Vol. 30 No. 14
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £37,803 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Foraoiseachta.
That a sum not exceeding £37,803 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, 1930, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Forestry.
The amount of the Vote proposed is £56,803, as against £57,851 last year, a decrease of over £1,000. The important sub-head is sub-head C1—Acquisition of land— £7,000, as against £10,000 in each of the two previous years. The money provided under this sub-head is voted as a grant-in-aid in order that unexpended balances at the end of each year may be allowed to accumulate to form an acquisition fund. The unexpended balance in hand on 31st March, 1929, was £7,045. The reason for the grant-in-aid arrangement is that under the old conditions in the purchase of land preliminary negotiations were somewhat protracted as a rule, and even when general agreement as to a bargain has been reached it is not absolutely certain whether the money will be available or not. If the money is voted by way of a grant-in-aid none of it is surrendered, and the particular officer carrying out negotiations knows how far he can go and what money he has.
In connection with cultural operations—£43,000—there is an increase of £1,000, mainly due to the fact that each year the area is getting bigger and cultural operations are getting more expensive. We have one or two foresters and foremen. Their salaries are on the Estimate. Of the item of £8,300 for maintenance, £3,800 is for labour and £4,500 is for materials. Under cultural operations labour amounts to £24,700. I do not think I need comment on the smaller items. Forestry education is a small item. It is for the purpose of training a certain number of forestry apprentices who are included in the service each year.
I move: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." The reason why I do so is because we believe that sufficient is not being done for afforestation. The Minister has explained that a certain amount remained over in the hands of the Forestry Department out of the sum voted for the acquisition of land at the end of the last two years, and that therefore the amount this year has been reduced from £10,000 to £7,000. I do not know that much can be done for afforestation unless the amount voted for the acquisition of land be considerably increased instead of decreased, because it is admitted, I think, by everybody, that there is a deficiency of land under afforestation. It is rather a peculiar thing that the two items in the Estimate in which there is a decrease are the acquisition of land and advances for afforestation purposes, while the other items, such as salaries, wages and travelling expenses have been increased. I accept the Minister's explanation that the reason for the increase in the grant for cultural operations is because the areas are being enlarged, and that therefore the expenses have increased. But why the other item of salaries, wages and allowances should have increased by the enormous sum of £1,200 I do not know.
The Forestry Act.
Even with the Forestry Act, I do not see why it should be increased from £7,000 to £8,200. That is a very large increase. If as a result of the Forestry Act we were to have a big increase in the amount of land planted there would be justification for the big increase in the salaries bill. But it appears that the only advantage we have got from the Forestry Act, at least in this Estimate, is an increase in the salaries bill. There are other points to which I would like to draw attention. I believe, from the information I have been able to get, that the Forestry Department are acting on a policy of planting soft woods rather than hard woods, and I am not sure that that is the proper policy for this country. In England the wood that is used is estimated to be 80 per cent. soft wood as against 20 per cent. hard wood, the reason being that there is a big amount of wood used for pit props which brings up the percentage of soft wood. That would be a justification for the English Forestry Department going in for the planting of soft woods on a much wider scale than hard woods. But in this country I do not think that the position is the same. We learn from English returns that they import in some years up to twenty million pounds' worth of timber, 80 per cent. of which would be coniferous. Last year Ireland imported one and a half million pounds' worth of timber. It is not possible to find out from the returns what proportion of that was soft wood and what proportion was hard wood, but I believe that there is a much bigger proportion of hard wood used in this country than there is used in England. On that account I think that our Forestry Department should go in for the planting of some of the hard woods, whereas up to the present I believe that they have confined themselves almost entirely to soft woods.
Afforestation, apart from supplying our needs in timber, which is rather a big item, amounting to a million and a half pounds worth imported last year, is one of the most useful forms of industry for absorbing the unemployed in rural areas. As a matter of fact, even from the estimate for cultural operations here we can see that a very large proportion of the money is spent on labour. There is, I think, no other form of industry in this country that could be speeded up to give such good economic results eventually and that could give as much employment to labour as afforestation, in view of the capital costs that would be incurred on other forms of relief of unemployment, and looking at it from the point of view of the relief of unemployment. I say that it is one of the best things we could do at present. There is also the matter to be considered, what amount of land is available in the country for planting. That leads to the making of an economic calculation, just as in the case of any other crop or in regard to any other thing that we may do with our land. We take, for instance, the best land in the country, we take the mountain land and we take the poor medium land and try to find out whether it would be economic to plant any of these classes of land. We have certain mountain land in the country that is only capable of producing from two to eleven lbs. of meat per year from the grazing of sheep. These are figures that were given before a Commission that sat in 1920. On the other hand, the planting of that particular mountain land that only produced that amount of meat might not be economic, because, in the first place, you must consider what sort of trees you can plant on that mountain. That particular mountain might only grow very poor timber. It might not grow a big quantity of timber per acre per year. Another point that must be taken into consideration is the cost of felling that timber when it comes to maturity and the marketing of it. These are all matters of calculation; to find out whether it would be a better economic proposition to plant mountains that at present are grazing sheep or whether it would be better to leave them under grass. In the same way when we come to consider land, not mountain land but low land, which is not in good order for grazing, we cannot calculate what it is worth at present. We are also up against the proposition there, what it would cost to plant and whether, when the timber had been grown on it, it would be possible to market it economically.
I believe that at the present time the price of timber is falling. Of course that has only happened since the end of the war. But, taking the price of timber before the war, during the war and at the present time, it should be quite easy to calculate, within a reasonable margin, what is the lowest price you might expect to get for timber that would have matured in forty, fifty or sixty years' time. It is possible also to calculate the number of cubic feet per acre that would be grown on any of the classes of land that I have referred to. In that way, we would be able to get our formula of what the timber would be worth then, per year, as against what the grass is worth per year at the present time. As I have said, we imported last year timber to the value of one and a half million pounds. I do not believe that a single ton of that timber came in unmanufactured. It all came in either manufactured or partially manufactured. The greater part of it, I think, was fully manufactured before coming in here in the form of furniture, coach bodies, boxes and other things. Some of it came in in the form of boards and planks which were partially manufactured. Then you had window frames and doors, on which quite an amount of labour had been spent before they came into the country. Our importers had to pay not only the cost of this timber, but also for the cost of labour on it in some other country, while our own carpenters and labouring people were idle.
Take against the figure that I have given, the figures for the export of timber. We exported timber to the value of about £215,000. About £135,000 worth of that was just in the round. It was simply felled and cut across in two places, and sent to the port to be shipped out of the country. The least possible amount of labour was expended on that timber before it left this country. It was exported principally to England. As I said before, we exported timber out of the country without having got any value out of it in the way of the employment of labour, while numbers of carpenters and labouring men were walking around idle here.
With regard to timber, this is one of the barest countries in the world. Take countries which have practically the same climate and the same conditions as regards mountain, soil and all that sort of thing. We occupy the lowest place amongst all the countries in these islands as regards the amount of land under timber here. In England, when the last survey was taken, it had 5.1 per cent. of the country under timber; Scotland had 4.5, Wales had 3.8, while Ireland had only 1.5. From these figures it is quite easy to see why it should be the case that we are importing timber to the value of one and a half million pounds, while we only export timber to the value of a little over £200,000. We will have to raise the proportion of our land under timber much higher than the present figure if we want to be in a position to supply our own needs. It is quite possible, in fact it is probable, that the figures in regard to imports and exports will be even more unfavourable for many years to come than they have been for the last two years. I say that because, as far as one can observe in travelling around the country, we seem to be cutting down the last few woods and forests that we have. At the present time we do not seem to have any woods or forests that are approaching maturity. The young woods and forests that we have at present have not been planted for more than twenty years. There are very few woods or forests in the country approaching a state of maturity and fit for cutting. There are very few of our woods and forests that have been planted for a period of between twenty and forty years. Therefore, when the present few woods and forests have matured and are cut down, and they will be cut probably within the next three or four years, we will have a very lean period for, I should say, at least twenty years. During that period we will probably have no timber at all. Even after that period has elapsed, and until the few young woods and forests that we have begin to mature, which may extend over a period of another twenty-five years, we will be in the position that we will have nothing to fall back upon except the pines and the soft woods. We shall have no hard woods whatever.
The great advantage of hard woods in a country like ours, or indeed in any country, is that much more employment is given in the manufacture of it than in the manufacture of soft woods. We are all, I suppose, fairly familiar with the small amount of labour that is given in the manufacture of flooring boards and joists for houses from soft woods compared with the great amount of labour given in the making of furniture out of oak, handles, tools and so on, all of which are made principally from hard woods, so that the advantage to a country would be much greater in the working of hard woods than in the working of soft woods.
It may be asked, why do we not import hard woods and do the work on them rather than import furniture, or whatever it may be, but it is very difficult at present to get from any of the big forest growing countries unmanufactured wood, for most of them have passed laws prohibiting the export of the raw wood. They have realised that the big advantage they get from the growing of forests is not the capital amount that may be got for the wood when cut down, but the amount of labour that wood is capable of giving before it leaves the country as manufactured articles. Not having timber ourselves. we have to accept the manufactured article. Another thing that convinced me the Forestry Department are not making very much progress, and are not making a very serious endeavour to plant the country, was when I visited the Forestry Department a few months ago to make an inquiry about a certain small mountain called Forth in my own county, with a view to ascertaining what progress had been made as regards the planting of it. The local people had been hearing, for a couple of years past, that the thing was almost a fait accompli, and that they might expect at any moment to see the foresters coming down to plant the trees.
