Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1931

Vol. 38 No. 19

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £43,008 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Foraoiseachta. (9 agus 10 Geo. 5, c. 58; Uimh. 16 de 1924 agus Uimh. 4 de 1928).

That a sum not exceeding £43,008 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, 1932, for salaries and expenses in connection with Forestry. (9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 58; No. 16 of 1924; and No. 34 of 1928).

The net total of the Vote proposed is £64,588, being a net increase as compared with the Vote for 1930-'31 of £4,619. The printed Estimate to a large extent explains itself. The principal increases are £3,000 in the money set aside for the acquisition of land, and £2,300 in the money to be spent on the employment of labour.

Sub-head A—Salaries, wages and allowances, £9,598. —This head provides for the administrative, inspectorial and clerical staffs which remain the same as last year.

Sub-head B—Travelling expenses, £1,000. —This item provides for travelling and subsistence expenses of inspectorial and technical staffs and shows a reduction of £200 on the previous year.

Sub-head C 1—Acquisition of land (Grant-in-Aid), £13,000. —The provision under this head is by way of grant-in-aid in order that unexpended balances may be carried forward. This arrangement has been found to be necessary owing to the difficulty of forecasting the length of time which may be required in any particular case for negotiation and conveyance. During the year 1930-31, 1,810¼ acres were acquired by purchase and 220¼ acres were leased, making a total of 46,285 acres acquired for State afforestation up to the 31st March last. Negotiations are in progress in regard to approximately 12,000 acres.

Sub-head C 2—Cultural operations, maintenance, etc., £45,800. —(1) Foresters' and caretakers' wages, £4,500. —Additions to the number of forest centres necessarily entails a more or less progressive increase in this item. Foresters are classified into three grades, varying with the experience and seniority of the individual concerned and the importance of the centre under his charge.

The grades are:—

Forester Grade I. —Wages, inclusive £180—£7 10s.—£230. Forester Grade II. — £130 — £5 — £180. Foremen — £120. These men are, in addition, entitled to free housing accommodation or a small allowance in lieu where houses are not available. At present there are employed 6 Grade I foresters, 16 Grade II foresters and 7 foremen.

All these men have been trained for their work by the Department.

Caretakers are usually employed at outlying portions of forest properties, and are given small allowances, varying with the importance of their charges. The number at present employed is 24.

(2) Maintenance, £10,800. —This item includes a sum of £6,300 for payment of labour required for cleaning and after care of areas already planted. The sum of £4,500 will be expended mainly on fencing materials (wire netting, stakes, staples, etc.) and tools. These stores are obtained through the agencies of the central purchasing departments.

(3) Cultural Operations, £29,000; Labour, £26,000. —This item covers the wages of workmen required for nursery work, the preparation of ground for planting, and for the actual planting operations. Labour is employed as required, reaching peak figures in the winter months. The total number of labourers at present engaged is 520, and this complement will probably rise to 700 men in the coming planting season. Labourers are engaged through the local labour exchanges at wages corresponding to the local rates for agricultural workers.

Purchase of Seeds, Seedlings and Transplants, £2,000. —Seeds are purchased principally from abroad. The quantity sown in 1930 was 725 lb., which, it is estimated, will produce approximately 11 million seedlings for lining-out in nurseries.

There are 106 acres of land in use as nursery ground. The total area of forest land planted or replanted in the season 1930-31 was 3,290 acres. The programme for the current financial year contemplates the planting of from three to four thousand acres.

Miscellaneous, £1,000. —This item includes various charges such as manures, cartage and nursery ploughing.

(4) Timber Conversion, £1,500. —One sawmill only is at present in operation, viz., at Dundrum, County Tipperary, but steps are being taken to commence operations with a small mill on the Department's forest centre at Coolbanagher, near Portarlington. There is a steadily maintained sale of manufactured and partly manufactured timber from the mill at Dundrum. During the year ended 31st March last approximately 21,160 cubic feet of timber were sold at Dundrum, and in addition a large amount of sawing was done for local timber owners.

Sub-head C 3 deals with experiments in planting of peat land, and the amount is £500. These experiments are to be carried out over a period of ten years or so on peat soils of the type occurring in the West of Ireland, in order to ascertain the possibility of land of this sort being planted economically.

Sub-head D refers to advances for afforestation purposes, £350. It provides for assistance by way of grants to local bodies and private persons undertaking forestry operations. A scheme of grants for planting was put into operation during the past season under which assistance to the extent of £4 an acre may be given towards the cost of establishing plantations. The grant is payable in three instalments, and is limited to plantations of 5 statute acres and upwards, planted either by one holder or by two or more occupiers jointly. During the past season 26 applications were received covering a total proposed area of 280 acres. Tree nursery schemes, having for their object the supply of good plants for planting by private persons, are being worked by the councils of Counties Cork and Kildare.

Under Sub-head E. — Forestry Education—a sum of £250 is estimated. This item provides for (a) the training of apprentices with a view to supplying the need for skilled forest foremen and foresters, and (b) special intensive courses of lectures, etc., for junior foresters and foremen in the Department's service. There are at present in training five apprentices in their first year, six in their second year, and four in their third year of training.

Sub-head F. —Agency and advisory services and special services. —£10—is a token vote merely.

Sub-head G covers incidental expenses. —£130.

The total area of land acquired by the Department for forestry purposes up to the end of March last is 46,285 acres. Of this total 33,087 acres were purchased, 9,384 acres were leased, and 3,814 acres were transferred free of charge from the Department of Defence. The total area planted or replanted to date is 26,649 acres, of which 3,290 acres were planted in the past season. Of the leased lands 1,606 acres have not yet been taken over. For the purposes of administration the forest lands are divided into 37 forest units, each of which is in charge of a local officer.

