that these industries get whatever raw material is available in the country. That has always been the policy of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

The Deputy, and others with him, talked about the tendency to reduce the number of workers. Some speakers suggested that through mechanisation, and so forth, we are cutting out a number of workers who would otherwise be gainfully employed. I do not accept that that is the position. As a result of mechanisation, land that would otherwise have been unplantable has been made plantable. Were it not for mechanisation in certain aspects of the work, many who are now employed, would not be employed.

Deputy Corish, I think, referred to increased purchases of machinery in relation to our very expanded road programme. We cannot expand forest roads without more bulldozers, and so forth. Over the past couple of years, however, progress has been made in replacing machines by men. Because of the greater number of centres and the larger tracts being planted, it is possible we are more efficient now. The Bonus Scheme has brought about a greater output. The project is now in a better state of economic production than was possible some years ago when the Forestry Branch were working mainly on small scattered areas. As we grow in experience and as we get more land, we shall probably become more efficient still.

It has been pointed out that this is a very big State investment and ultimately we shall be dependent on the end product in the form of exports of one kind or another. It is very necessary, therefore, that we should keep a close eye on our costings. In view of developments in Europe between the Inner Six and the Outer Seven, it is of vital importance that we should produce on the basis that, when we ultimately go to sell, we shall be able to sell competitively. With that end in view, I cannot see the logic in suggesting an enhanced price for land for afforestation purposes. In the main, the land is marginal land. Where there is potential agricultural land involved, the Department of Lands examine the land and find out whether or not it should be retained for Land Commission purposes. Where a large estate is taken over, there is a very close examination made by Land Commission officials before it is decided that portion of it may be allocated to the Forestry Branch.

Some Deputies seemed to think that it is part of the work of the Forestry Branch to deal with congestion. I would resist that suggestion with all the strength at my disposal. There are many reasons why it cannot be done. There may be an odd, exceptional case, but in the main, for reasons of security and otherwise, it is undesirable to have one small farm in the middle of a big section of forestry development, and it is not the job of the Forestry Division to relieve congestion or to deal with congestion problems.

In the first place the land they get should never be acquired by them if it is first-class agricultural land. That is the policy that has been carried out by them, though there may be an occasional case in which special representations can be made by someone close to a forestry centre if there is a suitable piece of land available that would give him an enlargement but in the main I feel the Forestry Division should stick to their own job. As I said, there is close co-operation between the Forestry Division of my Department and the Land Commission side of it, and when estates are being taken over this question is thoroughly examined with a view to ensuring that only land suitable for forestry will be given to the Forestry Division.

Every Minister for Lands has had to meet the question of men being laid-off work for seasonal reasons. Generally speaking, one of the reasons is the lack of a sufficient plantable reserve. As has been said, to plant at our present rate of 25,000 acres a year, 75,000 acres should be in reserve in order to make a proper economic job of it and until we reach that stage there is difficulty, particularly at certain times of the year, in maintaining the labour force that we would all like to see maintained. There is no easy answer to this question.

Much of the seasonal work comes into play where there are nurseries that require a certain amount of labour at particular times of the year and when that work is done, there is no alternative work for the men but it is not the policy of the Department to lay-off men if it can at all help it. Indeed, in some cases in order to try to maintain the labour force we have gone ahead with road construction and other work that was not scheduled to be done for a couple of years to come, and every effort is made by the Department to maintain a maximum labour force in an area, in particular where men have been working in forestry for a number of years.

Deputy O. J. Flanagan seemed to think the Government were reluctant to spend money on forestry but that is certainly not the case. The Estimate now before the House shows an increase of £570,000 over the 1959-60 Estimate. This year we shall spend almost £2,600,000 on forestry which, compared with the total Budget figure, as far as I know, is higher than in any other country in the world. These figures show that in accordance with the national Budget, we are making excellent provision for progress in forestry at the present time. It is an expanding service and, as I said in my opening statement, we have reached the target of 25,000 acres a year for the first time this year. I hope we shall reach that target again next year and maintain, if not exceed, it.

Deputies who have complained about the time lag between the inspection of land on offer and the time it is finally cleared, should realise that the Forestry Division was not geared until now to deal with a practical programme of 25,000 acres a year. They were working with a comparatively small staff and we are now building up an organisation, through trainees and other staff, that is about to meet the requirements we now have, to cater for the planting rate that we have now reached, and I hope that as a result of the new arrangements the time lag between inspections of land on offer in certain areas and its being ultimately dealt with will be very substantially reduced. As I said, the Department was not geared to deal with the programme we now have in hands and I hope that with the new arrangements we have made, these complaints will not be so prevalent as they have been in the past.