On the occasion of my visit, I was told that the first step was that the Minister would have to give an order to have the Forestry Act brought into operation; that order having been given the Forestry Act would become law; and then the Forestry Department would have to apply formally to the Land Commission to take over the land in that particular area, and the Land Commission after taking over the land would hand it to the Forestry Department, who would then have to commence all the processes of fencing and clearing the ground, and so on, before any planting could be done. Having a little knowledge of the working of the Land Commission, and not having much knowledge of the working of the Forestry Department, because I do not see it working anywhere, I began to realise that it would be some years, and not months, before the people in that area would see a tree planted on the mountain of Forth. If other areas that are expecting to have something done by the Forestry Department have to go through all these processes, I think it will be some years before any serious advance is made towards afforestation. It was with a view to try and get from the Minister some idea as to what we may really expect with regard to afforestation, for we have not got information of that sort yet, that I put down the motion that this Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
I have some little knowledge of forestry, as there is a fair share of it going on around my district, and we appreciate it very much. It absorbs a lot of the unemployed. With the exception of a few mistakes, which might be remedied by the Minister, everything is going on well. I would like to bring under the Minister's notice the question of the importation of trees. We should have our own nurseries, or one big one established. That would save a good deal of money which is now being sent out of the country. It would not be necessary to have an increase in the Estimate to establish these nurseries.
Of course, you will not get land for nothing, although some farmers in my district who have 300 acres or 400 acres of land which is fit for nothing but forestry have offered me 200 acres out of 400 if they would be allowed a reduction in their rent. Suppose they owed two years' rent and got a clear receipt they would hand over 200 or 250 acres. During the war the country was denuded of most of its forests, because of the big prices that were obtained for the wood, and because of these big prices everything in my district was coaxed away. For years I have advocated that more land should be taken over for the purpose of afforestation. We have a place locally which if used for the purpose of forestry would give a considerable amount of employment, and in that way benefit two or three districts, including Fermoy. It would be better to have the money spent in giving employment in that way than having the men on the dole. If men now drawing the dole were offered employment at forestry work and refused to take it that would be sufficient excuse for refusing to give them the dole. I would like to see an increase in the Estimate for the purpose of increasing the wages. As I said in my opening remarks, there are a few small details that require to be looked into in my district, and that could be remedied by one stroke of the Minister's pen. I would like to see all our own plants produced in the country and not to be sending our money away for them. We would have healthier plants and would give employment in the growth of them. I would be very pleased if the Minister would look after these few details that I have mentioned.
I certainly endorse Deputy Ryan's remarks about concentration by the Forestry Department on hard timber. It should be the purpose of the Department to plant sufficient timber to meet all the demands of the home market. These demands are not met now, though I suppose they were met in the distant post when there was more timber in the country. I also think there should be concentration on timber suitable for box-making and for ordinary market purposes, for which a great amount of timber is at present imported. I understand the Minister's Department does not allow any Irish timber into egg boxes. A thing that strikes me, and I speak with only local knowledge of afforestation, is that the areas under forests are much too small. They cover anything from 30 to 60 acres, and there is a good deal of money wasted on them. If instead you had 400 acres or 500 acres of hills and hollows, not suitable for anything else, under forests it would be much more economic, and the same amount of labour could see after them. With regard to soft timber, I think more attention should be paid to cut away bogs. They should be planted with Scotch firs, the only thing they are suitable for. It would be of benefit in every way if these cut away bogs were used up all over the country. A tree that they should concentrate upon and that is invaluable at present is the sycamore. Committees acting under the Department should concentrate more on the growing of that tree. It is very easily grown, and I believe its market value is much greater than the oak at present, particularly for the making of dishes and such vessels for creamery purposes. The principal point I want to make is concentration on meeting our own demands as regards hard timber and the utilisation of larger areas in the planting of forests throughout the country.
I rise to support the motion that the Estimate be referred back for further consideration. My principal reason is that I believe the Forestry Branch have not been as active in the past as they should have been, and, in the second place, that the money expended up to the present upon afforestation has not been distributed throughout the various counties in the manner in which it should be. Some time ago I asked the Minister the number of acres which had been acquired for this purpose, and he informed me that approximately 50,000 acres had been acquired and that, out of the 50,000, approximately 20,000 acres had been planted. As there are over 2,000 trees planted to the acre, that will work out at about forty million trees planted since the Government took over office. I learned with regret from the Minister that not one tree has been planted in Donegal up to the present, and not one acre of land acquired for the purpose of afforestation. When I raised this question first in March, 1928, the Minister informed me that it was the intention of the Land Commission to acquire about 2,000 acres of the Stewart-Bam estate, of which about 1,000 acres would be devoted to afforestation. Over a year has elapsed since then, and that promise has not been carried out. As far as I am aware, no land has been taken over in Donegal for that purpose, and not one tree has been planted, although the taxpayers there are contributing their quota of this expenditure. For that reason, if for no other reason, it is my intention to vote for Deputy Ryan's motion. I do not intend to go into the details—Deputy Ryan has gone into them very extensively —as to why land should be acquired and more trees planted. I do not know whether the Minister is responsible, or some person in the Forestry Branch, but whoever it is, he seems to think that we have only twenty-five counties in the Free State and has forgotten that Donegal is in the Free State.
I have listened to Deputy Ryan's exposition of the argument which he makes in favour of his amendment, and I find it somewhat difficult to follow the justification for his charge against the Forestry Department with regard to the condition of afforestation at present. We are all in agreement that the forestry conditions are not anything like what we would like them to be, but I have not been convinced by the Deputy that the conditions which exist are due, either in whole or in part, to the action or inaction of the Forestry Department. In order fully to understand the situation which exists, one must have some knowledge of the recent history of afforestation here. Undoubtedly, the denudation of the country from the afforestation point of view has been to a very large extent due to the change in the system of land tenure. The operation of the various Land Acts dispossessed the landlords of their lands and a great many of them thought fit, simultaneously with the sale of their lands, to dispose of the lands which they held personally as demesnes, with the result that it is common history that within the last twenty years various woods and forests which were the property of the former landlords have been cut down and sold and have not been replaced. My point is that in the past afforestation was in the hands of private individuals. The situation now has changed altogether. It is well-known that afforestation is a form of industry which requires very considerable capital expenditure, which must be made by somebody who is prepared to wait for a very long time for the results accruing from that expenditure. There is an old saying in connection with afforestation, that a man planted for his grand-children. It is quite obvious that nobody would be prepared to sink a large capital sum in afforestation, when the results would not begin to turn in for at least twenty or twenty-five years, and then only in very small part. Afforestation, undoubtedly, is now out of the hands of individuals to a very large extent and has become a State problem and the question of the rapidity with which the State advances is altogether a matter of money. The State can advance slowly or quickly, but it can only advance as quickly as the money is made available. It is generally accepted that the profits from afforestation are very small, and that, as far as the exploitation of afforestation by the State is concerned, we cannot hope for any profit, but rather that there will be a loss.
The other advantages to the country which would accrue from increased afforestation will, however, compensate in part or altogether, for the loss to the State—the improved climatic conditions, not to mention the advantage from the point of view of scenery and picturesqueness. But the whole development and expansion in that regard must be governed by the amount of money which the Dáil is prepared to vote. Deputy Ryan might reasonably make the case that the State has not spent sufficient money, that it ought to spend more money, and that the Vote ought to be larger. The only thing is that any Deputies who support that idea ought to state where the money is to come from.
Deputy Ryan dealt with other matters which are not really cognate to this debate, and which are really fiscal matters—the importation of timber into the country and the exportation of timber out of the country. If the Deputy wants to have a restriction of any kind placed upon the exportation or importation of timber, that is a fiscal matter to be dealt with by the Tariff Commission. But there is a relation between these two things which it may be relevant to touch upon, that is the question of importation and exportation as mentioned by Deputy Ryan. It is all very fine to state that we are importing too much timber, and a much larger value in timber than we are exporting, but surely the Deputy realises that this, as almost every modern industrial proposition, is complex and not a simple problem to be dealt with off-hand or haphazard. The passing of an order in the Dáil that the importation of timber should be prohibited at certain stages, and that from that forward all timber required for use in the country should be native timber, would not meet the case at all. Because anybody conversant even superficially with this matter—and I only claim to have a superficial knowledge of the industrial use of timber in this country—must know that there are considerable quantities of timber which cannot be grown in this country, and which have to be imported to be used in the manufacture of articles required. The Deputy would find the same conditions prevailing in England. In that country, with climatic conditions approximately similar to ours, they find, in regard to their building and other industries, that it is absolutely essential to introduce a certain foreign-grown timber, and that a prohibition of that import would not serve the country. If we attempted to use native timber for certain purposes we would be using an inferior article which would not suit at all for the purposes required.
The other question—whether the timber imported should be imported in a raw condition or in a manufactured or partly manufactured condition—is almost altogether a fiscal matter. It may be that it is easy to suggest remedies, but it would be very hard to carry them into actual practice. In this industry, as in most modern industries, we have to deal with standardisation and mass production, where enormously expensive standardised plant units to produce standardised articles are available, and on that account we have to import standardised articles at lower prices than we would be able to manufacture them in our own country.
There is no doubt whatever that by imposing certain restrictions we could import raw timber and manufacture it into the finished articles required here, but we would do it at very greatly increased cost. If anyone wants to deal with this question, the proper place to deal with it is before the Tariff Commission, where the whole question of costs could be gone into, and where it could be examined whether the advantages that would accrue in the way of increased employment and other things would counterbalance the increase in cost. I doubt very much if it would be justified. Similarly, the Deputy dealt with the prohibition of the export of timber.
I did not advocate anything of the sort nor anything about the prohibition of manufactured timber coming in. I was only pointing out the difficulty that may arise in years to come of getting timber at all unless we grow it ourselves.
May I say it would not be in order for the Deputy or any other Deputy to advocate prohibition on this Estimate.
It is not easy to follow the exact trend of the argument.
There are two of us in it.
It is not easy to follow the exact trend of the arguments here, and particularly I may say some of the arguments of the Deputy. I am giving a general idea which I got from the arguments which he put forward. I may be wrong, but I got these ideas from his arguments about the exportation of timber. I thought the Deputy suggested that in other countries, at least, the exportation of timber is prohibited?
That is right.
And that the implication was that it should be prohibited here.
You can take that if you like.