A few words may be useful regarding the working of the Forestry Act, 1928, which came into operation on April 1st, 1930. As is fairly well known, general permits are issued to owners of woodlands who are prepared to maintain them in a satisfactory condition. The Department make no attempt to interfere with the owners' views on the subject, but recipients of permits are expected to do what is necessary to preserve the general wooded features of their estates, and although planting or replanting is desirable, no hard and fast rules are laid down in this connection. From time to time cases arise in which it is obviously necessary to take existing conditions into account, and no attempt is made to administer the Act in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.

As regards the notification of tree fellings on holdings to which general permits could not apply, the principle adopted is to prohibit, in the first instance, cases in which the felling appears to be relatively excessive. This is necessary in order that inspections may be made later than the specified statutory period of twenty-one days. Licences to fell are usually granted as a result of these inspections, which take into consideration the condition of the individual holdings. As is well known, the limitation of prohibition provided by the Act is fairly wide, and covers all the more urgent cases in which tree felling is necessary. Offences against the Act are dealt with after a careful review of the facts supplied by the Civic Guard, and if offenders have clearly acted in ignorance of the Act, or satisfactory reasons can be given for the absence of notification, the cases are usually settled by the issue of warning notices. On the other hand, deliberate attempts to evade the Act must be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Mr. T. Murphy

I move:—

"That the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration."

In case there should be any doubt as to the motives behind my amendment, I wish to say that it is moved because nothing like ample provision has been made for the development of forestry schemes in the manner in which they should be developed. I think that I ought to say that it will possibly be a revelation to many citizens to find this House discussing this Vote. It is probably the only information that they will get of the fact that this Department exists. When one remembers other times in this country, when the people were anticipating the opportunities that self-government would give them, and when one remembers many of the pictures that were painted of the possibilities of doing much for the country, including schemes of afforestation, it would not be unfair to suggest that the whole administration of this Department has been a ghastly failure.

It seems to me that the administration of this Department for the last eight years calls for urgent review. I may say without fear of contradiction that the results as a whole are sadly disappointing. I want, however, to do the Minister the credit of saying that the administration of this particular branch is very unlike that of many other branches of his Department where one sees signs of progress and of a desire to do many useful things very expeditiously and very successfully. The condemnation of the administration of this branch of the Department is fully conveyed in the Minister's statement in moving this Vote that only 4,000 acres were planted during the past twelve months. In no other Department than this could more useful and more expeditious work be done from the point of view of enhancing the wealth of the country, of beautifying the countryside, and of making a substantial contribution towards wiping out the unhappy position disclosed some weeks ago when we ascertained that 84,000 people were receiving home assistance.

Let us assume that 25,000 of them— that would probably be an underestimate—are able-bodied people who are workless, and we can then see that the initiation of a national forestry policy would provide ample opportunity of absorbing a large proportion of that number on useful work. Time and again it has been stated that it is bad for the country as a whole, financially, physically and morally, that people should be compelled to exist on charity derived from any source. One fails to find a reason why the whole policy of the Forestry Department seems to be one of going slowly. It seems to me that it is the duty of the Dáil to insist that the whole policy of this Department should be looked into and overhauled and the only method, within the limits of Parliamentary procedure, by which the Dáil can insist on doing it is by referring the Vote back for re-consideration with the wish of the House expressed to the Minister that the amount allocated to this particular service should be substantially increased.

I want to say that my own experience of this Department and of the officials concerned is anything but happy. I was optimistic enough some years ago to take the trouble of inducing a considerable number of landholders in my constituency to make offers of land which they considered suitable for afforestation to the Department. I went to the trouble of collecting a large number of signatures and of having the petitions duly deposited with the officials of the Department in the proper way. From that day to this, however, except through a couple of parliamentary questions, the result of which was nil, I never heard a word about the schemes which were submitted. It may be that there were some difficulties in the way of doing something with them, but it appears to me that no trouble was taken whatever to examine into the merits of the scheme and the constituents of mine, who were optimists like myself, are still waiting for the visit of the forestry inspector.

I notice in the Estimate that some provision, at least, substantial in comparison with what has been done elsewhere, has been made in some counties. I regard that not as complimentary but as condemnatory to this Department. There is something wrong with a Department which concentrates on a few areas while there are opportunities of doing much in a national way all over the country. Take my own constituency. There are, perhaps, few constituencies where schemes of afforestation would be more successful, or where they would be carried out with more local co-operation. There is not a single farmer, small or large, in West Cork who knows anything whatever about the Forestry Department, or who ever hears anything about it, so far as we know, except, perhaps, what he hears about this discussion on this Vote annually. I urge the Minister to withdraw the Estimate and to look into the whole policy of the Department. It may be no harm for him to take the necessary steps to overhaul the whole machinery, to find out what dry-rot has set in there and why nothing of consequence has been done. As I have said, I regard the Vote as providing one of the finest opportunities of relieving unemployment and doing other good that are afforded to any Minister or any Department.

I see much cause for delay in many of the restrictions that surround the initiation of schemes of this kind, for instance, the restrictions in regard to obtaining an area of 200 acres. I am quite satisfied that in certain areas, even in my own constituency, there would be no difficulty in obtaining plots of land to that extent, but I do complain of the policy which asks for applications of that kind to be made by the local people. I suggest that the policy of the Department should be to send inspectors wherever there would be a reasonable chance of getting plots of that kind and not to put the onus on the local landholders to take the initiative in the matter. I noticed a reference in the Minister's statement to grants of £4 per acre for forestry work being obtained by local landholders. The success of that Department is evidenced very clearly by the fact that 26 applications were received from all over the State. Nothing could be a clearer indication of how futile it is to proceed along that line or how hopeless it is to expect that anything can be done in that direction. The need is for a forestry department that will embrace the Twenty-Six Counties and will have ample funds to do a substantial amount of work in each county of the State. I put it to the Minister that it is his duty to investigate the possibilities of carrying into effect a policy of that kind and that it is not right to ask the House to endorse the inaction of the officials who man the forestry department by passing this Vote considering what poor results have been disclosed.

There is very little more I need say in support of the amendment. I have taken a broad line in dealing with it and I think it is unnecessary to refer to what has been done in one particular place or another. I take the constituency again from which I come, a constituency 120 miles long, where not one shilling has been spent by the Department and not one scheme has been examined. That, in my opinion, is a state of affairs that exists in a great many counties in the State. From what I know of the Minister, he does not stand for inaction of this kind in his Department. Whether we agree with his policy in other branches of his Department in one way or another, at least we always give him the credit of taking speedy action when he sees his way to do it. I think his way in this matter should be perfectly clear and until the Minister initiates a policy of that kind, I think the House ought to withhold its support from a Vote of this nature.

Mr. Cassidy

I rise to support the amendment that this Vote be referred back for reconsideration. One of my reasons for doing so is that sufficient attention has not been paid to congested areas such as Donegal, Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim. Another reason why I wish that the Vote should be referred back is in the hope that the Department will reconsider their policy and adopt more scientific forestry methods. Although this Department has been in existence since 1922, we find that up to approximately two years ago, no forestry operations had been carried out outside twelve counties. It was only in the beginning of the year 1929 that the number was brought up to thirteen counties and some little forestry work was done in Donegal. Deputy Murphy, in moving his amendment, stated that there was a considerable number of people in the country who were under the impression that no money was being expended as far as forestry was concerned. It might come as an eye-opener to these people and probably to many people in this House, when it is considered that since 1922 this Department has expended a sum of £376,256, and that out of that sum £86,296 has been eaten up by salaries, wages, allowances and administration expenses. Between the years 1922 and 1928, according to the Appropriation Accounts for these years, a sum of £198,563 was expended. One of the reasons why I desire to support the amendment that the Vote be referred back for re-consideration, is that out of that £198,563 not one penny was expended in County Donegal.

A few weeks ago the Minister for Agriculture spoke at a Cumann na nGaedheal reorganising meeting in Donegal. He had on the platform along with him Senator MacLoughlin, of County Donegal. I observe that while Senator MacLoughlin and the Minister spoke in regard to many things, one of the things in regard to which they did not speak was the question of forestry. In fact, Senator MacLoughlin and the Minister remained as silent as a painted ship upon a painted ocean in regard to that question. One reason for that silence might be that the Minister knew that not a single halfpenny had been spent in that particular county on forestry work during the six years I have mentioned. That is the reason why I desire to support the amendment that the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

I asked the Minister a few weeks ago a question as to the amount of money which had been expended in County Donegal. He said he was unable to give me the figures, that it would require a big lot of statistical investigation. He was able to tell me that while there were 6,986 acres of land planted in Wicklow; 4,177 in Tipperary; 3,714 in Cork; and 1,552 in Waterford, in a county such as Donegal there were only 310 acres of land planted. He was unable to give me the expenditure, but according to the answer the Minister gave me up to the 31st March, there were 22,456 acres of land planted. He came along to-day and told the House that there are over 26,000 acres of land planted. I would like to know how the difference in the figures comes in.

Mr. Hogan

Did you verify these figures from the Report?

Mr. Cassidy

Yes. I have a copy of the Report in my hand. There is some discrepancy in regard to these figures. The total expenditure less the cost of administration, according to the figures which the Minister gave us, was £289,960. In Donegal out of all that expenditure we find that there is only approximately £4,000 expended. I would refer the Minister and his Department to the recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission. Recommendation 63 was: "That a comprehensive Afforestation Scheme for the Gaeltacht be undertaken." In the White Paper issued by the Government outlining their policy in regard to this it is stated: "Afforestation in the areas included in the Gaeltacht is proceeding under the general forestry programme for the whole country..." In so far as proceeding in the Gaeltacht is concerned we find that in counties outside the Gaeltacht it is proceeding at a much faster rate. I believe that systematic afforestation is one of the requirements of County Donegal as a means of making now barren areas productive, at least to some extent. It is a good method of giving employment in congested areas, preparing the land, planting trees, and fencing the acquired land. I would like to know if the Department have any policy at all in the matter. A number of years ago the Minister speaking on this Vote said that it was the intention to plant 200,000 acres of land.

Mr. Hogan

In what time?

Mr. Cassidy

In forty years. I venture to suggest to the Minister that if he keeps up the progress he is making at the present time he will not come near that programme. I believe that there is no proper forestry policy in operation. It is true that land has been acquired. It is true that trees have been planted, but I would like to point out to the Minister that that has only been done in a haphazard way when it should have been done on a scientific basis. On the 29th March, 1928, I raised this question, and the Minister told me that as far as Donegal was concerned it would be dealt with in exactly the same way as other counties. I want to ask the Minister if Donegal has been dealt with in the same way as Wicklow, Cork or Tipperary. I venture to say it has not. The policy of the Department appears to be a ca-canny, go slow policy. In a supplementary question on the same day I asked the Minister if his Department had made any effort to acquire land in Donegal. I pointed out that there are thousands of acres of land suitable for tree planting. The Minister replied that the procedure adopted by his Department was to examine propositions put up by owners, that they did not go looking for land. In other words, they have no scientific way of acquiring land or no scientific policy or outlook. They are prepared, if land is put up to them in Co. Wicklow or some other county, to acquire it, while they are leaving out counties such as Donegal, Sligo and Mayo. The Minister appears to think that good land is essential for forestry purposes. Speaking on the 26th June, 1929, the Minister told us that there are lots of poor land which for special reasons are not suitable for agriculture, but are very suitable for the growing of trees. It is believed by forestry experts that if there was more afforestation on the hillsides there would be less flooding on the lowlands. In support of that contention I will quote Mr. E.