Deputy Everett mentioned men who got no compensation for damage to their clothes and no recompense for work in extinguishing a fire in a State forest. I cannot understand this as it is quite contrary to the practice in my Department, but I would ask the Deputy to let me have particulars so that I can have inquiries made. Where people come to the help of fire brigades and others in putting out a forest fire and get their clothes injured, my Department makes it a practice to see that they are compensated. The Deputy's allegation, as I have said, runs contrary to the practice that exists in the Department on this matter.

Deputy Brennan was concerned with the decrease in the acquisition of land in County Wicklow in 1959-60, but the figures do not bear him out. In that year we acquired 1,100 acres in Wicklow and, considering the rate of acquisition that went on in that county before, that is quite a good figure for a county in which my Division already owns over 10 per cent. of the land, one of the highest percentages in the country. In my view that figure is sufficiently satisfactory.

Some Deputies inquired about the unplantable area of land now on hands. That amounts to approximately 60,000 acres, but I should say that in recent years new developments permitted a great deal of planting on land previously regarded as unplantable. My technical information, however, is that little of this 60,000 acres is likely to prove suitable for planting. In many places, particularly large mountain areas, we have to take the good with the bad, and there will always be a certain proportion of land that, for one reason or another, is unplantable, but it has to be said that experimentation is going on all the time. My Department is learning more and more, particularly about the planting of trees on hillsides, and we hope that, as a result of this continuous experimentation, possibly some of this land now regarded as unplantable may turn out to be plantable at some time in the future.

In my opening statement, I quoted the present high western percentage, which constitutes 41 per cent. of the total, and on present information I forecast an increase in western planting in future years, but the increase must come slowly. We are planting all the land we get on which we can grow trees.

What is proposed in respect of the land that is held and that is definitely unplantable?

It depends upon its location. In some areas, you have large hills planted up a certain distance, but the top is left bare because nothing can be planted there. However, experiments have been carried out in different parts of the country, in particular in places like Glenamoy in the west, from which we hope to get more information on this matter. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say at the moment what may be done with these 60,000 acres. Some of them are in the centre of forestry developments and by virtue of their location, very little, if anything, can be done with them. However, as a result of experiments going on, we feel we might get a partial answer to some of these problems. As Deputies are aware, we are now able to plant timber on peat soils which, some years ago, could not have been brought into production.

In other words, the time is not yet right for a decision on them?

That is the best way to put it. Much must depend on experience and on the research work in hand.

Deputy Corish complained in regard to Camolin Forest, Wexford, that deserving men had been left off recently, while men less dependent on the work were retained. There is, I am glad to say, no substance in the Deputy's complaint. There is a staff of 42 permanent men at Camolin Forest, none of whom has less than two years' service. An additional 30 men, employed in February-March of this year for nursery work of a temporary nature, were laid off in mid-May. Of these, 13 have since been re-employed. Therefore, the picture in that forest is fairly reasonable.

Deputy Esmonde made the point that distance from an existing forestry centre was an obstacle to the acquisition of land for forestry purposes. That may have been true some years ago; but as forestry expands, that difficulty becomes less apparent. From the figures I have seen, it is quite rare now for any area of more than 15 or 20 acres to be refused because of its distance from a forestry centre.

The Deputy also seemed to think that in other countries the State were carrying out afforestation on land and then handing it over to private interests by way of lease. To my knowledge, the Deputy is misinformed in that connection. In certain countries, it has been decided to stop the buying by the State of extensive forests from farm owners because the natural economic swing towards State forestry ownership would completely upset the pattern of farm ownership. Here, however, the State has embarked upon this national afforestation programme and I think it would not be good business for the State to plant forests and then lease them to private enterprise. There is the question of protecting the State's investment and also the question of ensuring that proper thinning, pruning and maintenance are carried out. Unless the State organisation were to do that, I think it would be a big risk to hand over planted land to private individuals.

