I think it was Senator Duffy who suggested last night that we require a great deal of enthusiasm to push on forestry. That may be, but, in my opinion, nothing has done so much harm to forestry as ill-informed enthusiasm. We have had a great deal of that. I say that on behalf of the sufferers—the poor trees. I might propose with some advantage that a society be formed for the prevention of cruelty to trees. The long enumeration of penal offences which the Minister gave us last night will convey some idea of the enormities which are committed. There is a certain road in Galway on which I do not venture to go for a walk with a man I know very well—I have been married to him for 40 years. He is a lover of trees and it gives him pain to see the sufferings of those trees. I wonder what would happen if we were to encourage the planting of an acre of trees on each farm and then leave them there to suffer and to die. I do not think that we should stand for anything like that. We can very safely leave the progress of forestry in the competent hands in which it is at present. There is there a sufficient amount of enthusiasm but it is well-informed enthusiasm—enthusiasm that takes account of the difficulties and the possibilities. It used to be suggested that there was an anti-forestry bias in our legislation. There is no justification at all for that. I know the present Minister well for a long time. In his youth, he may have shared ideas that have since been found to be erroneous but he has retained sufficient realisation of the value of afforestation to be anxious to advance it. He has a fine staff around him and we must be content to move forward at a steady pace. On that account, I think that we may rest perfectly satisfied that everything which it is possible to do in the circumstances is being done.
Forestry Bill, 1945—Second Stage (Resumed).
I feel that there has been more nonsense spoken and more misinformed statements made about forestry than about any other subject that has been discussed in this country. We are all anxious to develop forestry but I feel that the proper way to develop it is according to a plan prepared by people who know something about it. I believe that these are the only people who are capable of preparing a scheme for its further development. Listening to the discussions here about forestry—I do not know very much about it and I am not prepared to put forward any definite views on the subject—I have come to the conclusion that the experts are the only people capable of doing the job and I am prepared to leave it to them. I have heard statements made about forestry from the economic and commercial point of view. Statements have been made in this and the other House, and by people outside, that forestry, if properly developed, would be the salvation of this country. It was almost said that we could climb from the top of the trees to heaven if we had sufficient trees to climb. One statement made here last evening by my friend, Senator Baxter, was that we should have 60 per cent. of the country under woods and forests. He gave as an example the case of Finland, which had 60 per cent. of its area under forestry and he said there was no reason why we should not have the same proportion of our country under trees. I think that was the most silly argument I ever heard put forward. I am not like Senator Foran, who says: "My Party, right or wrong." I am prepared to differ from anybody who I think is making a false statement, and I think I would have the permission of my chief, Senator Professor Hayes, for doing that.
I thought we had no Parties here.
May I go on record as doubting that Senator Baxter said that we should have 60 per cent. of the country under forests?
He compared the 60 per cent. which was under forestry in Sweden——
That is a different thing.
And he said there was no reason why we should not have something of the same kind here. He also commented on the Minister's statement that any land fit for agricultural purposes should not be taken for forestry, and when I interrupted to say that the Minister was quite right, I got a look from the Front Bench of Fine Gael that nearly withered me up.
How wrong they can be!
I thoroughly agree with the Minister and I do not often agree with him or the Department which he represents. I think that when a Minister or anybody else makes a statement which is founded on common sense, we ought to agree with him and not try to put him in the wrong on every occasion. He is in the wrong often enough I agree, but when he does make a sensible statement, it is the duty of members of the House to say: "We agree with the Minister in this case at all events." A price of £4 per acre is I understand the limit to which the Land Commission are prepared to go for land for forestry or which it is possible from an economic point of view to pay for the fee-simple of land for forestry. Any sensible man who knows anything about forestry knows that it will take at least 50 years before there is any return from the land which we will plant now and that on that basis £4 per acre would be a sufficient price to pay. We have plenty of land for forestry which possibly would not be worth more than £4 per acre. Until all that land is planted, I do not think we should advocate the planting of land which is suitable for agricultural purposes.
Many speakers said that we should be prepared to leave the question of the land suitable for planting, and the sort of trees which we should plant, to the experts but there are other matters on which I think Senators would be quite as capable of forming an opinion as the Land Commission or the Forestry Department. For instance, on the question of the value of the land that is taken over compulsorily, I think that any common-sense person would be able to form as good an opinion as the Land Commission or the Forestry Department. Other Departments, the Department for Local Government, for example, in taking up land for building purposes, appoint an arbitrator to fix the value of the land. They do not leave it to the Department of Land to fix the price. I think there is a question there which deserves consideration from the Minister. He is very anxious that this Bill should meet with goodwill and if he is looking for goodwill I suggest that there should be some other Department for fixing the price of land acquired compulsorily by the Land Commission for forestry. Senator Duffy made a statement last night that land was acquired at as low a price as 4½d. per acre. I cannot say whether that is correct but if so it looks a ridiculous price for the Land Commission to pay for land acquired compulsorily. I do not know what truth is in that but the Minister will be able to tell us. That is one of the points that should be looked into.
There were some other statements made with regard to planting with which I disagree. The Department of Agriculture, the Land Commission and the Forestry Department are very keen on shelter belts. I am not. I think the best shelter belt is a whitethorn or blackthorn hedge and that it provides greater shelter for any farm than shelter belts such as have been suggested here. I feel that a shelter belt is merely a breeding ground for vermin and that they are no use for the purposes for which they are put up. I know a little bit about shelter belts myself, and I think there is no better shelter belt than thorn hedges on a farm. I have some woods on my own farm. I have sold some timber for commercial purposes and for firewood and in discussing the matter with some experts they tell me that planting on rich land in this country, and for commercial purposes, is only a waste of time and a waste of money. I felt that that was so in my own case. Trees were planted on rich land and when they reached the age of 50 years they were absolutely useless for commercial purposes, as they were all decayed and rotten.