P. Stebbing, Professor of Forestry at Edinburgh University. In his book on Forestry, he states: "There appears to be little doubt that afforestation in the country once it has reached a certain point in its development will prove of immense benefit to the farmer, especially in those regions where areas of poor soil, situated about the more valuable agricultural land, are placed under tree growth."

Like Deputy Murphy, it is not my intention to vote against this Estimate, but it is my intention to vote that it be referred back for re-consideration, in the hope that the Minister will reconsider his forestry policy, and that he will see that more forestry work is given to the congested areas; that he will see that all this money is not spent in Wicklow or the Midlands, and the Gaeltacht left out. I would appeal to Deputies of all Parties to support the motion that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration in view of the fact that it is not a political question. It is an economic question pure and simple. As has been pointed out by Deputy Murphy, this matter should be looked at in a national way. After eight years' existence of this particular Department we find that there are thirteen counties with practically no afforestation. Practically nothing has been done in the congested areas. Little has been done outside four or five counties. It is in the hope that the Minister will reconsider his policy and give the congested areas their proper share of this money that I second the motion that the Vote be referred back.

Mr. G. Wolfe

I am glad to see that under sub-head C (1) it is proposed to spend £3,000 more in the acquisition of land. Anyone who knows anything about the planting of trees will know that there is considerable difficulty, although Deputy Cassidy does not seem to think so, in getting land that is suitable for timber. I think Deputy Cassidy seems to think that any land will do for timber.

Mr. Cassidy

Does the Deputy maintain that fertile land is necessary for afforestation purpose?

Mr. Wolfe

For profitable afforestation purposes.

Mr. Cassidy

I am afraid the Deputy is going against the opinion of experts.

Mr. George Wolfe

I think in the past enough attention was not paid to the kind of trees sown in certain parts of the country. A great deal of money was spent by private people in planting unsuitable timber chosen for certain localities. Money was spent by private people, and the profit that came to them in the end was very inadequate compared to what it might have been if another class of more suitable timber had been planted originally. That is a thing that any Department concerned with afforestation in this country must see to. My own county of Kildare has always been foremost for a great many years in forestry. As a rule the trees that were chosen had been of the proper type, and I am glad to say that a great many of the plantations put down are doing well. I think that a great deal more might gradually have been done. There is a difficulty in getting suitable land. In spite of what Deputy Cassidy says, suitable land that will be of service to the State in the growing of timber and will eventually pay is not to be found everywhere. Sometimes you come on certain districts that have beauty spots, and in such cases you may perhaps disregard entirely the value of the timber when you are adding to the beauty of the district by the appearance of your trees, which are an asset in another way. The proper plan is to go in for a class of timber that will eventually bring back money to the State and repay the cost of planting.

I see that there is a sum of £500 to be spent as an experiment in planting peat lands. I do not know whether that has been very carefully gone into. My idea is that it would be rather difficult to grow profitable timber on peat land. Peat land is all very well for rhododendrons, shrubs, and things of that nature, but for trees that might be expected eventually to be a paying property, I very much doubt whether peat lands are lands that should be planted. In places where I have seen trees grown on peat lands they do not seem to me to grow to any great size or thickness.

I notice with pleasure that a very considerable amount is spent on wages. I do not think that any of the emoluments that those engaged on forestry receive seem to be too high. I do not think that very much fault can be found with that. I should like to know from the Minister if it is possible to get the trees that are required for planting inside the areas that are being considered in this matter. In Kildare the Department have their own nurseries, which turn out to be of very great advantage, and are very profitable too. I should think the same should apply to other districts where afforestation is being carried on. Personally, of course, like many others, I would like to see a very much bigger Vote for this Department, but we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. Taking all things into consideration, I think that what has been done and what has been spent is well done and well spent. I hope from year to year to see the work increasing. I hope the next generation will see a vast improvement in the acreage under trees in this country, not alone around the cities, but throughout parts of the country that are now bare and desolate.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Murphy and Deputy Cassidy, in proposing that this Vote be referred back, have accused the Minister not so much of a wrong policy, but of a want of policy. They accused him of being inactive in his Department and not having done as much as he might have done for afforestation in this country. That is a fair criticism. There has not been much done to make any serious attempt to plant trees in this country. Only 3,000 acres roughly have been planted per annum. That is so very small that it is very doubtful if we should continue the expense of maintaining a Department of Forestry at all. I am glad to see a couple of items in particular in the Estimate. The item for carrying out experiments on peat land is somewhat hopeful. Deputy Wolfe does not appear to be very much in favour of it. I know that Deputy Wolfe has some experience of seeing trees growing in that particular area, and though I have no experience, nevertheless I think this experiment is certainly worth spending a little money on. Considering the amount of bog and peat lands that we have in this country it is certainly worth spending a certain amount of money on it to see whether we could make any better use of that land than is being made of it at present.

There is another matter that I want to refer to, and that is the matter of giving grants to people who make private plantations. Grants of £4 per acre are an encouragement to tree planting. I think the Department is wrong in insisting on a minimum of five-acre lots. It would not be very often that one finds an ordinary farmer with five acres of land on which he could plant. Very often one finds a man with one or two acres.

Mr. Hogan

Two or three farmers might join together.

Dr. Ryan

Would they not have to be adjoining?

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

You will very often have a man with a small patch of an acre or an acre and a half. What is the reason that there must be five acres? If there is any particular reason it would be well to know it, and if there is not the minimum ought to be reduced. If the Department will go so far as to give free plants to people wishing to sow their land, it would go some way in inducing people to plant. In that way a good deal of plantation might be got. I know of some individual cases where I was asked by Wexford farmers who had one or two acres of land to know if the Forestry Department supplied free plants. I said that I thought they did. I know that in one particular case the man would have planted if he were supplied with the plants. He would have done the fencing himself if he got the plants free. If the Department would consider such a scheme as that, I believe there would be quite a lot of planting done at practically little cost to the Forestry Department.

I am sure the Forestry Department would have a number of plants to spare each year out of their nurseries, and these plants might be given free to people who are about planting their waste land. As Deputy Cassidy has already said, the fact that there were only 26 applications under this scheme shows that it does not take very well in the country. I do not believe that it is very well advertised or known that there is such a scheme. As long as the minimum is five acres I do not think it will be taken much advantage of. The Minister said with regard to the operation of the recent Forestry Act that there were no hard and fast rules laid down. In many cases where forests are cleared he said there was no obligation to replant. I do not know if I am quoting the Minister correctly.

I think when that Act was going through there was a big volume of opinion in the House that some powers should be given to the Minister to compel any man who is clearing a forest at least to replant an equal amount, if not there in some other place. If the hard and fast rule of replanting is not being enforced, I think a great deal of the good of that Act is gone. The Minister said that where the felling was excessive he had taken powers to prohibit the felling. That is certainly to the good, but I think re-planting is very important and that the Minister should not yield on that point if at all possible. I think it must be possible in all cases to see that that provision is put into any permit granted for the felling of timber.

I agree with Deputy Wolfe that a great deal of this Vote is spent on labour. As a matter of fact, when I was going through the Estimates I found under sub-head C (2), which is responsible for practically three-fourths of the entire Vote, that a good deal of the £45,000, in fact nearly £40,000, goes to labour. That goes to show that afforestation is one of the very best things that can be undertaken to relieve unemployment in the country areas. It has been stressed over and over again that if we want to give relief grants, for instance, in rural areas in order to relieve unemployment one of the best methods in which the money could be distributed would be on schemes of afforestation. We would, at least, be getting a return for our money and 80 or 90 per cent. of the money voted in that way would go on labour; and money that is voted for relief is, of course, voted primarily to relieve unemployment.

I also notice under this sub-head, C (2), an item of £2,000 for the purchase of seeds, seedlings and transplants. I should like the Minister to give some information on that. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the trees grown most successfully in any country are grown from transplants raised from seedlings in that country and not imported from another climate; that where they are reared in the climate where they are afterwards transplanted they do better. I should like to know if that is the opinion of the Forestry Department, and if so, why we do not sow all our seeds here, have them reared from seeds to seedlings, from seedlings to transplants, and so on the whole way up. It should hardly be necessary for a Department that is only planting 3,000 acres in the year to spend £2,000 on seeds, seedlings and transplants. A big part of that £2,000 seems to go for transplants, because if only seeds or seedlings were bought it would hardly go near the £2,000 mark.

Somebody may ask what is the motive for afforestation at all in this country. There is, at the present time, the motive of relieving unemployment, which is, perhaps, one reason why we should go in for afforestation more than we would otherwise be inclined. Apart from that, we know that we require a certain amount of timber each year, and that if we are in a position to produce that timber ourselves, we should certainly do so. We have large imports of timber in every form—raw timber, dressed timber, and timber sawn in planks. Then we have furniture and manufactured windows and doors coming in also, so that we have timber in every possible stage being imported each year. It would be very difficult to give any idea, therefore, of what our requirements in timber are, because the cost of the furniture coming in would not give us any idea of it. We can see, at any rate, that we require a large amount of timber each year of different qualities, some taken from hard woods, more from soft woods, and so on. We know from experience that we have land here suitable for afforestation, as we have grown a, great variety of timber in the past. It would also appear that our climate is suitable for the growing of timber. We have also an inducement to plant in order to replace a great deal of the woods and forests that were cleared during the Great War, and to bring back the beauty of some of these places that were cleared of timber at that time. We know that many places have been practically ruined as beauty spots as a result of these clearances, and we would like very much to see these places replanted, if for no other reason than to bring back the beauty that was there before.

One of the big difficulties that will be met with when timber comes to be used in 40 or 50 years' time is that of transport, and we must always keep that in view. It might be a very good economic proposition to plant a certain district with timber and have very good timber growing there, but we must keep in view the difficulty of transport at some future time. In that way it may be more economic sometimes to take land that is more convenient for transport afterwards, although it might not appear at present as good an economic proposition as land that would be out of the reach of proper transport. I saw some time ago an instance given of timber being sold in a district which was only about fifteen miles from the sea. It was stated that the person who sold the timber got 1/3 per unit—I am not sure whether it was per ton, or what it was —and the transport people got 2/3. It appears rather hard on a man who had grown timber for 40 or 45 years that he should only get 1/3 for all his labour, while the people who transported it to the place to which it was consigned got 2/3.

There is also a good deal in what Deputy Wolfe said, that you must not always depend on the poorest land for the growing of timber. There are certain varieties of timber, particularly pines, that grow fairly well on rather poor land, such as mountain sides. If there is any considerable amount of soil on the mountain the pines will grow. Other trees, however, such as oak, would not grow in these places. Oak would require very good land; almost as good as any agricultural crop, the only difference being that the oak is able to go farther down for nourishment than the ordinary agricultural crop. There are certain mountains which people will claim are a better economic proposition for the grazing of sheep, say, than for afforestation. The Forestry Department, I am sure, are quite capable of calculating whether they can take over a mountain side, which was used for the grazing of sheep, at a fair valuation considering the income that the owner of the mountain who was grazing sheep was getting, and whether at that price they can grow timber in an economic way or not. It should not be very difficult for the Department to calculate that. The employment given by mountain sheep farming is very small as compared to what would be given on the maintenance of forests, apart from the clearing and planting. The amount of employment given in the maintenance of forests on the mountain-side would be much greater than the amount of employment given by the herding of sheep.

We do export a certain amount of timber from this country; it is not very large, but we find a ready market in Great Britain for pines and many of the inferior timbers, as well as pines which are used for pit props, and many inferior trees which are also used for pit props in England and Wales. For our own requirements here I think we want more of the hard woods. Our furniture manufacturers are quite prepared to use home-grown timber if they can get it. They do use a considerable amount of home-grown oak, home-grown sycamore and home-grown chestnut. Then there are manufacturers of tools who use a certain amount of timber for handles, and for that purpose use ash. But, generally speaking, we require the hard timbers here more than pine, and I believe if we went in for planting hard woods like oak, ash, and chestnut, and others, that we would require a better type of land than really rough mountain land, and also more sheltered land. It might be a good economic proposition, but no one can say that except the Forestry Department.

I do not think, however, our whole policy ought to be based on whether it is an economic proposition or not. We have to take several other things into account, like making the country more beautiful and things like that. Some people hold it makes the country more healthy, because it absorbs a certain amount of moisture and lessens the rainfall. I do not know whether that is so, but some hold that it is so, but we have the very important consideration at the present time, namely, the relief of unemployment.

There are other matters I want to mention which concern Wexford in particular. There was a plantation under the Forestry Department in Camolin, County Wexford. Part of that was cleared in the recent past. While clearing it a great deal of damage was done to the roads. Indeed, they were so damaged that the people who held land on these roads were unable to get into their holdings, and a good many people could not bring a horse and cart with any loads on to the lands. The farmers could not bring manure to the lands nor a load of roots back to the markets. Some time ago they were talking about relief schemes, and a number of those people interviewed the Forestry Department. The Forestry Department sent them home fairly hopeful that something would be done, but since that nothing has been done upon this point. The roads are in a deplorable condition as a result of the work done by the Forestry Department clearing that wood. I think the Forestry Department should have seen to it that the roads were left in good repair after they had finished clearing the wood, in order to give farmers a chance of going on with their own work and visiting their fields.

The second matter that I want to mention has been raised here every year for the last seven or eight years since the Forestry Department started, and that is the planting of the mountain of Forth. People in Wexford were very hopeful that the Forestry Department would plant the mountain of Forth, but as year followed year it was found that we got no farther. Only three years ago it was discovered there were certain difficulties in the way. The people who owned the mountain and who had an interest in the mountain had to be bought out, and we were told that the recent Forestry Act had to be passed before that could be done. The Act has gone through, and we thought that the next step to be taken would be to have the people bought out and compensated. They were willing to be bought out and compensated, thinking that if they could get work through the Forestry Department they would be better off than they are at present, in the position of struggling small farmers, but it does not appear that much has been done. We were told again that the Forestry Department could do nothing until the Land Commission moved and that the Land Commission would have to take over the land and hand it over to the Forestry Department. So that every year we find we are getting further away, and that new difficulties arose and new barriers stood in the way. I would like very much if the Minister could give us any information upon these two points that are peculiar to the County Wexford when he comes to reply. I would be glad if the would tell us about the wood at Camolin and the planting of Forth Mountain.

Mr. Daly

Let everyone praise the bridge as he crosses it. There is an amount of employment given in my district, where we have two or three forestry schemes going on. Everyone appreciates the amount of employment given there, especially in the winter months, when there is no other way of getting employment, but I would point out that a great many of these men are disemployed in the summer time. There could be ample employment found for them in the way of weeding and cleaning the trees they have planted in the last two or three years. I hope the Minister will look into that. Deputy Ryan mentioned nurseries. I am glad to be able to inform him that in my district, where we have a big forestry scheme going on, all trees planted there are grown in the district. As he pointed out, they are natural and acclimatised, and they are better than imported ones, more especially when they are home-grown they give employment. From the health point of view forests in any country are a great asset. We are told that the pine forests in Switzerland attract tourists over there—the consumptives, if you like—who go there to try and get back their health.

The Minister, I believe, is offering £4 an acre for land to plant. I was speaking to a farmer on Sunday last who has 330 acres and he was willing to sell 130 acres of that for plantation and at a reasonable rate in order to enable him to clear off a debt he owes by way of annuity on the 200 acres.

I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. There are also in other parts of my constituency men who were offering 2,000 acres of land in Carrignavar. There is a gentleman prepared to give 2,000 acres of land at a very reasonable price. I believe one of the objections to taking over small parcels of land would be that you would have to pay a caretaker as much to look after a couple of hundred acres as to look after a couple of thousand acres. I guarantee if these 2,000 acres in Carrignavar are taken over that there will be ample for a caretaker when the complete work of planting is done. In addition we have in the summer time drainage. Some of the land requires to be drained. That would give employment in the summer to men who are unemployed. Then there is also the preparing of land for the coming season. I hope that will be taken note of by the Forestry Department.

Deputy Ryan pointed out that we would want better land for the hard wood—the oak, the elm and other hard woods. I agree. There are several woods being cut down for the last twenty years where all those hard woods grew and were never replanted. That timber grew on fairly good land. There is nothing to prevent the Forestry Department acquiring these old woods and replanting them again. He also mentioned the beauty spots and I agree with him that in my parish there was a great amount of damage done in the last ten years. I suppose it was necessary. It was one of the finest beauty spots in the country, along the glens and the valleys. I hope when the Forestry Department are visiting their big tracts of land in that particular district that they will not fail to visit those places. It would make our country healthier. It would be an aid to the beauty of the country and it would bring tourists to see those places that were the beauty spots of not so very long ago. It would do your heart good to see them. I often walked through them when I was a young fellow and some one else walked through them as well.