Deputy Barry referred to a sawmill at Ballyhooley, Cork, which he said was unable to obtain supplies from the local State forest and which had to curtail its activities and reduce employment for that reason. I cannot find any proof of this allegation. Having made inquiries, I find the Department did not have any appreciable quantity of timber for sale at Ballyhooley since 1945. However, in 1958, there were two small lots of 5,000 cubic ft. which should have been of interest to any small sawmill, but no tender was received from the sawmill in question. The position is that timber of the type required by this sawmill may not be available in the area.

Deputy T. Lynch referred to lands offered to the Forestry Division in various parts of Waterford. He said he had asked a number of Parliamentary Questions about them but always seemed to get the reply that they were scattered or not of an acreage that would make acquisition attractive. I have located two Questions by the Deputy in this regard over the past four years and the answer was not that the lands were too scattered. The Deputy mentioned in particular the possibility of acquiring land at Cheek-point. I am glad to say a large number of offers of land in that area are under examination and I hope we shall be able to make progress there.

I am very grateful to the Minister.

It is a fact that some. of the lands on offer are lands which can be acquired satisfactorily only when other areas have come in; but, as I have said, the position in that regard is becoming less difficult from day to day as the development goes on.

Deputy O. J. Flanagan referred to the possibility of land being acquired for afforestation at Ballinahemmy in Laois. The Department is actively pursuing offers of land in that district. An offer of 600 acres of commonage recently received is being examined. Some Deputies seem to think that my Department could take over Bord na Móna workers at certain periods of the year when work for them was slack. I regret to say that would not work out. In the first place, Bord na Móna have not got, so far, sufficient quantities of cut-away bog for major forestry development. Furthermore, their view is that they must completely finish with the bog before they can allow my Department in. However, the position is under constant examination and whenever Bord na Móna are in a position to make any substantial contribution of cut-away bog to the Forestry Division, we shall gladly consider it.

It was also suggested that a new survey of potential forestry land throughout the country should be made. A full survey was made a few years ago which was sufficient to indicate any likely areas that might become available. The real problem in this is to get the people to sell. Our experience in the Department is that going around looking for land generally does not produce the results one would expect. It all comes back to the owner and whether he will decide to get rid of a certain amount of his marginal land to the Department. It is only when offers are received that we would have the staff available to go and examine them.

It was also suggested that I should consider a pension scheme for forestry workers. Forestry workers already can qualify for a gratuity under Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887. Any more attractive benefits could be given only as part of a general review of the position of other similar classes in State employment and that, I fear, is outside the scope of what we are dealing with here.

I cannot pass from Deputy O. J. Flanagan without referring to his allegations here about Geashill forest and his suggestion that I relied entirely on the reports I got from the officers of my Department in this matter. The Deputy was careful to keep his mouth shut about the fact that he and some others made slanderous charges of fraud against some officials in this forest. Not only did I refuse to take the reports given to me in my Department but I did what I considered to be my duty as Minister, if such allegations are made anywhere, I handed the matter over to the Garda for full investigation.

The Garda fully investigated the matter and the official concerned was found, on their investigation, not to be guilty of the allegations made by the Deputy, so that it is incorrect to state that I relied on reports from officers of my Department in this connection. The matter, like any other serious allegations of fraud in respect of State workers, was referred to the people who deal with that kind of thing and what the Garda had to report to me did not bear out the Deputy's allegations against this man.

Having known that, I regret he thought fit to use this debate to reiterate some of the charges formerly made by him in connection with this man. Neither is it true to say that the man with whom the Deputy is concerned was dismissed by the Department or victimised in any way. The gentleman concerned went on strike himself and then looked for his insurance card. Since his departure, I am glad to say that work is proceeding satisfactorily in that forest. The gentleman the Deputy referred to was not dismissed or victimised by my Department. He dismissed himself.

I do not know whether there are many other matters raised on this debate that call for comment. The Department as a whole and its officers have been complimented by Deputies from all sides of the House on the tremendous job they did in reaching the national target of 25,000 acres planting. That was done by the officers concerned on a very reduced staff in comparison with the job that had to be done. I should say that I found them enthusiastic in their work. Were it not for the enthusiasm and zeal they put into the job, we would never have reached the target we reached this year.

We hope not alone to continue but to expand that target. We are getting better geared for the job now. Some of the matters which were causing delays, outside the ones to which I have already referred, such as the question of the discharge of equities and title, will now be dealt with. I hope that, when we come to the House again with this Estimate, causes for complaint will have been removed.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn