asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the estimated volume of timber (a) for felling and (b) actually felled by sub-contractors in State forests in (i) 1980, (ii) 1981 and (iii) 1982.
175.
Written Answers. - Forestry Statistics.
174.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the estimated volume of timber (i) marked for felling and (ii) actually felled by sub-contractors in State forests (a) in the first half of 1983 and (b) in the second half of 1983.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 174 and 175 together.
National forestry records are not compiled in such a way as would give the precise information requested. However, perhaps the data in the appended table in respect of total volume of timber marked for sale and actually sold would go some way towards meeting the Deputy's requirements.
Table
|
1980 |
1981 |
1982 |
|
|
m³ |
m³ |
m³ |
|
|
Marked for sale |
818,579 |
856,360 |
806,705 |
|
Sales |
529,326 |
771,894 |
999,039 |
|
Sold standing |
407,581 |
625,234 |
799,231 |
|
(77%) |
(81%) |
(80%) |
|
|
Harvested by or on behalf of FWS |
121,745 |
146,660 |
199,808 |
|
(23%) |
(19%) |
(20%) |
Note:
(a) There is an inevitable overlap from year to year as regards volumes programmed for sale and volumes actually sold.
(b) Final figures for 1983 are not yet available.
(c) In regard to timber sold standing the felling could have been carried out directly by the purchasers of the timber or by contractors engaged by them. In these cases FWS would not be directly involved.
(d) In regard to timber harvested by the FWS such harvesting would have been largely carried out by FWS employees and to a lesser extent by contractors. In order to ascertain the precise volume of harvesting carried out by contract on behalf of the FWS it would be necessary to consult staff in some 250 individual forests and it is felt that the cost of such investigation would not be warranted.
176.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (a) the receipts from the sale of timber and (b) the money payable but not received in respect of timber extracted in 1983 from each of three State forests; Rathdrum, County Wicklow, Thomastown, County Kilkenny and Comeragh, County Waterford.
177.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will state in respect of 1983 in relation to Thomastown forest, County Kilkenny: the volume of timber (a) (i) for felling and (ii) actually felled; (b) the number of sub-contractors involved in the extraction of timber; (c) the number of such sub-contractors who furnished sub-contractors' certificates; and (d) if he will confirm where sub-contractors' certificates were not furnished, that the appropriate statutory deductions in respect of taxes were (i) received by his Department or (ii) transmitted to the Revenue Commissioners; and if he will confirm if the identification of all sub-contractors involved was furnished to the Revenue Commissioners.
178.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will state in respect of 1983 in relation to Comeragh forest, County Waterford: the volume of timber (a) (i) for felling and (ii) actually felled; (b) the number of sub-contractors involved in the extraction of timber; (c) the number of such sub-contractors who furnished sub-contractors' certificates; and (d) if he will confirm where sub-contractors' certificates were not furnished that the appropriate statutory deductions in respect of taxes were (i) received by his Department or (ii) transmitted to the Revenue Commissioners; and if he will confirm if the identification of all sub-contractors involved was furnished to the Revenue Commissioners.
179.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will state in respect of 1983 in relation to Rathdrum forest, County Wicklow: the volume of timber (a) (i) for felling and (ii) actually felled; (b) the number of sub-contractors involved in the extraction of timber, (c) the number of such sub-contractors who furnished sub-contractors' certificates; and (d) if he will confirm where sub-contractors' certificates were not furnished that the appropriate statutory deductions in respect of taxes were (i) received by his Department or (ii) transmitted to the Revenue Commissioners; and if he will confirm if the identification of all sub-contractors involved was furnished to the Revenue Commissioners.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 176 to 179 together.
As the detailed information requested is not available at headquarters it has been necessary to contact the appropriate local offices to facilitate its compilation. I have asked that, as far as practicable, the data be furnished to the Deputy without delay.