Having said that much, I would like to point out to the Minister for Agriculture that while I would like to see more money spent on forestry, I am sure Deputy Murphy would be the last man in this House who would close the gate for employment in any district in Ireland.

Mr. Corry

I am sorry that I cannot congratulate the Minister as Deputy Daly has done. I sympathise sincerely with Deputy Daly. As long as I have been coming in here he has been trying to get that couple of thousand acres taken over, and they are not taken over yet.

Mr. Daly

What couple of thousand acres are you referring to?

Mr. Corry

Carrignavar.

Mr. Daly

This is the first statement I made on the subject here.

Mr. Hogan

What is the name?

Mr. Daly

Carrignavar.

Mr. Corry

I, for one, have got very grave complaints from the labourers employed in afforestation in our constituency. They tell me that their maximum wage is £1 9s. per week, and that they get no broken time whatsoever. Some of them have to travel eight or nine miles to work, and if they arrive a quarter of an hour late they are sent home. It is rather an extraordinary thing to see a director with a thousand pounds a year drawing a cost-of-living bonus equivalent to the amount which these labourers get in a year, and to see officials here getting £2,627 cost-of-living bonus added to their salaries. At the same time unfortunate men have to work for a maximum of £1 9s. per week. I have also received complaints that the treatment they are getting is unfair and unjust. I would like to emphasise one point. I notice there is a special rate here for a forestry inspector. I am glad to see that the forestry inspector is a married man. I suggest that when the Minister was making a special rate for a forestry inspector and increasing his salary from £400 to £600 on account of being married, on somewhat the same lines he should consider the unfortunate men who are working for 29/-, and he should find out whether £1 9s. a week would be sufficient to support their wives and children as compared with the gentleman with £1,000 who is getting three men's salaries. I think the time has come when there should be an end to what I honestly call slave labour in this country. A wage of £1 9s. is not sufficient to support a man with his wife and children. I think setting down a maximum of that description is grossly unfair and unjust. As has been pointed out the amount of labour employed in this department is very large in comparison with the vote for the Department. I think the Minister should put an end to the maximum rate that is being paid. It is grossly unfair to send a man who is half an hour late home. I would like the Minister to look into these points and I hope I will not have to allude to them again.

Mr. Corish

I agree with the other speakers who said that the policy of this Department is slow. It is slow, especially when we know that in other branches of the agricultural department the Minister set himself in a practical manner to endeavour to solve the difficulties of agriculture. For the past five or six years the Minister has been reminded by Deputies from the County Wexford that there is such a place as Forth Mountain. He repeatedly promised that something would be done. In 1925 the matter was brought to his notice. Inspectors were sent down, and they reported that this particular place was entirely satisfactory as far as planting was concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that various promises had been made by the Minister, nothing has yet been done as far as anybody can see. I was told repeatedly that there were difficulties in the way which could be removed by the Forestry Act, which is now two years' old. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been on the Statute Book for that period nothing yet appears to have been done. When the Minister was in the County Wexford two deputations awaited on behalf of the Edermine area and another with regard to the Forth Mountain. The Minister gave an undertaking as to what he proposed to do as far as these two places were concerned. I would ask the Minister to give some definite indication as to what his attitude is in regard to these two cases. As far as Edermine is concerned, a large tract there has been offered to the Minister, practically free of charge, so that I do not see any difficulty about proceeding with the planting of it. There is a great deal of unemployment there owing to the fact that it is adjacent to the River Slaney, where the fishing has been bad for the last two or three years. It was with that object that representations were made to the owner, asking him to hand over the place to the Department for replanting. Up to this the Minister has turned a deaf ear to the representations that have been made to him.

Deputy Corry referred to the fact that 29s. a week has been fixed as the maximum wage paid forestry workers. I have drawn the attention of the House to that previously. I think it is a scandalous state of affairs that a Government should stand over a stipulation of that kind. I cannot understand how any man can be expected to support a wife and family in decent comfort on 29s. a week. When I raised the question a few months ago it was stated that that was the agricultural wage paid in the area. That may be so, but the agricultural worker does not have wet time stopped, and he gets perquisites over and above his wages that those engaged on forestry work do not get. As a matter of fact in one part of the constituency I represent, 24s. has been paid, and I heard of 22s. being paid in another part. In Curracloe only 27s. was paid. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position. I state unhesitatingly that it is shameful for any Government to stand over a wage of that kind. I hope the Minister will now indicate what he intends to do about Forth mountain and Edermine. It is time that the Minister made up his mind definitely and told the people what he proposes to do about these places.

Mr. Moore

It is rather strange that there should be a discussion on forestry without any reference to co-operation from public authorities such as county councils. I think at one time county councils were the principal agents in furthering an interest in forestry, and one or two of them had a great deal to do with getting a voluntary forestry movement going. In that connection it is rather a bad sign to see a reduction of £150 last year in sub-head (d) advances for afforestation purposes. In a memorandum circulated by the Forestry Department relating to the Forestry Act of 1928, it was stated that in the Act provision was made to meet payment of grants to private persons and public bodies for the purposes of planting and replanting. I suppose we may take it that the reduction from the very small sum of £500 to £350 indicates that there is practically no interest in that provision on the part of individuals or public bodies. If that be so the Department owes it as a duty to explain whether they have done anything to get the county councils interested. Have they interviewed or made representations of any kind to these councils? Have they got point blank refusals from them? It seems to me that the present is rather a favourable time for representations of that kind.