There is one other point I would like to make, and that is to say that the farmers are being ousted from every job. The Minister here is setting up a consultative council, but every one of those people he has named for that council are people who are all out for planting. Why not put somebody on that board that knows something about farming and the result of planting farms? The farmers are completely excluded from this Bill, and I strongly protest against the exclusion of farmers from every position. It appears that the farmers count for nothing in the State Departments of this Government.
I am in the same position as Senator Counihan in so far as I know very little about forestry. I am in agreement with him that these important questions should be left to experts to decide, such as the amount of land in this country that should be planted. In this matter, just as we have had a conflict of opinion in this House in so far as Senator Counihan's remarks are concerned, compared with the very instructive discourses that were given by Senator Baxter, Senator Duffy and Senator Professor Johnston, so there are also differences of opinion amongst the experts. Some time ago I read a treatise compiled by an expert in which he stated that when 600,000 acres of land are planted with lumber-bearing woods it would only give employment to about 8,000 men after 80 years, while a national scheme of afforestation to produce wood derivatives would give immediate employment to tens of thousands of men, and after 35 years the number of men employed would run into 400,000.
If there is anything in that I think the Government should go all out for such a policy to implement the promises very freely made some years ago when another Government was in power that under a new order it would be not only possible to give employment to all the unemployed at home, but that it would be found necessary to bring back the hundreds of thousands of our people who are abroad. I am not saying that the opinion of that expert is correct, but he gave his opinion as an expert.
I hold that before afforestation on a national scale is taken on by the Government a comprehensive scientific survey should be made of the land of Ireland that can only be planted with profit. The Government should have the means to make such a survey and until it is made I think it would not be advisable to go on with any national scale of afforestation. We all know that notwithstanding the work on land division that has been carried on by two successive Governments the land hunger in this country is not yet appeased. We also know that in the very near future, we hope, large-scale building operations will be carried on and from the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday evening we learned that for a very considerable period this country must rely on native fuel. The question of relieving the unappeased land hunger and making provision for building and building-sites, and considering the question of the turbary needs of the people of the country must be taken into account before a national scheme of afforestation can be considered and until they are taken into account such a scheme cannot be given effect to.
With Senator Professor Johnston, I am in thorough agreement that encouragement should be given to private enterprise in the matter of planting. From time to time we hear very adverse criticism of the farmers who go into new farm holdings, immediately set about cutting down the beautiful woods that were on these farms, but let us realise that it was not hatred of the woods or lack of appreciation of them that was responsible. They cut down these woods because they needed the land for cultivation and for no other reason. I do know, of course, of cases where beautiful shelter belts were cut down up to 20 years ago and the sites are still neither planted nor tilled, but they are the exception rather than the rule. With a view to encouraging private enterprise I think it would be necessary that landholders throughout the country who could be got to make plantations of shelter belts should have the assurance that when these belts came to maturity they or their heirs or successors would not be subject to the restrictions of the present time when a man cannot cut down a tree unless he has the permission of the Civic Guards and a Civic Guard there on the land to see that the particular tree is cut down.
If people could have an assurance that when trees have reached the age of maturity they could cut them down, I believe that it would help very considerably in the reafforestation of this country. I agree also with the opinions expressed yesterday evening that some scheme of education should be adopted that would instruct the people in the uses and values of timber and in that matter I think also that an effort should be made to train our own nationals in the work of supervising and planting and after-care so that when this country is ready to put into operation a national scheme of reafforestation it will have the help of Irishmen to look after these schemes and not be dependent on importing foreigners. I know that in America when they started out on their forestry schemes they had their own nationals and their own people to look after the particular work and the effect was very beneficial.
So far as the money is concerned— and it will take money to carry out any scheme decided on—I do believe that a large amount at present expended on unproductive services, doles and the like, could be devoted with good effect to the work of reafforestation. I consider, however, before any scheme is decided on, we should have statistics before us pointing out the amount of land that can be planted in this country, planted with profit, and which will not be necessary for the relief of congestion or for the appeasement of the land hunger that is still far from being satisfied.
My contribution to this debate will be beautifully brief. I am at a bit of a loss to know whether the speakers who spoke before me to-day are in favour of this Forestry Bill or not. Opinion on the opposite benches appears to be a trifle divided. I think we should congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. At any rate it is a step in the right direction and it is something definite and emphatic. It is a contribution to the solution of a problem which has stared us in the face for many years. I think there can be no two opinions on the desirability of having this Bill. So far as the details are concerned, we may differ slightly on some of the provisions, but taking it by and large it is pretty evident that a Forestry Bill is necessary for Ireland. Ireland needs to be afforested; at whose expense I do not know, but I suppose some interest will suffer. I presume that Senator Counihan would prefer the great open spaces of the West, where men are men and where there would be no shelter belts.
It has been stressed that forestry is a long-term problem and so it is, but Senator Counihan's estimate of 50 years is, I suggest, well wide of the mark. He says that it will take 50 years to get a return but I say that in 20 years you will reap plenty of things that will make afforestation well worth the money and that you will get that return in a man's life-time. Let us not fall into the vulgar error of some people who tell you that these Pygmalion trees are sapping the nourishment out of the land. So far as any land may be taken over which might otherwise be good for farming is concerned I think the occupants of those lands may be relied upon to see that they are not taken over. The land which is taken for forestry is in the main fit for nothing else, though there may be exceptions. You find it is stony land, the arid slopes of hillsides with a thin scrawny film of earth over them. It would not be fit even for sheep grazing and these are the lands which are generally taken by the forestry authorities, but even in those cases they are meeting determined hostility.
If I might inflict myself for five minutes on the Seanad I would tell of an incident which happened to myself. In my salad days as a T.D. there was a particular hill in my county which remained bare though it had been grazed for centuries past. The people of that locality never tired of asking their T.D.s and Senators to do a bit of planting on that hill. The T.D. or Senator would be "boned" on every possible occasion, and asked: "What about that hill; can you not get it planted—it is fit for nothing?" These people were looking to the main point, of course, but that is neither here nor there. On one occasion another gentleman and your humble servant tramped that hill from end to end. The local inhabitants looked on with curious eyes speculating on what the two men were meandering about for. The hill grew nothing but furze bushes, heather and long grass. It would give any cattle, even Senator Counihan's 4-year-olds, the murrain. It was a "liberty". I tried to put things in train but nothing came of it. In those days the Department was not quite as sprightly as it will be, I trust, under the aegis of the present Minister.
The local rate collector for this area came to me about six months afterwards and he said to me with a knowing smile: "You did me a very good turn.""Why?" said I. "Well," said he, "up to the time yourself and So-and-so walked the hill the people were saying that they were not bound to pay rates for that hill. But since you walked it they are in such a hurry to assert their rights of tenure over it that every one of them is paying the rate." The same thing, of course, has happened in recent years, and where the forestry authorities have been in the process of acquiring land they have met with silent and tacit opposition. The people suddenly find that land which had no value except as a liberty has now developed cyclopean proportions, and where before they were satisfied with £1 an acre they now want fantastic prices. I do not blame them, but the fact remains that land taken by the forestry authorities is supposed to be suitable for nothing but forestry, and if a man gets only £4 an acre for it I think that is a good and decent solatium.
I do not think there is any danger of land which is good for agriculture, for conacre or anything else, ever being taken over for forestry. The people who own this land will see to it that the forestry branch does not get it and the element of compulsion does not enter into it at all. I know of nothing which is more amenable to damage than a young plantation. A plantation planted against the wishes of the local inhabitants would, I fear, come to an untimely end. Paraffin, rags and matches are still fairly easy come by and I think compulsion would be a grave error. I am sure, indeed, there is not the least fear of the authorities indulging in compulsion in any way.
I think a serious matter with which the forestry authorities will have to deal is the wholesale denudation of beauty spots. I speak with feeling on this. When I come to the Seanad or anyone else comes from the south-east coast they have objects of beauty before their eyes. County Wicklow is really not my bailiwick, but the Vale of Avoca is a beauty spot, pleasant if somewhat pastoral. It was flanked by trees on the right and left, but some commercially-minded timber man, well within his rights, no doubt, felled trees wholesale, on the left-hand side of the railway, as you come from Arklow to Avoca. I presume it will be replanted. In the village of Avoca the Catholic church was standing there backed by a grove of trees, spruce and pine, but the whole hill at the back of the church has been denuded wholesale. From the aesthetic and cultural point of view I do not think that would be allowed to happen in any country under the sun.
I do not know who is responsible. I am sure that, from the legal point, everything was right and that permission was obtained, but anyway what happened there was a scandal. I imagine that if we had something approximating to a national trust here —I am sure the Minister would be very anxious to have that—such a thing could not have happened. I do not know who is to blame, whether it is the forestry authorities or the owner, but whoever is to blame it was nothing short of sheer wantonness. Something should be done to ensure that an occurrence of the kind will be not merely improbable but impossible in the future.
I think the Minister is to be congratulated on bringing in this Bill. We want shelter belts and we want something to soften the bare bleak landscapes which are becoming bleaker since it became necessary to cut more and more trees. As far as the experts are concerned, I think it would be just as well not to bother too much about them at the start. What you need at the start is enthusiasm. If it were not for our enthusiasm years ago—much of it may have been misdirected—but anyway if it were not for it and for the eloquence and the spirit of those days, this Assembly would not be here to-day. It was that enthusiasm that made this Assembly possible. At the beginning you want the enthusiasts. The experts will be needed, too, although I would not put my faith too much in them. The expert of to-day may be the wornout expert of to-morrow. There is very little land in this country, except poor stony land, that will not grow some kind of a tree. Improvements are being made every day in the breeding and, so to speak, the fashioning of trees. They will grow now in almost any soil. Forestry is a long-term policy. It is a policy that can be pursued not merely within the object of improving the amenities and the face of the country, but of providing employment for those who will succeed us. God knows we suffered enough in the past from the destruction of our forests. We do not want the tragedy of Sean a' Gleanna enacted again. The present Minister can be trusted to go ahead with his forestry policy. He should rely not merely on the experts but also on the idealists who are necessary in their own sphere.
The Minister can hardly expect congratulations on this measure because it is really only a consolidating measure. The object is to bring the law in the existing Acts into one statute. I think that the Minister would deserve congratulation if he had given us a comprehensive memorandum on the whole background of the forestry problem. Has his Department made a survey of potential forestry activities, and has it considered at close quarters the economic aspects of forestry? If so, I think we have a right to know what return may be expected from land that is suitable for forestry when the crop matures. One finds great differences of opinion on that subject. Some calculate that it costs £10 an acre to plant land. In addition, there is the cost of fencing. If you assume that you borrow the money and pay compound interest on it, what return are you likely to get when the trees come to be felled? I take it that the Minister and his advisers would know that. If so, they should make the information available for the understanding section of the people. These matters should be brought into the open, and the people told about them. Can the Minister tell us what are the economic prospects of forestry, and what is the potential area of land that can be planted?
I was very interested in what Senator Duffy had to say, although I do not know that estimates from different countries can be very much of a guide for us. I speak subject to correction when I say that I think there is a considerable portion of land in this country that is not suitable for planting. Take the Knockmealdown Mountains. I understand the position there is that you can plant up to a much higher level on the northern slopes than you can on the southern. Due, I believe, to early frost, the trees will grow better on the northern slopes than on the southern. That, of course, is a matter of expert opinion. You cannot expect a Government to plant land which is suitable for forestry if you can get it only in small detached pockets, say, 15 acres here and another 15 acres a mile or two away. It would not be reasonable to expect a Government to take on small plantations. It must have a fairly large continuous area to plant.
Perhaps the Minister would tell us about the suitability of native-grown timber for commercial purposes. The other day I wanted some flooring and was told that I could not have imported flooring. The man who is to do the job for me told me that the native flooring was useless and would give me endless trouble. He said it would be better for me to leave the job over until I could get foreign flooring. There are, undoubtedly, limitations to the suitability of native timber for commercial purposes. It may be that the soft woods grow too fast and that they can never be as suitable as the slower-grown foreign timber. I hope the Minister will bear these points in mind when prescribing the form of replanting that is to take place. There is the danger of prescribing a certain type of replanting, irrespective of the suitability of the timber to be grown. It is a matter, of course, for expert opinion as to whether soft woods or hard woods should be grown in a particular place.
We heard a lot to-day about experts. I ask the leave of the House to tell two stories. The late Lord Salisbury once said that, according to the soldier, nothing is sacred, and that, according to the theologian, nothing is right; their opinions all want to be diluted with a strong admixture of common-sense. That applies to what we call experts. A friend of mine who was an expert in his subject was told one day by a friend of his that he proposed to call in an expert to lay out his garden. This expert also knew a good deal about gardening, although he was only an amateur in that respect. He said: "Take my advice, and make your own mistakes." The advice of experts has to be taken with a due admixture of common sense. I hope the Minister will consult his Department on the long-term view as to the most suitable timber to grow and not merely take the types at present fashionable as the types to lay down for the future. He should also bear in mind the question as to the percentage of our land which is really suitable for forestry. Senator Counihan must know as well as I do that, although land may be suitable for forestry, if there are any grazing rights over it, however meagre—even if only a few sheep run on the land in summer —there will be a hullabaloo and a great deal of political pressure before that land can be planted, although the right thing to do from the national and economic standpoint would be to exclude the graziers and plant the land. In many cases, the two can be combined.
On Committee Stage I shall have something to say about the power taken to discriminate between mortgages. As I read the section, in distributing the money paid for land, there is power to discriminate between the priority of mortgages. That seems to be a new departure. The first mortgage should be recognised as such and a legal position should be followed. Section 42 is a most dangerous section. It gives power to exact a contribution from the owner of land who has a felling licence. That provision will have to be examined very closely, indeed. I hope the Minister will prepare a comprehensive survey of our whole forestry position both from the point of view of the land which it is possible to plant and the classes of timber to be planted. I see nowhere in the Bill a reference to the system of natural regeneration. That is the practice in some places on the Continent and in some cases it is possible here. One cuts down a tree, lets in the light and the seed from the old tree germinates. You get regeneration in the Vosges, in France, where the silver fir is the main crop. There is practically no replanting done there.
Senator Kehoe spoke about the suitability of timber for fuel. I agree with him to this extent—that, if you cut down a heavy tree and have enormous labour in cross-cutting it and splitting it, it is not economic. But my experience is that wood blocks are better than turf. They last longer and I do not think that they are any more expensive. Does the Department recognise the right to replant cleared land to a certain extent with firewood coppice? I believe that that would be good business, particularly on detached plots. On a 10-year rotation, with the right kind of wood—not too much ash, as that burns too quickly—you would get quite a good firewood at an economic cost and there would be very little labour in cutting it. I do not say that that should become the general practice, but anybody who wanted to do it should not be forbidden under some rule of the Department.
There is a good deal in what Senator Duffy said yesterday as to the distinction between forestry and woods. Forestry is essentially within the province of the State. You would not get by private enterprise the continuity of management required for a forestry scheme. On the other hand, if a farmer wants to cut down a hedgerow ash-tree which is doing damage, it does seem absurd that it should be necessary for somebody from the Department to see it and to prescribe conditions about replanting it before he cuts it. The other day I saw a place around a house cluttered up with shrubs and a tree or two. There, again, the Department is brought into action. They came along and said that so many trees must be replanted. The place was, obviously, one in which trees should not be replanted at all. In any event, the decision as regards replanting should rest with the owner. Once a Government Department steps in, it is very hard to draw the line.
I think that it is generally agreed that we want more trees. The Minister has been responsible for a number of forestry stations in Cork, some of which have been extended. A good deal more land which, in my opinion, although I am not an expert, would be suitable for planting could be procured. Some of this land is being farmed at present in a manner not very profitable. But the owners of the land will not part with it for £4 an acre. My suggestion to the Land Commission would be to give the owners holdings instead of buying the land. Transfer them to holdings somewhat larger than they would get under the migrants' scheme. In that way, you would be able to get a good deal of land quite close to the existing forestry stations which could be planted quickly. That has been done successfully in one or two cases.
The question of planting by farmers must also be considered. If there were more nurseries, farmers and others would buy more trees. Very often, they will not go to the trouble of writing for them but, if they saw them, they would buy them. When they order trees, they may be badly packed and may be left at the railway station for a number of days. Frosts may occur and damage may be done otherwise. If they knew that there was a nursery somewhere convenient to them, they could order their trees and get them on the same or the following day. In that event, many more farmers would avail of the opportunity to plant trees.
Then, again, I think an effort should be made to get school teachers interested. I think teachers generally should be asked to encourage children to try to get their parents to plant more trees and to point out to them that trees are badly wanted. It has been generally agreed that we have not sufficient trees in the country. The farmer who had trees on his land was in a fairly happy position, so far as firewood was concerned, for the past six or seven years, but the unfortunate farmer who lived far away from a bog and had no timber on his land had to incur considerable expenditure to provide himself with fuel. Turf cost at least from £15 to £20 per lorry load and the farmer had to buy at least three lorry loads during the year. Farmers as a rule are fairly cute, and though many may think that the emergency is over, I would say that already many farmers will be preparing for perhaps the next war, and every one of them, if things are made fairly easy for them, will try to plant trees for the future. There is not a farmer who has not waste land who could not plant 50 or 100 trees. I think there should be more propaganda in this direction, principally through the schools, Muintir na Tíre. G.A.A. clubs and other national bodies. Many people would like to know the position with regard to wire for fencing and what would be the position for the next 12 months. I know that the Minister has been as interested in this question as anybody here and that he will do his part in pushing forward the development of woods and forests. He knows the difficulties and he encountered them in some of the stations down the country. These difficulties were not created by the Department or the experts. The local people were the snag. I suppose we shall have a lot of snags like that in future, but with good will they can be got over.
I know very little about forestry but I welcome every effort that is made for increased development in the production of native timber. My main purpose in rising is to point out that at one time there was a great pipe-making industry in this country but, due to the war, the supplies of briar have dried up entirely. Senator Sir John Keane advocated variety in tree-planting. I suggest that the Department might give some attention to the planting of briars. The pipe-making industry in this country depended entirely on the French briar in the past.
Many of us who are pipe smokers have been unable to get pipes in this country. I am just wondering, seeing that we are so enthusiastic about forestry and planting for commercial purposes, whether this is not a branch of planting that might not get some attention from the Department. Would it be possible? I do not know; I merely make the suggestion. I know if it were possible to produce this timber it might be the means of reviving a very great industry which would give employment to a large number of people, instead of importing the wood necessary for pipe making.
I think this Bill is one of the most important Bills received by the Seanad for a long time, but I am wondering with Senator Kehoe, whether the average citizen will not be concerned more with the preservation of trees we have, rather than with the creation of new woods however desirable that may be. The Minister has power, I see, under Section 51 of the Bill to punish people who damage trees and I think the whole problem of vandalism in regard to both woods and isolated trees deserves more public attention than it is getting. We see efforts by the local authorities in our cities to plant our main highways with attractive trees and it is tragic, within a few weeks of the trees being planted, to see that they are destroyed by either being uprooted or broken through. These are incidents that call for public condemnation, and in so far as the Minister has power to control them, I hope he will exert it to the full. It is perfectly obvious that unless the Bill is implemented and unless some control is exercised, the country is in danger of becoming simply a big wind-swept plain.
Any of us who travel in other countries feel a sense of shame when we see how badly we compare with these other countries in the quantity and nature of the woods we have got and, furthermore, in the way in which other countries take care of even every isolated tree. I am sorry to declare, as a Dublin man, that in this city there is less respect for the tree than in any of the big industrial cities in Britain in which I have worked. If this discussion does something to focus attention on the value to the nation of the individual tree and belts of trees, whether in shelter belts, in woods or forests, then it will be a splendid day's work.
I wonder whether we would be wise in following the suggestion of Senator Sir John Keane that all the planting that should be done should be of trees of a type that are of purely commercial purposes. This is a thing that should be looked at in a much broader sense. I feel the nation would cheerfully endorse the Minister's action if he planted huge tracts, if they could be got, with trees that have no real commercial value but that would be there as a contribution to the scenic amenities of the country and to help in maintaining the health of the country. I personally very much welcome the Bill and hope the Minister will get all the power he wishes.
Ba mhaith liom an Bille seo a mholadh. Tá suim agam ins an ábhar agus is ró-mhithid a leithéid d'Acht a bheith ar bun againn chun treo a chur ar ghnó foraoiseachta agus crann in Éirinn. Scéala is ea é atá le fada a chur imní orainn agus ag suathadh ár n-aigne. Thosnaigh an tsuim seo sna crainn againne chómh fada siar le haimsir Áirt Uí Ghríobhtha agus is ag dul i méid atá suim na tíre sa scéal sin ó shoin. Níl ins an Bille seo ach an gléas dlí atá á bheartú chun go bhféadfadh an Rialtas dul ar aghaidh le gnó curtha na gcrann. Is trua liom fhéin ná fuil ann ach léiriú ar an dlí a bhaineas leis an scéal. B'fhearr liomsa go mbéadh pictiúir níos iomláine le fáil againn ón Aire ar cad tá beartaithe ag an Rialtas a dhéanamh i leith foraoiseachta nuair a bhéas an Bille seo ina Acht.
Ní réitím leis na tairgsintí a deineadh anseo iniú ná béadh toradh ar bith ar na foraoisí nua a cuirfear ar bun go ceann caoga blian. Ní fíor sin agus is eol dom é óm thaithí féin ar ghnóthaí crann. Ón uair a tosnófar ar choillte a thanúchaint agus crainn óga a bhaint amach d'fonn aer agus fairsinge a dhéanamh don chuid eile, ni túisce sin ná go mbeidh tairbhe cinnte le fáil as na coillte. Toradh tabhachtach é sin, fiú tar éis 15 bliana i ndiaidh coill-chrann a chur in aon áit.
Do thagair an Seanadóir Sir John Keane don mbaol a bhí ann go mbéidir go raghadh an Rialtas le beart di-chéillí agus coillte beaga deich n-acra nó 15 acra a chur in áiteacha. Is cinnte go mbeidh ciall níos fearr ná sin ag an Rialtas agus má bhíonn aon éifeacht ag na sain-eolaithe seo go bhfuil tagairt dóibh i leith an Bhille seo, ní chomhairleoidh siad sin réimsí níos lú ná céad acra nó dhá chéad acra nó leath-mhíle acra a chur faoi chranna.
Ag tagairt do na sain-eolaithe sin, is ábhar baoil iad mura n-úsáitear iad chun an ghnótha gur eolach air iad. Ní dóibh sin, measaim, cinneadh ar pholasaí foraoiseachta nó cinneadh in a choinne. Sin gnó a bhaineas le polasaí poiblí an Oireachtais agus an Rialtais. Is é gnó na sain-eolaithe sin —agus tá súil agam go gcoimeádfar teoranta ar sin fhéin—an obair a leagfaidh an tOireachtas agus an Rialtas amach dóibh a chur chun chinn.
Roinnt de na tuairimí a gheibhmid óna sain-eolaithe sin go minic is deacair do chuid againn réiteach leo. Is minic ráite acu sin é gur gnó gan éifeacht bheith ag iarraidh crainn a chur i gcomhgar chuid den chósta, i gCiarraidhe, abair—ná fásfaidís ann. Ach, le fianaise mó shúile fhéin, is léir dom préamha agus ceapa crann faoi phortach, fiú ar thráigh farraige, i gCiarraidhe. Gheobhad tráigh Fionntráighe agus tráigh Bhéal-Ínse a luadh mar shomplaí i leith an ruda sin; agus do b'eol dom crainn mhóra 40 agus 60 troigh ag fás i mBaile an Ghóilín, ar an mBeithínigh agus in áiteanna eile cois farraige i gCiarraidhe, agus adhmad slachtmhar glan folláin iontu. Ach níl sa tagairt sin ach mion-rudaí agus ní leanfad de.
Aontaím go hiomlán leis an méid atá ráite ag an Seanadóir Mac Eochach nuair a mhol sé an Bille seo, na fáthanna atá laistir de agus na cuspóirí tábhachtacha atá aige. Deirim arís gur truagh liom nár thug an tAire léiriú níos iomláine dúinn ar cad é an feidhm atá ar intinn aige a bhaint as an mBille seo nuair a bheidh sé ina Acht, cad iad na coillte agus na foraoisí a bheas ag fás in Éirinn de bhárr na gcumhacht atá á iarraidh aige.
It appears to me that we are in danger of overlooking this whole problem and getting to the stage where we will not be able to see the trees on account of the wood. I would like a little enlightenment from the Minister with regard to his actual forestry programme. We can, of course, plant with the immediate hope of getting a return for commercial timber; we can plant with the object of changing the climate and we can plant with the object of rearing specialised trees from which we will get specialised products, and lastly, with the object of beautifying our country. I hope our forestry programme will not aim too forcibly at a very quick return but that our advisers will realise that we are planting for 50 years ahead, that many of the types of timber planted will require a long time to grow and we ought not to encourage a desire for a very rapid return of the outlay. I feel it is a very important thing that we should get a climatic survey of our country in relation to timber. We know from our historians that there was a good lot of timber here about 200 years ago and that it disappeared. We sometimes assume that it was cut down, but I am not quite satisfied with that opinion. I think it disappeared because it simply withered away and that it was never much good in any case. I feel that a proper understanding of the climate of our country in the light of the information gained in the last six years is bound to influence our programme. The encouragement and standing of the private planter is another matter. Is he simply going to be out of it all, or will there be some type of liaison with him so that the private planter may get what information there is available to him? That would do a great deal of good.
With regard to the atrocities perpetrated against our beauty spots and our timbered areas in the past, I do not trust myself to speak. I think that these atrocities remain a lasting memorial of the ignorance, inhumanity, and greed of our countrymen, and I hope that the areas in which these took place will be replanted as soon as possible.
I suppose we can regard the Second Stage of the Bill as merely the preliminary canter, when we are all judging each other's speeds. There has not been any specific criticism of the Bill so far and, of course, I did not expect there would be any. I always knew that Senator Counihan was not as other men, but I never knew he would confess himself to be a pharisee. He does not disagree with me or with the Department of Agriculture. If he merely waits and examines what our opinions are on various subjects on which we seem to differ, he will probably find that we are in a great measure of agreement. Actually the trouble is that he distrusts us rather than disagrees with us.
Senator Counihan's attitude towards any Bill of this nature is merely to utilise it to try to jack up the price of land. We need not be very much concerned with Senator Counihan's idea on the price of land in this Bill, because we really must confine ourselves to the type of land which is not agricultural land. There is no good in any enthusiastic forester talking about getting 2,000,000 acres, 1,000,000 acres or 500,000 acres. Anyone who has heard the debate on the Land Bill in the Dáil and the debate on the recent Land Estimate will know the tremendous demand there is for land and the difficulty there would be in trying to acquire land for forestry without the goodwill of the people.
Senator Duffy surprises me. He seems to suffer from intellectual indigestion. I did expect that a man who reads so widely as he would approach a problem of this nature with a good deal more of an enlightened outlook. He has mentioned a question in the Dáil. There were a number of questions in the Dáil from the Labour Party seeking information about forestry in anticipation of the introduction of this Bill and I saw, behind those questions, the fine Italian hand of Senator Duffy. The only contribution he has to make is the fact that the Forestry Department bought 559 acres of land at 4½d. per acre. We have directed the minds of the Dáil and the Seanad to the fact that during all the operations that have taken place in regard to land acquisition, compulsory powers had to be taken only in two particular cases and they had to be taken in those cases because there was no other reasonable method of handling the situation. One was the case of a commonage in the Barony of Forth, County Wexford. It is surprising that the local people there did not start paying rates on it before the Land Commission acquired it. The other was a commonage. There was no owner for either place and the only payment made was the little costs in connection with the acquisition, which amounted to Senator Duffy's 4½d. per acre.
The reason I want to make that clear is because compulsion under the Forestry Bill is not compulsion as the word is usually used at all. We cannot compel people to give us land for forestry, for the simple reason that forestry is very easily damaged, very easily affected, and its development is very easily prevented, except we can cultivate the goodwill of the people. If we cannot get land for forestry with goodwill, then we can have no forestry. Anybody who has any experience of the difficulties that have presented themselves to the Forestry Department in relation to the acquisition of land, where all sorts of rights, so shadowy and tenuous as not really to exist at all, have been presented to the Forestry Department in relation to the acquisition of land, will know that we really must not use compulsion except in the sense in which it is explained in the Bill. That is where there is general agreement in relation to the question of devoting a certain portion of land to forestry, and where everybody concerned has agreed, except one particular person who has some tenuous right—possibly a right-of-way—or some person who has persisted in arguing about the price. Where there is general agreement except in regard to one person's claim of right, the Land Commission will have authority to go ahead and secure the land for the general good.
Everybody who, as a Deputy or Senator, has had any dealings with farmers, landowners or rural people— I do not know anything about cities— knows that you will always find one particular individual trying to cash in on the difficulties of others, trying to hold out for the little more so that he will get a greater benefit than any of his neighbours get. It is to deal with an individual of that type that the word "compulsion" comes into the Bill at all. I agree with Senator Sir John Keane's definition: that Senator Counihan is an expert. He does know more and more about less and less. He has no real common sense about anything that is not a question of agriculture. I am sure he does know everything about agriculture, about land and about cattle, but he is quite narrow and cannot appreciate how interdependent every State activity, every State amenity, and every State property is.
I have a tremendous respect for farmers, because they seem to be concerned with nothing except their own welfare. Other people must live in the country and if the farmers were left on their own they would die out of the country like the trees. I think it was Senator Sugrue who mentioned the fact that trees have grown in certain places and asked the question why they could not grow there now. Another Senator has pointed out that there have been climatic changes. If you find the trunks of trees in bogs or places where they are not grown now, you also find petrified fish on mountain sides and there is just as much reason to expect fish to swim on the tops of mountains as to grow trees in bogs where some old trunks are.
I was surprised to hear Senator O Buachalla trotting out the ancient story of Knockboy where a planting was so badly treated that they could not grow. I have as much distrust of the British Government and its activities here as anybody else, and always had, but there is no truth in the story that every attempt was not made to make the trees grow at Knockboy. There are certain areas where you cannot really grow trees. Senator Duffy wanted 500,000 acres in Donegal. That is ridiculous and cannot be done. It is ridiculous to expect anybody to grow trees on a wild granite shore in Connemara.
There are more places in Galway than Knockboy.
Even the forestry section have not made a complete survey of the State. They are familiar with the country generally and as to whether trees can be grown or not. There is very little possibility of growing trees anywhere in Connemara.
Such information ought to be made available in proper form for the guidance of the public on these matters.
There is really nothing worse than rumour.
Senator Counihan suggested that Senator Baxter advocated that we should plant 60 per cent. of the country with trees. Senator Baxter did not do that.
Did he say that?
He is liable to say anything, in my opinion.
Senator Baxter compared our planting here with the 60 per cent. planting in Finland.
Senator Baxter did say that 60 per cent. of Finland is planted with trees. Finland is not Ireland and the conditions in the two countries are altogether different. We could not ever hope to have the amount of trees that the enthusiasts expect in this country. The programme planned was 10,000 acres per annum, and an eventual coverage of 700,000 acres. I think we should really grow, or plant, a good deal more than 10,000 acres per annum, and I think it is possible. Senator Duffy was very sarcastic about the rate of progress, but it has been progress. Every year since the Forestry Department took over the matter—since 1922 —there has been a greater acreage planted up to 1939. Even during the war years, there was an amazing acreage planted when one considers all the difficulties with which the Department was confronted. I do think that we can plant much more than 10,000 acres, but no business of that nature, no mass production working on an assembly belt, can immediately get up top-rate production. It is only after great wars that the armament producers really get into full production.
I think that continual progress over the years will enable us to do more than 10,000 acres. I believe that we should do it. Whether or not the people of the country will be satisfied with 700,000 acres is a question for the future. It will be enough for us to try to speed up our production as much as possible, and let the future take care of itself. It has been my experience that, where we have got land for planting, and got it where there was real opposition to the idea of planting: where the people withheld land from us that we were anxious to get, that after a while when they saw the benefits of planting, the labour that is employed, and the general benefit that results to a particular district from it, that we have generally been able to snowball up a good deal of land that we could not get at first. I believe that, as time goes on, when people realise the value to a particular area that the plantings are, that we will be able to get more and more land. Therefore, I think that the country will not be satisfied with the 700,000 acres or the 10,000 acres a year. They will make the thing much easier for us to develop, and will demand more planting. That is my own opinion. The best propaganda for forestry is to plant a forest in a particular area. I am sorry that I am not able to take Senator Baxter to some of the nicest forests in his own county which he has never seen. He ought to go there and not suggest that a forest has never entered his county.
The great difficulty in the development of forestry is the acquisition of land. It is not a question of price so much. The very worst land in the country, from the agricultural point of view, is denied to the forestry people. People do not believe in forestry. The farmers hate trees. The average farmer will say, as Senator Counihan said, that shelter belts are merely places where vermin gather, and will suggest that a whitethorn or blackthorn hedge is of much greater benefit to him than any particular piece of forestry that he has. Forestry is of use only when the forests are sown in large blocks of hedge-row timber. Trees planted singly here and there throughout a farm are merely a nuisance to farmers. There will be no restrictions whatever in cutting these down, if they are useless. They are not merely useless but damaging to crops. They make harvesting and sowing operations difficult. No edible vegetation will grow beneath them, and the sooner we get clear of these the better generally for farmers and for forestry. We do want land in large blocks. It is only when we get that that we can get a really sound commercial timber. I do not think there is any particular need of making a survey of the type mentioned, and of looking for land, because land will come in as needed. It might be well if we could get from our meteorologists certain information in regard to a climatic survey. That would be helpful to us.
As regards restrictions, this Bill imposes no new restrictions. It merely makes specific powers that were not explicit in the previous Acts. Senator Ruane suggested that we would encourage private enterprise if we could ensure that there would be no restrictions on the cutting of mature trees. The Forestry Department cannot prevent any man from cutting a mature tree. Recently, we had a great uproar in Kerry about the cutting down of trees in Killarney. It was said that it would be destructive of certain amenities there. I do not wish to destroy the beauty of Killarney in any way, but it was imperative that these trees should come down because otherwise they would fall down.
There is no restriction on any person cutting down mature trees. There is not much restriction on a farmer who plants timber to utilise it for any purpose of his own. But there must be restrictions on the cutting down of timber. Restrictions were rather rigidly employed during the past few years. Otherwise, a great deal of timber, which was most useful for commercial purposes and for which there was dire need, would have been destroyed and burned by people without any consideration for the welfare of the country.
The business of the Forestry Department is to grow commercial timber. There will always be, in the growing of that commercial timber, certain trunks which will not be suitable for commercial purposes—firewood and scrap wood. Our particular job is to grow commercial timber and it can be grown here. We have been so well used to the utilisation of foreign timber for our joinery and carpentry work, generally, that it has become the fashion for craftsmen to decry native-grown timber. Very often, the timber we grow at home is not properly converted. I have seen Swedish floorings which were converted improperly, too, and which were twisted and bent so that one could not make a real job of them. I have seen Irish floorings, properly converted from the log, which were as good as any imported floorings I ever saw. The difficulty is that we have not developed the kiln drying system here on a large scale. Very often, a man who is used to handling foreign timber has no idea how to handle native timber. The ordinary country wheelwright turns out from native timber perfect wheels for farm carts. Every implement in which timber is used is turned out by the local wheelwright from native timber. These things are a success simply because the man has learned his trade in an environment in which there is a tradition regarding the use of that particular type of timber. I have seen the finest fir—as good as any Swedish or Russian or even Canadian stuff— produced in Ireland. It is wrong that we should decry the idea that we can produce timber of first class quality here.
Senator Baxter asked about the proportion of hard to soft woods. We are planting about 12 per cent. of hard woods. I think that we should increase the amount of hard woods which we are planting. As regards labour, I understand that, for every thousand acres planted, we can have permanent employment for 10 men and temporary employment for about 140 men. The argument is often advanced that we might put some of the men who are drawing unemployment assistance on the work of forestry development. That has been tried. It was tried extensively in England. Those who made the experiment have come to the conclusion that unemployed men of the cities, where the greatest number of unemployed is always to be found, are quite unsuitable for such work. They are unable to handle a spade. They cannot endure the rough weather conditions in the country. It is only a labourer accustomed to rural conditions who is of any use in work of that nature. From the point of view of forestry and allied occupations, you can regard most of these people on the dole as unemployable.
In Section 41, the question of natural regeneration, to which Senator Sir John Keane referred, is dealt with. Our costs here are, of course, greater than in Finland or any of the other timber-growing countries because, in those countries, natural regeneration is the system in operation. Here, we have to sow the seed and look after the plants and transplants. That does not make the work an economic proposition in comparison with the production of timber in other countries. Reading the works of certain forestry enthusiasts, one would come to the conclusion that forestry was one of the most magnificent long-term investments in the world and that all we should have to do, as Senator Counihan said, to get to heaven by way of trees, would be to devote all our land to trees. That is ridiculous. It is impossible to get exact figures but I do think that, over the long distance, as between costs of planting and what is garnered as a result, we would not do much more than break even. It is, however, essential that, if ever we are caught on one foot, as we were in 1914 and, more particularly, in 1939, we should have a very sound timber cover. We should have been in a very bad condition for the past six years if it were not for the meagre amount of forestry we had. Most of that has gone but we should make every effort to develop forestry again as a barrier against difficulties which may arise, and which show every indication of arising, in the future.
Apart from that, this country has been criminally denuded of trees. Some of our greatest beauty spots have been destroyed by selfishness and greed. We have taken powers in this Bill to adopt such action as will preserve scenic amenities. Those of us who love the beauty of the countryside and who know how much it is enhanced by proper forestry cover must try to create enthusiasm for the preservation of that beauty, apart altogether from the question of mere economics. I assume that, on the next stage, we shall debate this Bill section by section and have a more thorough explanation and more understanding on the matter.