The Deputy should be more candid and not merely let a certain implication be taken from what he says. I am dealing with his argument. I can only accept the obvious implications of his argument and what they appeared to be on the surface. The obvious implication of his argument here is that there should be a prohibition on the exportation of timber. The Deputy is annoyed that the Department gives no encouragement to the growing of timber, and he has suggested a remedy, but that would not be a remedy at all, because the effect of the prohibition of the export of timber would be to reduce the price to the producers.
I did not suggest that at all.
No. I say it. The Deputy is too careful to suggest that because he was obviously leaving out the weak points of his argument.
The Deputy should address the Chair.
I am trying to deal, through the Chair, with the arguments of the Deputy opposite. The Deputy has stressed the advisability of increasing afforestation from the point of view of the increased employment that would result. Everyone is anxious to reduce unemployment and to give employment where employment can be remuneratively given. But we should realise the actualities of the situation, and I believe it is an accepted fact that the amount expended on labour in afforestation is a comparatively trifling sum and that the amount of unemployment that would be relieved, even from a considerable extension of the afforestation policy of the Government, would be comparatively slight. I make that in the form of a general statement. It can be tested by actual figures; figures can be produced and the amount of money spent in labour in proportion to the total capital expenditure can be shown. My opinion is that the actual relief that would be given in the way of employment with considerably increased expenditure on afforestation would be comparatively trifling.
There is one aspect of this question of afforestation that from a purely agricultural point of view more stress should be laid on than has been laid up to the present. It is undoubtedly a fact that in the various farms scattered all over the country there has been a denudation of timber. To my mind a good deal of the timber cut away is a loss not felt either from the agricultural point of view or the economic point of view, because it is what is known as hedgerow timber. From my knowledge of agriculture, hedge timber to any great extent is almost useless either from the point of view of shelter or as an economic asset. There is a form in which timber might be grown on farms. I suggest it is in this regard, if there is any weakness in the action of the Department, that it exists. That is in regard to timber grown in shelter belts.
I think that there ought to be some more definite plan than that which I have heard adumbrated for the encouragement of the growing of shelter belts by farmers. A good many farms suffer because of their being exposed and from not having that shelter which they formerly had from woods. That want should be met, in so far as it could be met, by growing timber in small clumps rather than by the suggestion that farmers should leave the timber in hedges. Some experts state that an immense amount of harm is done to land by allowing timber to stand in isolated units in hedges. Anyone who has knowledge of the growth of roots of the ash or elm will know that the land, for almost a distance equal to the height of the timber, will not be as fertile as land further out in the fields, and also that crops grown under trees will be less productive than those grown further out. For that reason the encouragement of the growth of hedge timber is not desirable, and every support should be given to farmers to induce them to grow timber in shelter belts. I have dealt generally with this question of afforestation as I see it. I do not feel that the charge which has been made by the Deputy who moved that the Vote be referred back has been proved. I believe that the Forestry Department, with the resources at its disposal, has done and is doing excellent work. If the Dáil wants to see a much greater expansion in the work of the Department the only way to do it is to vote a much larger sum of money than we are voting. I think it is up to Deputies who desire that a larger sum should be voted to suggest where that money is to come from.
Deputy Heffernan has almost obviated the necessity for my getting up to speak, as I wanted chiefly to refer to the growth of shelter belts, and to ask the Minister to encourage farmers in that respect by giving free plants and seedlings. These belts are particularly necessary in parts of Galway where farms have been divided and a number of new houses erected. Many tenants complain that their land is exposed, and they say that they want to have shelter belts. There is scientific foundation for the suggestion of Deputy Daly that we should have our own nurseries for seedlings. It has been found in other countries that native seedlings produce better timber and, moreover, that trees should be grown at the same altitude as that at which the seeds were grown. I presume that most of the £215,000 worth of timber exported consisted of pit-props, and that it would not be worth while having legislation to insist that it should be in a semi-manufactured state going out. We realise the difficulties of the Minister in this matter; first, as regards finance and, secondly, as to obtaining suitable land. Fairly good land is, I believe, required to produce good timber. There are districts in which timber would beautify the country. For instance, when the Minister and I cross Ireland by rail to go to our little grey homes in the west, we cross the Bog of Allen, where, I understand, Scotch fir could be grown. As regards mountainous districts in Connemara—I know that I am treading on dangerous ground —the Minister might refer to the Knockboy experiment, which had disastrous results. The Minister and I have seen timber growing around shooting lodges in Connemara, and I do not see why it should not be grown elsewhere, for a certain class of timber can be grown inside shelter belts. For instance, the ridge of Sliabh Eachta, between Loughrea and Gort, which formerly was thickly wooded, is now denuded. Some of that land is not suitable for agriculture and could be replanted with timber.
Deputy Heffernan says that very little employment is given by afforestation, but I remember the Minister for Finance stating that, if we had the land and the money for afforestation, he thought that that was the best means we had for relieving unemployment. Thus experts differ on this matter. It is hard to understand why the Department last year and the year before did not spend all the money which the Dáil voted for the purchase of lands instead of handing some of that money back. The Deputy's contention hardly holds good in that respect. There is, of course, the difficulty of mass production. I hope that I am misinterpreting Deputy Heffernan in thinking that he would like to see standardised doors and windows for the whole world. The economic side of the problem must, of course, be looked into by the Minister for Agriculture, but in doing that such matters as the improvement of health, the giving of employment and the beautifying effect on the landscape must also be considered. We are anxious to develop the tourist traffic; there are many districts, particularly in the West, which would be vastly improved by afforestation. We have to look to it, even if it took more money, that we shall have timber, say, in fifty or eighty years' time. That is very essential, particularly when other countries are not exporting raw timber. Russia is the only country doing so now as other countries insist on giving employment at home. The money arising from afforestation and from the cutting and handling of timber may be small, but if we, like other countries, insisted in not letting it out in a raw state, except for pit-props, we would give much employment.
I agree with Deputy Dr. Ryan's amendment for the reason that I have no knowledge whatever of any definite scheme of afforestation. I know that a Forestry Bill was passed some time ago which gave the Government control to a certain extent over timber. That was all to the good. It was necessary because this process of timber slaughter which we are now going through took place in previous times more or less to the same extent as now. I believe the Government should decide once and for all whether it is their intention to take State control of afforestation, to have a regular State scheme, or to go on a smaller scale and make an attempt to subsidise or assist individual farmers to plant shelter belts or otherwise. The question of timber production in a country with land laws and economic conditions such as ours is rather a difficult one. Continental countries and foreign countries generally have much less difficulty in this respect than we have. Forests generally grow up naturally in these countries. Destructive fires destroyed some of these forests, of course, and the march of civilisation removed others.
At the present moment the great difficulty I see is that it would be rather hard to have an economic unit as regards forestry in this country. The planting of forty, fifty, or even a hundred acres of timber would seem to be uneconomic both from the point of view of maintenance as well as from the point of view of expectation afterwards. There is then, of course, the difficulty of compensation for owners. The land is owned by different people who have their rights. There is also the question of the erection of fences for the preservation of the timber. That would mean a very large expenditure, and it is doubtful if, at the present moment, our financial position is such that we could afford to meet this expenditure. I believe myself that small schemes under which individual farmers might get free trees or trees without freight or under which you might have tree nurseries in different districts, supplying young trees at cheap prices, might meet the difficulty for the moment. If we are going to start large schemes of State afforestation such as there are on the Continent, I believe it would take big sums of money. If we did that we would have to decide what would be an economic unit, whether it would be 500, 1,000, or 2,000 acres. I believe that less than a thousand acres would not be very economic. The trees when planted would need a good deal of protection. On the Continent, they do not need so much protection as here. The custom on the Continent generally is that animals, such as cattle, are tied. Here the custom is to erect fences; therefore you would have to erect fences around the plantations. Rabbits also cause a good deal of destruction. As well as that there is the danger of fires and men would have to be occupied in removing the decayed branches.
On the whole, the expenditure would be very heavy and, as I say, I doubt if we are in a position to undertake this huge expenditure at the present time. We would have difficulties in certain ways. Farmers will not attempt afforestation on a very large scale for the simple reason that the investment would be spread over too long a period and it would take too long to realise their money. For that reason even small plantations would have to be subsidised or assisted to a certain extent. Hard wood takes 100 or 120 years to mature, and soft wood in a good many cases will take 60. That is a long time to be out of the capital invested. As I say, the position in foreign countries is that timber plantations are so huge that the people are able to erect sawmills to cut the timber into proper dimensions and export it. It would be rather difficult to erect sawmills here, to cut the timber into shorter pieces. That is why we exported such an enormous quantity of simply cut timber in the last few years. It was not easy to erect sawmills. Therefore the timber had to be exported in bulk with a consequent loss to labour in this country. These are some of the difficulties we are up against in regard to this question of afforestation. I believe it would be safer if farmers were assisted to plant such things as shelter belts. These would supply him with whatever material he would require in the way of timber. Larger areas suitable for timber might be taken over, that is if the price seems anything like economic.
Another difficulty that has to be encountered is that good timber needs good land, and you will have a conflict between timber-producing land and agricultural land. I believe that you will produce timber of a sort on poor land, but you cannot produce timber of a high quality on poor land. As far as I see, going through the country, a good indication of good land is the class of timber grown on it. That is apparent to anybody travelling through the country. Therefore, I think, according to our present system, you will and must have a conflict between the question of pasture, tillage and afforestation. I would like, therefore, to see the Minister put forward some definite scheme. He has already made a partial attempt by means of the Afforestation Bill which he introduced quietly, to see what the results will be. I hope the result will be to introduce some sort of scheme to encourage farmers, as far as possible, to re-plant.
Tá anafhaillí a dhéanamh gan aire do thabhairt do sna coillte atá againn sa tír seo. Tá fhios agam aon choill amháin i gContae Chill Dara agus is dócha go bhfuil furmhór na gcrann ann clúduithe le heidhneán, agus tá fhios agam coillte i gContae Uí bhFailghe agus tá an scéal céanna mar gheall ortha. Tá gach crann nách mór clúduithe le heidhneán agus tá an áit ar fad lán de. Ní fheadar cé tá cionntach no freagarthach ann ach is dóigh liom go mbeadh sé ceart ordú do thabhairt amach do sna daoine gur leo na coillte seo an t-eidhneán do ghlana asta.
To my mind, we do not realise the importance of forestry to the country as a source of income and of wealth. In order that we may realise it. I should like to give a few facts and figures to show what other countries are doing in the matter of forestry. In Czecho-Slovakia within recent years the central authorities there, the Government, I understand, have taken over upwards of 5,000,000 acres of privately-owned forests. The result of taking over these forests is that in Czecho-Slovakia, a country about one and two-thirds the area of Ireland in about 53,000 square miles, there are upwards of 6,000 saw mills. There are about 900 worked by steam, about 2,000 by water, and 100 by electrical power. In that 6,000 there are 3,000 modern high-speed sawmills, with a total annual cut of 200,000,000 cubic feet.
The total annual cut of Czecho-Slovakia—when I say annual cut I mean lumber or sawn timber only— is three million cubic feet. In that country there are 50 large, and upwards of 4,000 small, factories for the manufacture of furniture alone. Talking about nurseries for forestry in that country, there are seven factories for the sorting, drying and curing of forest seeds. After supplying their own needs for young trees they export large quantities of the seeds. The number of commodities manufactured from trees is enormous. There are upwards of 600 different commodities manufactured from trees, including wood pulp for paper and for making cardboard, timber for furniture, box making and veneering. There are also many kinds of chemicals manufactured from trees. Also the artificial silk so much worn at present in ladies' stockings is manufactured from trees. The principal item, however, is paper, the demand for which is increasing year by year enormously. To give an instance of that increase the total output of paper in the United States in 1810 was 3,000 tons. In 1922, seven years ago, the output was seven million tons, and last year the output was ten million tons, so that in six years the increase in paper in the United States alone was three million tons. We import almost all the timber we require. We import practically all our paper, and at present I understand that more timber is being cut in the world than is being grown. Some countries are alive to the need for planting. England is planting largely. In Scotland only recently I saw where an outcry was raised because the Forestry Department had taken over some medium quality land to plant. The outcry was raised by those who did not understand the importance of forestry. In America land is being devoted to forestry in preference to agriculture. In Sweden there are one hundred wood pulp factories alone. There are 200 paper and cardboard mills. There are 2,000 mills and factories for the manufacture of furniture and for veneering, box making, sawing and planing. The planing mills alone give employment to 44,000 people. In 1923 the total amount of wood goods was £46,500,000, and the value of the wood goods exported by Sweden was £35,000,000. The difference between the two amounts, eleven and a half million pounds, shows the value of the wood goods they use for their own needs. They are satisfied to use native grown timber in their house building, in their furniture, and for all their needs. I am sure if they have a restaurant attached to what is equivalent to the Dáil that that restaurant is not embellished with foreign-grown timber, as ours is. I understand that the wainscotting in the restaurant is foreign timber, and I say it is a disgrace to the Government to have it there. We have timber grown here that should satisfy the æsthetic taste of anyone, and it should have been used.
What is that?
Ash, oak and elm.
Of course this should have been said upon the Board of Works Estimate instead of now.
In the manufacture of the products of timber there is one item alone, sulphite spirit, which is used in the manufacture of ether, acetic acid, aniline dyes, and in heating and lighting. The value of that alone in Sweden is three million pounds. Timber is worth millions of pounds annually to Sweden and other countries. It ought to be worth the same to us if we make up our minds to plant it as we ought. The cause of the success of timber growing in Sweden is scientific forestry, allowing as little as possible of the profits derived from timber and the timber industry to leave the country, and the influence of the great Swedish forest banking corporation in Stockholm, which is Swedish in deed as well as in name, and which realises that it is the servant not the master of the people.
The value of timber grown in Sweden on account of the poor soil is about 50 per cent. that of the timber grown in Germany, and it has been proved that we in Ireland can grow timber equal in quality to the timber grown in Germany. Forestry in full swing would give more employment than is at present given by our greatest industry, agriculture, and even from the very start if we started forestry in this country in earnest on a national scale we would immediately cut the emigration figure in half. As I said before other countries are alive to the importance of forestry and are planting accordingly but to have it a success it must be undertaken on a national scale. It would pay us not only to plant the worst land but in fact it would pay us better to plant all except the really good land. To do that, we should require a faculty of forestry to train young Irishmen to think in terms of trees for Ireland, not for another country. We do not want forestry here to grow pit props for England or any other country. We are planning at present to grow pit props and by the time these young trees come to mature they will not be needed because electricity will very largely take the place of coal as power in future. That is evident. As well as the faculty of forestry we should require a forestry Department and then a Commission to glean information from whatever sources possible. Germany is, I understand, one of the foremost countries in forestry. They go in for it on a scientific scale. I think it should be taken up earnestly and I think the Labour members in this Dáil ought to be the first to insist on its being taken up on a large scale on account of the enormous employment it would give in this country and, God knows, we want employment for our people. We want to stop the yearly emigration that is going on. If we take up forestry earnestly and as it ought to be taken up we will stop a great proportion of that emigration almost immediately.
Deputy Buckley did not tell us about the area or the population of Sweden. I have never been to Sweden or Norway, but I understand that there are huge tracts of mountain in Norway that are suitable for nothing except timber and that would not support a population even if it was not under timber.
Fifty million acres of forestry.
You could not make a comparison between these countries and this. Deputy Buckley wants this country to be turned into a forest.
If it pays better than agriculture certainly.
Our policy has been foolish. We have been trying to divide the land of the country into economic holdings for a portion of the population, and we have not been able to make economic holdings for all the adult population. The proposition now is that the land should be turned into the growing of forests that would not mature for fifty or a hundred years.
Thirty years.
The Deputy's proposition is to turn the people off the land and have it put under forests.
On a point of explanation, I stated distinctly that afforestation, if taken up properly, would give so much employment that we could reduce our emigration by half.
You would have to emigrate nearly all the people to make room for the forests to begin with. I do not think I need talk very much more about it. The thing answers itself. We have been looking for land to give fifteen-acre or twenty-acre farms to a portion of the people. It is even suggested now that we should use some of the arable land of the country to grow forests. I am not interested very much in the speech of Deputy Buckley, but I am interested in Deputy Ryan's speech. He proposed that this Vote be referred back. I take it his principal objection is that the policy of the Forestry Department has been wrong and that they should concentrate more on hard timber than on soft. I take it he finds fault with them for concentrating more on soft timber.
That is one of the reasons.
That is the main reason.
I would not say that.
As far as I understood him, that was the main reason.
Go ahead, and take it that it is.
What does Deputy Ryan put in the category of hard timber?
Go ahead.
Is that the kind of answer we are going to get—no answer at all? There are only a few timbers in this country that are of any marketable value. All the soft timbers are of value.
How many hard timbers?
Only ash and sycamore.
What about elm?
Elm is not valuable; neither is beech.
It must be only in Kilkenny.
All over the country it cannot be sold. In a House representative of the people we ought to have some intelligence, and we ought to have a problem like this treated with knowledge. It was the most ridiculous speech I have ever heard, bordering on the foolish.
Now, now.
I saw timber sold last week.
When a prospective Minister for Agriculture stands up to make a speech he ought to fit himself with some common sense. I would not call ash a hard timber; but only ash and sycamore and the soft timbers have any market value.
That is not so.
I could give the Deputy 2,000 tons of timber at ten shillings a ton. It can be got in any part of the country.
No, you will not get it anywhere.
We cannot get a price at all for hard timber. Nobody wants it or inquires about it.
Give it to me.
I will give Deputy Carney a present of 20 tons.
Bring it up next week.
I will give every Deputy here two or three tons of timber if he wants it.
Keep your head.
And these are the prospective statesmen who want the country to be handed over to them. Soft wood has an advantage over hard wood, in addition to there being a market for it. We have a market for soft wood in all its stages. I come from a part of the country that is reasonably well wooded, but there is not nearly enough larch to make the farm implements of the future. It is very hard to get larch that will do for the front boards of a car. It is very hard to get larch nine inches in diameter, and I do not know where it is going to be got in ten years' time. I can very easily see a shortage of soft timber in the near future, especially of larch. Soft timber has this additional advantage over hard timber, it comes to maturity earlier and it will grow in a latitude at which hard timber will not. You need not go very high in a mountain when you will not get hard timber to grow. Oak will only grow on arable land. It will not grow on your mountain ranges. It must have good soil. Land for hard timber must be low as compared with soft timber. There are very few of the hills of Ireland on which you could grow it, while soft timber can be grown right to the top except the rocks stop it. Deputy O'Reilly, while standing up to support Deputy Ryan's motion, actually answered the points that Deputy Ryan made. Instead of being a speech in support of the motion, it was a refutation of Deputy Ryan's amendment.
I hope it was better than Deputy Gorey's.
I hope you liked it better. I would like to know, when talking about this question of wood pulp, which of the timbers is most suitable for wood pulp.
Are you manufacturing it right away?
This is too inane. The Deputy ought to remember that he is in a representative Assembly and, even though Mayo made the mistake of sending him here, he is still a representative of 6,000 or 7,000 people.
Thanks.
I want to know which of the soft or hard woods is more suitable for our purposes. We all know what soft wood is.
The Deputy does not know anything about it.
I can tell Deputy Carney a little about it, although he thinks he knows a lot.
Now, let us have speeches.
The reason manufactured timber is coming here in such large quantities is that we cannot grow that particular class of timber at home. I wish we could grow white or red deal or pine in the quantities needed in the country. Can we grow sufficient white deal to meet the demands for roofing and flooring?
Certainly.
Every effort has been made to grow it, but the results are not anything like satisfactory. You can certainly grow native timber for roofing, but you are not able to get the quality demanded for flooring.
Can we not get a better quality? Is not larch better?
For flooring? The Deputy again knows nothing about it.
Do I not? Perhaps I know a lot more than you.
You may have been a carpenter but you know nothing about it. I have yet to see larch put into flooring where ordinary white deal can be got. Larch is too valuable in the first place, and it is unsuitable.
But it is a soft timber.
We can get all this elucidated by way of a speech.
Will the Deputy make a speech?
Yes, but you asked a question and it has been answered.
Nobody in his sobersenses would suggest larch for flooring. It is only an imbecile who would make that suggestion.
The Deputy should content himself with making his speech and avoid those exchanges.
We are importing £1,000,000 worth of timber and exporting what would amount to a few odd thousand pounds.
Wrong again— £1,500,000.
Very well, let it be that amount. We are exporting a very small amount—I do not know the exact figure.
Of course you do not know.
The vast bulk of the £1,500,000 worth imported is for roofing and flooring. The amount imported for furniture is negligible; it is not worth speaking about. All the pine imported is for church or other purposes. The white deal is for flooring and roofing. There would not be £100,000 worth of timber imported except for roofing and flooring, and pine for church purposes. At present we are having a very lean period, and unless the Department gets busy and puts down vast areas of soft timber in the near future we will be in the position of having to import even the makings of our carts. It is suggested that we have some employment in hard woods. The answer to that is that there is no work in the country in hard woods. The reason ash and sycamore are leaving the country is because they are suitable for handles and shafting and for aeroplane construction; that is why there is a good market for them. I have plenty of timber to sell and I cannot find a market.
I do not see where hard wood can be used except in the making of coffins. There are as many elms in Ireland as will make coffins for China for the next fifty years. The principal hard woods are oak, beech and elm. They are good for ornamentation. There they are and there they will remain cumbering the land and growing on good land. They are there for ornament but they are doing a good deal of damage. Where the good land is there will always be a clash between forestry and agriculture. The people must have the arable land. They cannot eat timber or the leaves of the trees. Timber will have to give way on the arable land in order to accommodate the people. There is any amount of high land suitable for soft timber and nothing else. It is not arable, and it is not suitable for hard timber. It can be exploited in the growing of soft timber. Again, railway sleepers are imported. If you put down white and red deal and pine and timber suitable for railway sleepers you will have exhausted Deputy Ryan's £1,500,000.
They come to £500,000 out of the total of £1,500,000.
I would like to know how the other figures are made up.
If you consult page 31 you will find it for yourself.
I hope the Minister will not be led away from his well-thought-out policy of growing soft timber. It will not be money wasted if it is grown wholesale all over the country.
Like everybody else in the House, I am in favour of the promotion of forestry. I realise, with Deputy Heffernan, that you want a long purse for forestry. You will not get a return for a very considerable time. Consequently, it is not possible, in the present state of the finances of this country, for a very large sum of money to be put down at once for that object, however deserving it may be. But every year the Minister, following the general desire of the House and of the country, has been spending judiciously a certain sum of money in the planting of trees, and in improving forestry generally. Deputy Buckley, who, along with Deputy Colohan and myself, represents the County Kildare, talked a great deal about different countries abroad and about their capacities for growing timber. But he did not say anything about the county we represent, which is one of the best timber counties in Ireland up to date and which has been so in the years that have gone past. There have been for many years three nurseries established to supply the wants of the country with the class of timber that is suitable for afforestation. This has been going on for the last twenty-eight or twenty-nine years. Previously to that, a great many landowners, whatever their faults may have been—and no doubt they were many—were not deficient or backward in any way in helping in the matter of tree planting and growing timber. As a rule, they showed a considerable amount of sense in the style of wood that they selected.
As a case in point, I may say that, following a good many of my own people who have gone in for tree planting, I have watched afforestation with a good deal of interest. My father went in very considerably for tree planting. He had a certain estate, which I have now handed over voluntarily at a fair price to the Land Commission. In the year 1840, there was not a single tree on that estate. My father planted continuously from 1840 to 1872. He planted every year. The result is there to-day to be seen. In the storm of the 27th February, 1903, the whole country was devastated, and my place along with others. Over 2,000 trees were knocked down on my estate, but one would scarcely notice that number out of the amount of timber on the estate. I sold a certain number of trees during the war years, and the cutting of those trees improved the plantation considerably. The Land Commission will now, I hope, profit by the trees that have become their property. I think they will.
But that tree planting was a paying proposition for my father or for anybody that ever planted is a matter that I question very much. It was done with the idea of giving employment and of beautifying the country. I am afraid that any money spent on a large scale in this country will have to be spent on those lines —that is to beautify the country and to give employment. That timber that is of great value to the country, as Deputy Gorey pointed out, timber that is required for the urgent needs of the country, can be got here in great quantities will not, to my mind, ever be the case. The timber that grows best in this country is timber that is of the least value. That is the case, with certain exceptions. Ash and sycamore, which are of value, do grow pretty extensively. Oak, too, grows well. But, as Deputy Gorey remarked, there is no value in oak. I know something about that. I have a fair number of oak trees myself. They are fairly good specimens, but they are of very little value. Nobody would plant oak now because it would not pay. It is of no use saying that when you go and plant a tree that tree will have a market when it is matured. We cannot plant timber that is unsuitable to the country, however valuable it may be.
For good timber we will always have to look abroad for our supplies. We cannot plant wood that is unsuitable to the climate, no matter how valuable it may be. That wood will die in a very short time. At least that is my experience. That the planting of timber is of value to the country I believe and I hope that the work will go on every year and that a certain amount will be spent on it, as the Minister is doing at present, and doing judiciously. In the employment that it will give, and in the fact that we can afford to spend that money and afford more or less to lose on it, I think it will be of great value from the point of view of the giving of that employment and beautifying the country. I hope that the work will proceed as it has been proceeding.
As regards the statistics about timber, I have not gone into that. I do not know anything about that. But I think that it is of value to plant land that is not wanted. We can never hope on that same land, at the same time, to produce the best timber. As Deputy O'Reilly said, you require good land for good timber, and we cannot afford to plant on good land. Such land cannot be taken for tree planting. It is required for division or for the enlargement of holdings, and it certainly cannot be given over for the purpose of growing timber. We must use that land for other purposes. But we can make use of certain land, mountainy land, bog land, and land of that sort that is not of much use for other things. We can use such land for the growing of timber. We may, to a certain extent, grow in such land timber that would be of much use to us, but we cannot grow the best and the most suitable timber that is necessary for our requirements. I hope the Minister will proceed in the way in which he has been proceeding, year after year, adding to the timber acreage of the country, and in that way adding to the beauty and the attractiveness of the country in many ways. I do not hold with the expending of any vast sum of money on this work, because I do not think that there is any fortune to be made out of timber either now or at any future time in this country.
It would be no harm if one were to start on the note on which the last speaker finished. That is that nobody can make a fortune by planting timber. It is like the Centenary celebrations. Anybody who saw them will never see another. Nobody who plants timber will ever live to reap the benefits of it. But it does not follow that the State should not plant timber, and plant it in such quantities that at some future date some persons in this country, persons who will be living then in this country, can and will reap the benefit from that planting. I am not satisfied that the Minister in his policy has done all that he should have done in regard to afforestation. There is no doubt there is a lot of truth in the speeches that have been made— when people say that tree planting would cost money. Very little can be done in the country at the present time that does not cost money. What we want to do is to invest money in the best possible way, even though we will not get rich quickly ourselves as a result of that. Some generations who will come after us will reap the benefit. Deputy Gorey proved to my satisfaction that his knowledge of timber was—well, not just as good as it might be. According to Deputy Gorey one would think that the only use we had for timber was the making of shafts for carts.
The only thing for which you can sell it.
Well, at present, fortunately or unfortunately, there are other uses for timber than the making of shafts for carts. The Deputy said, in relation to elm, that we had enough elm to make coffins for the population of China for the next fifty years. He may be right or he may be wrong, but it does not follow that elm in this country is not a valuable asset to the country. I would like to remind Deputy Gorey and other Deputies that there are other things besides coffins made from elm. The colleague who sits behind him will be able to tell him that they make sterns for boats out of this timber.
There is no danger of a shortage, we will have enough for boats.
I hope he will have enough also to make the kitchen chairs that are required in the country. Deputy Gorey may not be aware of the fact that some of the best kitchen chairs are made from elm. He also assured us that there was no market for hard wood. He said he had to give away hard wood, that he could get no price for it. I say, with all respect to him, that that is nonsense, because if you go into a furniture shop and try to buy anything made of oak you will find the price is a good stiff price.
No.
Have you ever tried to sell an oak tree?
The Deputy must address the Chair.
I will answer the Deputy through you. I have never sold an oak tree, because I never had an oak tree to sell, but what I and my father before me have done is: we have cut down oak trees for somebody else to sell, so I know a little about that end. Deputy Gorey assured us that there is no market for oak. But still I find if I have to go into a shop to buy furniture that I have to pay quite a good price for oak. I have seen some of the finest churches in this country panelled with oak. They were not panelled with teak, like our restaurant. Of course, they were job lots, and I suppose they got them cheaply, and I can hardly blame them for taking a bargain.
A good deal has been said about hard woods and soft woods. Deputy O'Reilly is quite right, of course, when he says that the better classes of timber—the hard woods—require good land. That is very true up to a point, but I have seen the best of elm grown on bog soil. I have seen good sycamore grown in places where it seemed impossible that sycamore could grow. There you have two useful woods. Beech requires very good soil, but not the kind of soil you would have to throw people out of in order to grow it, and beech is useful, as Deputy Gorey and others probably know, for the manufacture of handles for carpenters' tools—for planes and other things. If Deputy Gorey will stand up and interrupt me decently I will sit down and give him an opportunity, if the Ceann Comhairle permits. I cannot speak and listen-in at the same time.
We have a number of trees that can be grown, not alone on lowlying lands, but on mountain land that is also bog or peaty land, and I think every Deputy who knows anything about his job will admit that when you cut out any bog, even on a mountain, you will find bog deal. These trees grew, flourished and died on bog soil. Where deal grew once it can be grown again. Deputy Gorey might want us to grow Oregon pine, California redwood, or something else, to supply him with floor boards, but if deal grew once in this country it can grow again. As a matter of fact, you have quite an amount of it growing in the country at present. You might not be able to get deal planks out of it similar to what you get from Oregon pine, redwood or Douglas fir. You will not get the same growth of timber out of it, but still you will get quite sufficient for your own use, and the timber will be quite good enough for ordinary purposes.
The Deputy talked about larch. There is a shortage of larch. Why should there not be? Why should there not be a shortage of all timber in the country? I have seen during the war thousands of tons of timber cut, made up into rafts, brought away, chained behind steamers, cut into eleven feet lengths and sent away for pit props or for making into railway sleepers. Thousands of tons went out of the country during the war and nothing has been done to replace them. I am not satisfied that the Minister has done all that he could have done to replace that loss to the country. Some time ago Deputy Cassidy put down a question with regard to the planting of Donegal. He discovered to his surprise that nothing had been done, comparatively speaking, to deal with afforestation in Donegal. There are huge tracts there that could be planted with pine. We can see advertisements in all the papers that we take up about the pine forests in Germany, Norway and elsewhere. These countries want people to go there for health purposes. We have plenty of spaces where pine could be grown and grown well, but the Minister is making absolutely no effort to do it. There is not a mountain tract with bog soil on which we could not grow pine easily, but the thing is not being taken up at all.
There is another timber—elder— which is not so very valuable but which is very useful in some ways. It is a very quick-growing timber and can be used for the purpose of making wind breaks for other timber that takes a long time to mature. There is just one danger with elder and it is this, that it grows so quickly and practically seeds itself. It almost plants and grows itself. It might spread too much, but, of course, that could always be obviated if Deputy O'Reilly's suggestion were carried out, that is, if large tracts were taken over that were not suitable for any other purpose, say a mountain tract in Donegal of 500, 600 or 1,000 acres, and if there was a forester appointed to look after the timber and to replace with new plants any losses that occurred. If that were done you would have such a difference as the Minister has never yet seen in this country. The forester could give seeds to the farmers, who would put up shelter belts. I would venture to say that 75 per cent. of the shelter belts are a complete loss because they seem to have been planted too closely, with the consequence that the trees killed one another and nothing could be seen except dead plantations. It stands to reason that when a farmer has a couple of acres of a shelter belt he does not bother himself very much about it. In the first place; perhaps, he does not know very much about preservation, and, secondly, he does not care very much. But if there were 500, 600 or 1,000 acres planted with timber and a forester appointed for the purpose of looking after it, or after a couple of plantations, it would be his duty to do so and he could do it well.
A good deal of money is paid in salaries, but we have, comparatively speaking, very little education in forestry, and if you educated these men up to the point when they could look after trees, preserve those that were decaying, take over tracts of country that are at present, comparatively speaking, worthless, and plant them, you would then have not alone a valuable asset in the form of timber which would mature in 30, 40 or 50 years' time, but you would have quite a distinct change from the health point of view from what we have had for years owing to the shortage of timber. If the Minister had all these places planted with pine a time would come, if we live long enough, when we might read such advertisements as "Come to Donegal and Connemara and recuperate in the pine forests." At present all we have is plenty of moisture, without any timber to take it up.
I make the suggestion to the Minister with regard to the elders for this reason—I do not know whether it has been tried or not, and I am not sure of it, but in my own experience I have seen belts of elder that planted themselves from seeds carried by birds or by the water, and in five or six years, where formerly there had been nothing but grass, it was almost impossible to push one's way through the elder trees. It has its use, first of all, as a shelter belt, because it grows quickly and it prevents young plants from being destroyed by storms; and, secondly, it has its use for the manufacture of clog soles. There was quite a big trade carried on with Lancashire and Yorkshire in the manufacture of clog soles made from elder. I worked at it for a pastime when I was a kid, and it was quite a valuable product, because quite a good deal of money was made at it. Also, during the coal strike, about three years ago, elder with turf was the standby of about 5,000 people in the place to which I belong. They cut elder down and sold it to the poor people who could not afford to buy coal at the price that was then charged for it. So that as well as using it for shelter belts the Minister could have it for the other two purposes—for the making of clog soles or for firewood, if we were to run short of fuel. We are not to suppose that the Shannon scheme will provide us with all the heat that we need within the next ten or fifteen years, for example, so that elder would be a valuable standby.
I think that these are all the points with which I wanted to deal. I hope that before Deputy Gorey talks about giving 2,000 tons of timber away again he will find out what uses his timber might be put to, because otherwise he might find that he was making a big present of timber to somebody. If he would only go round the furniture shops or the undertakers he would discover that there might be quite a big market for his elm or oak, or whatever it may be.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
I rise most heartily to support the Forestry Vote of the Minister for Agriculture. After the very substantial vote of confidence that was passed in him early to-day, I expected he would get some little consideration, but I find there are many forestry experts on the opposite side firing in their advice on him, but firing in no money to his Exchequer, who are very careful with regard to his Department. We were told by one Deputy to study what Sweden, what Germany, and what England had done for forestry for some years past, yea, for centuries. Here we are, a small nation, with the State only seven years in existence, and I defy anyone to prove that the nations mentioned by Deputies on the other side have accomplished more than this Government has accomplished in every department of State during its term of office. One would imagine, as far as forestry is concerned, that the Government had been neglectful. A substantial sum is being asked by the Minister for forestry, and I thought it would have been passed with enthusiasm, that we would have had no more of this work that has been going on for three days—blocking him and endeavouring to hold up the work of agriculture. I have to congratulate the Dáil on the substantial vote it gave earlier in passing the Estimate of the Minister for Agriculture. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister's Vote for Forestry will also be carried by a large majority. The Minister is nothing to me personally. I never met him until I entered the Dáil, but I wish to testify, with an experience of public men extending over half a century, that I never came into touch with a more disinterested, honest or zealous public servant than the Minister for Agriculture. He has been here, there and everywhere. Only a few days ago he was in England endeavouring to open up markets for the farmers of Ireland, so that this country might be able to reduce its adverse trade balance. He is met here by wonderful experts. I wish to know from them how many trees they have planted since they entered the Dáil. Have they ever planted a tree? I am anxious to hear Deputy MacEntee's views on this matter. He is the one man who is able to catechise us all as to our ability. As far as forestry is concerned, I am waiting until he joins the other fusiliers who fire away without having a tree in their gardens. I commiserate with you. Minister for Agriculture. At the rate the Opposition is going on. I am afraid they will keep you here a little longer. My advice to you is: "Be of good heart; do not be alarmed at the shouting, the sneering and the laughing on the other side; you are building up the nation steadily; you hold our principal industry—agriculture; the country recognises that you are doing a man's part in developing that industry, and afforestation is part and parcel of that work. It is one of the planks in that movement: stick to it and you will have the Dáil behind you."
There is one question I want to put to the Minister with regard to the forests that are cleared. Is it the practice of the Department to sell these forests in the ordinary way to local traders, and is there any prohibition put upon the export of such timber? In the last annual report of the Department it was stated that 67¾ acres in one area had been cleared, and it was mentioned that the timber was sold to local traders. If it be the practice to sell that timber, regardless of what its destination is, could the Minister give us an idea as to the economics of such transactions? Has it paid the State to plant trees and care for them year after year, over a long term, and then to sell them in the ordinary way at the very small price that is paid for our timber? We would like to know what is the Government's opinion of such work. Is it a good way of spending public funds, or is there any other method they could adopt? Could they make any conditions as to the use of the timber, or, at least, would it not be an advisable thing to try to keep it in the country for home use? From what I know of the subject, and from what I heard this afternoon, it seems to me that it cannot be a paying proposition for the State to spend money on forests, and after a long period of years to sell the product at the very low price that prevails at present for raw timber. Perhaps the Minister would give some idea as to the economics of forestry generally, and the vision of the Department on the matter. At the present rate of progress in planting and enlarging plantations, does he consider that a time will come when the country will be able to supply itself with timber? Does he think the outlay is justified from that point of view? Further, is the factor of the employment it gives one of the reasons why the Forestry Department deserves support, and one of the reasons why money is being spent upon it? We are altogether in the dark as to the real position that the Department is aiming at. We have never been told anything as to the present position, what the plantations are worth, what they will be worth within a period of, say, ten years, or what they may be worth in twenty years. We have never been told what is the aim of the Department, whether it is to plant timber so that the country may be as independent as possible of outside supplies, whether the idea is to give as much employment as possible, or whether other factors, such as an effort to improve the climate, are also at the back of the development of plantations. If the Minister could spare time this evening to give us some idea of what the Department is thinking on these matters we would be greatly obliged.
Deputy Wolfe said that the Minister has been judiciously planting timber every year. If that is the case, I would like to know from the Minister how many acres he has acquired in Kerry for forestry purposes, and how many acres he has planted. Deputy Gorey said that oak is of no value and elm is of no value. I wonder does Deputy Gorey know the class of timber that is required for the construction of boats?
How much?
Does the Deputy know the class of timber required for the ribs, the knees and the keels of boats? Perhaps he does not know anything about that and cannot be blamed consequently.
Or the handles of steel pens.
I can tell the Deputy that oak is required for the ribs and the keels of boats. Elm is also required for boats, so that there is a good demand for elm and oak for both purposes. As Deputy Carney pointed out, there are plenty of uses, especially as regards furniture making, for oak. If a man goes looking for a sideboard and it is made of oak, he will very quickly be told that, and a nice price will be put on it because it is made of oak. With regard to a substitute for white deal, during the great war, there was no fault found with spruce as a substitute for white deal. A number of woods in which spruce was grown were cut down at the time and the timber was utilised for the making of egg boxes, butter boxes and flooring, so that there is no need to be importing white deal while we have spruce in the country. Deputy Carney has said all that I wanted to say on this subject. Before concluding, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the amount of waste land that there is in South Kerry that could be very profitably planted with trees. I do not see that the Minister has made any move in that direction so far.
I think it is time we left out the question whether it is advisable to have hard timber or soft timber. We should cease arguing about that and concentrate on the growing of timber, growing it on land that is suitable for the purpose, and not suitable for agriculture. We have an amount of such land, and why not avail of it? Our complaint against the Department is, not that they are spending too much money, but that they are not spending enough on afforestation. Apart from the value of timber as a marketable commodity, there is another value attached to afforestation that is too often left out of sight, and that is its value to the country from a health and scenic point of view. We hear a lot from time to time about tourist traffic, and that we should do everything possible to encourage it. If we make the country more beautiful than it is, then we will be doing something in the way of encouraging tourist traffic. One of the best ways to accomplish that is to endeavour to clothe our mountain slopes again, as they were in the old days, with timber. I do not want to advert again to the hard versus soft timber question, but I have seen beech grown in very considerable quantities and sold at a very good price. The demand for it was so strong that the people who owned it refused to sell any more of it. A sawmill which was working in the district, and which was giving a considerable amount of employment, had to clear out of the area because they could get no more of that timber. Had they got the timber they would have used every stick of beech in the place.
Is that long ago?
Ten or twelve years ago.
Bring us back ten or twelve years and we will be delighted.
That sawmill is now working in another part of Ireland and is using beech. On the question of oak, some time ago I had to get quotations for Austrian and Irish oak. The price quoted for Austrian oak, if one wanted to get it for the purpose of manufacturing it into furniture in this country, was considerable. I succeeded in getting some Irish oak that had been cut in South Tipperary and that had been properly seasoned. The furniture that has been made from it is just as good as furniture made from Austrian oak. I think the trouble with us in this country is that we have never had scientific afforestation. Trees have been allowed to grow up haphazard all over the country, to grow up from saplings and to branch out in all directions. The result has been that our timber has never been scientifically cultivated. That, also, to a great extent, accounts for the fact that we cannot produce timber to equal the Norwegian timber. In this country you cannot get scantlings for building purposes from the native timber to equal what comes from Norway. I believe the reason for that is that we have never attempted to tackle this question of afforestation in the way that the Norwegians and others have done.
We have no scientific drying sheds and no scientific forestry at all. At the present time all over the country you have hard wood growing, but not on a very good soil, and the result is that it is almost useless. I know a case myself where there are hundreds of acres of oak growing, but it is absolutely useless except for firewood. It would be a pity to cut it away, because it adds to the beauty of the place in which it is growing, but from a marketable point of view it is practically useless. I agree with Deputy Gorey to this extent, that we should grow soft timber as well as hard. It grows quickly, and I think we should grow more of it. Our complaint against the Department is that they are not growing enough of it. Some time ago I called to the Department on behalf of some farmers who wanted to dispose of some land. This land was not good enough for agricultural purposes. It might be made so if reclaimed, but they wished the Department to purchase it. To carry out with success a scheme of afforestation, you must have an area of about 300 acres of land. None of these people could supply that amount of land. I tried to persuade a number of their neighbours to join in a group with them to make up the quantity of land that would really be necessary for a scheme of afforestation. I wonder would it be possible for the Department to help people in the position that these people are in, people who are anxious to make use of their land for afforestation purposes and to whom the land is of very little use for any other purpose. No individual farmer could afford to carry out afforestation, even on the smallest scale that would be possible, unless he got some State aid.
If the Department, in the immediate future, cannot embark on any large schemes, would it be possible for it to help farmers who might be willing to plant waste areas of land in their possession? There is this to be said against it, that if we are to have scientific afforestation it must be done by the State. The individual cannot do it because he cannot devote the time to watching the trees, thinning them out, and properly fencing them, which is most important. If we have to do it properly we must concentrate on large schemes. If it is possible to give any assistance to farmers who are willing and anxious to do some planting it would be well if some scheme could be devised. I hope care will be taken if trees are planted anywhere near a public road that they will be kept back far enough so as not to injure the road. At present, we have some very nice leafy lanes in the country, but where the trees overhang the road they are doing serious damage to public property. It is hard to keep the road in proper repair if the boughs of trees overhang it. In any scheme under the Department I hope the trees will not be planted too near a public road. In foreign countries trees that are planted near the roadsides do not branch out and spread over the roads in any way. In my county numbers of people are threatened with prosecution every year because they find it almost impossible to keep their trees cut.
I beg to support Deputy Ryan's motion. I would like to ask the Minister if he would give me information as to the amount of work done in County Mayo by the Forestry Department. To my knowledge, there has been none whatever done. I am aware that three or four men combined and offered 300 acres along the main road, near Newport on the Castlebar road. I raised the question here some time ago and I was told that further inquiry would be made.
What case is the Deputy referring to?
Dooher was the name of the man with whom the Minister was in communication. On the Jones and Gibbons estate, about 500 acres were offered, and nothing has come of the offer, so far as I am aware. I believe I am safe in saying that there are upwards of 1,000,000 acres of mountain land not fit for tillage, and that a large portion of it could be serviceably utilised by planting it with timber, particularly soft wood, so that I am in agreement with Deputy Gorey upon that point. In reply to another point made by Deputy Gorey, as regards hard wood, I would like to add to the reply of Deputy Carney that practically all the carriage work of the country is made of hard wood, and the framework particularly, both in the railway stock, the buses, and the road waggons. I think the Forestry Department ought to give some consideration to County Mayo in view of the fact that it has done nothing for that county in the past, as far as I can make out, and it should give us, at least, a shelter of timber on our hillsides. That will help the game on the mountains and the murroughs. That will be helpful in places where there may be some tillage, and it will add to the beauty of the countryside.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is in the County of Waterford an estate upon which there is a considerable amount of timber grown. That was sold during the War. The land, I believe, would be valuable for replanting. I refer to the Villiers-Stuart estate. I hope the Minister will see that the matter will be inquired into. Speaking generally on our criticism of the Department, one would say there is a lack of attempt to deal with this question from a really national point of view. It is all very well to be protecting private interests and to believe in private enterprise, but it is making a fetish of private enterprise to leave the question of afforestation in Ireland to go on in a haphazard way, and simply to legislate in the way of preventing timber being cut and not making proper inquiries as to the value of timber at present in existence in the country. In Waterford, there are a number of estates—I know of three—where timber is grown. There are demesne lands all over Ireland where valuable timber is grown. I do not know —perhaps the Minister would tell us—whether they have made any attempt to value timber on those estates, and to put forward a national scheme which would include co-operation with the owners of that timber so that it might be used for national purposes. I mean that, first of all, we should find out what is the need for timber in this country. We import £124,256 worth of furniture. That is the figure for 1928. Surely we ought to be able, if we are trying to develop the furniture trade, to develop the supply to the furniture trade, so that we could supplant all the imports of furniture, and not only have homemade furniture, but furniture made of Irish wood.
Deputy Gorey's complaint that there is no market for a certain type of wood which is admirable for making furniture, is in itself a severe condemnation not of the Forestry Department but of the Minister. A Department, if it gets a sufficiently emphatic direction, will carry out the larger national policy. It is the Minister's work to see that the experts carry out the national policy which his Cabinet stands for. It is really on the question of a big policy that the Department fails. Having found out what the need would be for the requirement of raw material in Ireland, then the next thing to find out is what supply there is. There is a certain amount of mature oak in this country, and there is a considerable amount of other woods suitable for supplying our needs. Can the Ministry tell us whether they have made any valuation of the actual supplies in the country and tried to relate it to the consumption of material in the country? At present the general view is expressed in this way: That we grow timber that we cannot use, and that we cannot grow timber that we want to use. Deputy Gorey tried to divide the House into those Deputies whose heads were full of soft timber as distinct from those whose heads were full of hard timber. That, I suggest, is, in a sense, a red herring across the track, because there must be use in the country for both soft and hard timber. I suggest the idea which should be insisted upon by the Forestry Department or the Minister is the amount of timber and the kinds of timber which are required to be used in this country, and to take up the attitude that we should be able to exclude the importation of much of the raw materials in all the furniture so as to use what is in this country. The particular advantage which would come from paying attention to the actual demesnes is that you would be building from what you have. There is an amount of valuable timber in the demesne lands. We should make a valuation of the timber and see how far those forests could be used for development. The seeds which come from that timber are acclimatised, and, therefore, would be most valuable for further extensions.
Our policy with regard to forestry is completely unambitious and will entirely disappoint Fianna Fáil Deputies, but it is at least concrete. We think that there are about 200,000 acres of plantable land in the country. We have acquired about 30,000 acres of that, and we propose to acquire the balance at the rate of about 5,000 acres per annum. We have succeeded up to the present in acquiring about 4,000 acres per year, but we hope, with the additional powers given by the Forestry Act to acquire something like 5,000 per annum. Going at that rate, we would acquire something like 200,000 acres in about 40 years, but when we get more money next year or the year after— there is nothing to stop the Dáil, as Deputy Heffernan pointed out, putting more money at the disposal of the Forestry Branch—and have a clearer idea as a result of experience where suitable land is for forestry purposes, and have developed our nurseries, we can increase the acquisition of land after some time to 7,000 or 8,000 or 10,000 acres annually, and it is quite on the cards that we might be able to finish the programme in 25 or 30 years, which would be quite good.
I am asked what is the big idea behind this. It is that, so far as we have any information, there are about 200,000 acres of really suitable forestry land. Deputy Kilroy is wrong in saying that there are a million acres suitable for forestry in Mayo; there is not. He is thinking of land along the sea coast, which is poor land entirely unsheltered. It is much the same type of land as there is in Connemara. That is entirely unsuitable for forestry, and will never be planted, as far as we know now. There may be discoveries and possible new varieties that will settle that, but we do not know of them at present. Experiments were made in Connemara and have failed. There was an attempt made to plant areas along the sea coast on the best land we could get of this kind; of course there is no good land there. These experiments were a failure to a great extent, and we are not in a position at present to waste money upon propositions which were conclusively proved to be uneconomic. We believe, as I said, that there are about 200,000 acres of plantable land, and we propose to acquire that at the rate which I have indicated and to plant it. On the other side, about 200,000 acres of State-owned forests will produce about two-thirds of the total requirements of the country in soft woods. If we were in a position to produce two-thirds of our total requirements, we would be in a fairly sound position. The beauty of this programme, which I am quite sure Deputies opposite will not see, is that it is achievable. If in future years there is more money which can be spared for that purpose, the machinery is all there, the section is going, and it will be available, and we can speed up that programme. At present we consider ourselves lucky to acquire about 5,000 acres per annum.
I need not answer Deputy Moore's question. What he really wanted to know was whether we thought there should be any forestry in the country at all. I take it for granted that everyone would like to see increased planting. It would be a waste of time to go into all the reasons for increasing the forest area. I take it it is common ground on both sides of the House that it would be an advantage to increase the area. I need not labour the reasons—they have been given by several Deputies. I do not propose either to go into the question between soft and hard timbers except to say that, roughly speaking, Deputy Gorey is right. There is practically no price for hard timber. Nobody denies that there are uses to which it can be put. Deputies indicated these uses. At the same time, the fact is that there is practically no price for it. With the exception of ash and sycamore, there is a very poor price for hard timber. While there are uses for it, the price is bad. Furthermore, it takes very much better land to grow hard timber, and that is a serious consideration in this country, where we have much congestion; where the farms on the average are so small; and where you have a very small area of untenanted land left. So that we have to take into account, on one side, in thinking out our programme, that land is very valuable in this country; that a large section of the people have no other means of making a living but out of the land. That is a rather bad point of view, but the fact remains that it is so—that for a very large section of the community there is only one way of making a living, and that is to get a piece of land. Land will become increasingly valuable as estates are taken over and divided up, and we have to be very careful not to acquire land that is suitable for agricultural purposes. It ought to be obvious to anyone that it would be bad economics from the point of view of the individual or of the State to acquire land for forestry purposes which is suitable for agricultural purposes. For these reasons, we do not plant nearly as much hard timber as soft timber, but we do plant some—ash, beech, and so on. Moreover, there is a considerable amount of clm and other hard timber in the country at present—there is, in fact, nearly enough to meet the requirements of the country. But commercial considerations, with which the Forestry Branch have nothing to do, enter into the matter.
I have been asked by Deputy Moore what we did with the woods when we acquired them. To begin with, most of the woods we sell are woods we buy. We buy an area of land on which there is immature timber, and we sell that. We go into the open market in order to get the highest price. We could not possibly make a condition with a purchaser, say, in Tipperary, that this timber must be treated or used in the country. If we did, we would simply have to take a very much smaller price. The Dáil has never decided that the Forestry Branch should become a sort of economic grand council and take charge of national policy in that way. The Forestry Branch exists for the purpose of growing trees. They are concerned with the economics of forestry as such, but they are not concerned—that is the business of other Departments—with the use made of the trees afterwards. If the Forestry Branch took that into account, the Tariff Commission, the Department of Industry and Commerce, and other Departments, could be abolished. That is their function. The proper function of the Dáil is to decide a question like that, not in relation to a forestry estimate, but in relation to a tariff debate, or some other of the economic debates that arise out of the estimates I mentioned. The Forestry Branch, on the other hand, is performing its functions if it confines itself to acquiring land and growing timber in the largest possible quantities, having regard to the amount of money at its disposal. If there is a national policy definitely laid down by the Dáil and adopted by the Government that all the requirements of the country in the way of woodwork must be produced from native-grown timber, it is the business of the Minister to alter the policy of the Forestry Branch to coincide with that. But, until that decision is come to, the business of the Forestry Branch is to decide what are the most suitable trees that can be grown on the land they are likely to get, and to grow as many of them as possible at the smallest possible price. When it comes to selling, it is not the business of the branch to decide that there is not enough furniture and that there are not enough chairs and boats made in the country and that it is a condition that must be made with the buyers of trees from the Forestry Department that they must make them into chairs and furniture in the country. It is the business of the Forestry Department to get the highest possible price they can for the trees and to put it to an appropriation-in-aid of the Vote and use it again for the planting and growing of more trees. It is the business of the Dáil and the Government to decide whether chairs or furniture or boats made in the country should be made from the timber of trees that are grown here.
I have been asked a question as to why we do not produce the seedlings we require. We do not produce them all; we produce round about three-fourths of them, and our aim is, and it is an aim that we are carrying out, to increase our nurseries each year so that all the seedlings we require after a few years will be produced in the country. We realise it is quite sound, from every point of view, that our seedlings, as far as possible, should be produced in the country, and we are approaching that state of affairs.
A number of Deputies were concerned that their own counties were neglected and not included amongst those where land is purchased. With a modest forestry programme of acquiring about five thousand acres a year, it is not unlikely that certain counties, for some reason or other, will be for some years neglected, if you like, or that in certain counties no land will be bought for forestry purposes. The Forestry Branch has to buy land where it can get it and where it is suitable. Wicklow land is notoriously suitable for growing trees. There are lots of poor land which for special reasons is not suitable for agriculture, but is notoriously suitable for the growth of trees. If a proposition comes from Wicklow for the purchase of five or six or one thousand acres for the Forestry Branch, they cannot afford to say: "We have already four thousand, or five thousand or seventeen thousand acres there, and because we have we will not buy these." That would be bad business and would be a mixing up of their functions. The function of the Forestry Branch is to buy land where it is cheap and suitable, and in that matter they cannot afford to be provincial. They take into account first, that they are getting the land cheaply; secondly, that it is suitable for forestry; and thirdly, that it is not suitable for agricultural purposes; and they put these three considerations together and they deduce from them that the purchase of that land will be good value for the country as a whole, that the trees planted will do well and will make money which can be used elsewhere. It is because they approach the matter in that way that Donegal and Mayo—where there is not so much suitable land, where there is a tremendously keen demand for any middling land for the relief of congestion—have been neglected, if you like.
With regard to estates that were mentioned by Deputy Kilroy and others, I have not the particulars by me at the moment. I have not the list of the estates offered to the Forestry Branch, but I will undertake to see what has happened and whether the proposed deal has fallen through; and I shall do that also with regard to the Villiers-Stuart mentioned by Deputy Little. We must get areas of about three hundred acres in order to have them economic areas. We do not intend, and I do not think the Deputies were ever led to believe that we intended, to enter into vast schemes of afforestation such as are produced in countries like Czecho-Slovakia, where they buy up thousands and thousands of acres, and where they keep foresters and gangers and surveyors in charge of them. While Deputy Buckley's speech was quite interesting and while his statistics were, I am sure, quite correct with regard to Norway and Sweden and Czecho-Slovakia and other countries, they have really nothing to do with this question here.
Sweden has about fifty million acres of forest always renewing themselves. They do not do any planting. Probably there is a body in Stockholm, such as the Deputy mentioned, to control the growth of trees, but they have not to do any planting except experiments with new varieties. Anyway there is no comparison at all between the conditions in Sweden and in this country. Neither is there any comparison between the conditions in Germany and in this country.
I would like to see more afforestation in this country. From every point of view the country has been denuded of trees. Deputy Heffernan was right in saying that for the money expended on forestry a great amount of employment is not given, but it gives a fair amount. If you take into account not only the advantages it produces in giving a certain amount of employment, but from the point of view of producing material needed, and also from the scenic point of view, and from the point of view of the amenities of life, and of the tourists coming here, there is no doubt whatever about it forestry is a particular type of activity that I would like to see increased. But, again, it is a question of money. We could handle twice as much money as we have. We are not asking for an awful lot, but again we have to balance accounts, and we propose to ask ourselves whether we ought to wait or whether we ought to tax our people further this year for this special purpose. Deputy Wolfe was right in saying that you must have a long purse. He did not mean to suggest that a good dividend is not paid by forestry carried out by the State or by an individual. In fact, it does. What he suggested is that you have to wait for a relatively long time before you get a return. We have to take that into account when we consider what amount of money should be at the disposal of the Forestry Branch. We have to take into account that we want money for a lot of urgent purposes at the moment, and while we take into account that forestry has a variety of advantages in the way of giving employment, and in other directions, we have nevertheless to realise that for the money expended there is going to be little return for a long time, and we have to ask ourselves when there are many more urgent matters that require the expenditure of money if it is good business to go too deeply into forestry. I am hopeful that we will be able to increase this Vote in time to come. We have the advantage of having what is regarded as a rather exceptional forestry section. I hope we will be able to increase this Vote in time. I do not want to be misunderstood, but this is one of the few luxuries that I would like to see set going, if it is a luxury, and I would like to see money spent in that direction. I know what difference it makes in a country from a hundred points of view to have trees planted and forestry going on there. I use the word luxury advisedly in this sense, that it is a luxury as compared with other and more urgent things at the moment, but even if it is it is one of the few luxuries that I would like to see money spent on if we could afford it. At any rate, we cannot afford any more money for that purpose this year. We have enough money to acquire five thousand acres if we could get quite suitable land, but there is always difficulty about getting suitable land. Deputy Ryan mentioned the Forth mountain. It may surprise Deputy Ryan to know that there are about four times as many claimants for the available rights on the Forth mountain as there were before the Forestry Act was passed. We are faced with the position that there are a number of people coming forward now and, with the greatest punctuality, claims are put in the most magnificent style. Luckily we have compulsory powers and we propose to exercise them, but at the same time we must not ignore these.
No matter how frivolous they may prove to be they must be investigated. That takes a long time. We have the Act there now. It will be put into operation. That land is offered, and it is one of the places that is suitable for planting and unsuitable for anything else. There are places in Galway and other counties which are of the same kind. This year we will endeavour to purchase between 4,000 and 5,000 acres, and at the same time try to administer the Forestry Act, which is a very important one. We have to approach the question, not only from the point of view of the growing of trees but of preventing the wanton destruction of trees which are immature.
Do I understand the Minister to say that the Forestry Act is not yet in operation?
That is so. The appointed day has not yet been fixed. We have to get the staff ready, and we thought it right to allow a certain amount of time to elapse between the passing of the Act and putting it into operation, because, as the Deputy will remember, rather drastic powers are taken under it.
Is it the case that no part of the Act can be put into operation until the entire Act is in force?
We will bring it into operation in parts.