Recently two or three county councils—Kildare and Wicklow for certain —introduced a new principle with regard to the granting of home help. They are attempting to insist that able-bodied men are to give some return in the way of labour for whatever allowance they receive-one or two days' work in the week. If that be continued, or if it were the opinion of the Department of Local Government that it was desirable to continue it, obviously there is a way open to encourage afforestation work on the part of county councils. It seems to me that if there was any enthusiasm on the part of the Forestry Department they would already have observed that movement and have taken advantage of it for the purpose of getting afforestation work going. From the Minister's statement it appears that the planting of peat land is being carried on in the West of Ireland. I do not know why it should be confined to the West, because there are big portions of bog in Leinster that could be utilised, if the idea be at all practicable, for that purpose. I know that the director of the Forestry Department who has just retired was of the opinion that there were several fairly large pieces of bog in Leinster that could be utilised for that purpose. Taking these three things into account, that under the Act provision exists by which grants can be made to public bodies, that it is proposed to make an experiment in the planting of peat land, and the movement of the county councils to insist upon a return in the way of labour for home help, I think there would be room for an advance in forestry work. As far as I have been able to observe, there has been very little enthusiasm in that Department for a long time. Over twenty years ago the belief in afforestation as a necessary and desirable national work was almost a religion amongst the people, and for a few years we had Arbor Days. Of late years there has been very little sign of that enthusiasm or of anything to take its place. It is time that there was at least a show of more energy in the Department in the way of getting afforestation work going on a more dynamic basis.

Mr. Goulding

As, according to Deputy Cassidy's figures, the Department has planted over 1,000 acres in Waterford county, I suppose I should not be too hard on it.

There is, however, always room for criticism. Some time ago, some farmers approached me with a view to disposing of land to the Department for afforestation purposes. I approached the Department and was informed that parcels of land under 300 acres were not an economic proposition for the purpose. There are many farmers who are anxious to help in some way in planting land which is otherwise useless. Many of them who reside in exposed localities would like to have shelter belts planted, and I was wondering whether it would not be possible to have some co-operation in this respect between the farmers and the Department. The farmers, perhaps, could supply the labour and undertake to take care of the trees and fence them. Perhaps the Department could modify their rule about not planting less than 300 acres at the time. I know that three farmers offered 50 acres each but owing to the fact that the Department would not deal with less than 300 acres the scheme fell through. If there were some scheme of co-operation between the Department and farmers small areas of land could be planted at a minimum of cost. Deputy Moore referred to the Arbor Days that were held some years ago. About ten years ago in many parts of the country trees were planted on those days and arrangements were entered into by which they were to be left in the possession of the Arbor Days committees. I do not know what has happened to these trees, whether they have been taken over by the Department or whether they came into possession of those who own the land.

The question of planting along the sea-shore is rather interesting because there are many parts of the coast in the southern counties that could be made attractive by planting. The difficulty about it, I understand, is the prevailing westerly breeze, but would it not be possible to start shelter belts along the more exposed portions of the coast and then develop them into more extensive schemes, because the land is often useless for anything else? It is rocky and craggy but there is fairly good soil between the rocks suitable for the growing of timber. I know instances where timber is growing fairly successfully on exposed mountain sides where the land is rather bad. Reference has been made to experiments in the growing of trees on peat land. I have seen such trees as spruce, larch and birch growing successfully on cutaway bog and when thinned out these trees have realised a fair sum. It should be possible to grow timber on cutaway bog.

Some time ago there was some labour trouble with the Department in regard to afforestation schemes in Co. Waterford. Some men complained to me that during planting operations in the county outside labour was imported. That may be a small matter, but these men pointed out that in their particular district there were 90 men unemployed and they maintained that when work of clearing the lands and making the holes for the trees was available local men should have got preference, and I am rather inclined to agree with them. Some Deputies referred to the fact that we should use our own timber. Could the Department inform me why Irish timber is not suitable for working? Carpenters tell me that it is difficult to work, that Irish oak is difficult to plane, and that Irish larch and fir are almost impossible to work. I am sure that some Deputy in the House has worked Irish timber, and perhaps he would be able to give me the information I require. Why is it so difficult to work and why is Norwegian pine regarded as superior to Irish timber? Is it due to the want of care in planting, or is it due to climate or soil? If so, it should be possible to eradicate these faults, and in future Irish timber should be made suitable for working.

Deputy Ryan referred to the difficulty of transport. In this connection we have to bear two things in mind, that where planting is undertaken in future it should be carried out in districts where transport facilities, especially to a railway station, are in existence. If planting is done for scenic purposes it does not matter very much because in many parts of the country where we want to plant for the sake of improving the scenery or the climate, the question of transport does not matter very much. I know localities which have been planted, but it would be almost impossible to transport the timber. Some of the trees are practically the size of Californian trees and it would take three men to span one of them. If one of them fell it would be impossible to remove it. Proper precautions should be taken to prevent the destruction of such beautiful timber. I would like to be assured that the trees that were planted on Arbor Day some years ago have not been destroyed or have not fallen into the hands of people who will make no effort to care them.

Mr. Clery

In looking over the figures given by the Minister some time ago I find that no planting has been done in County Mayo, and I would like to know from the Minister the reason of that. We were told that in Galway 1,376 acres had been planted, but in my opinion the land in Mayo and that in Galway do not differ a great deal as to their suitability for afforestation purposes. We have hundreds of thousands of acres in the Gaeltacht in Mayo which are practically useless at present, but I think that it would be suitable for growing timber. I may be mistaken, but I would like if the Minister would tell us whether his Department has come to the conclusion that it is unfit for such purposes. If they have discovered that, after experiments have been conducted, we would be satisfied, but I am assuming that they have come to no decision on the matter, and that they have not made experiments or made any inquiry into the question. If that be so, I think it is rather a serious matter, and that the Department should be censured for that reason. In the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission a strong recommendation was made to undertake afforestation schemes in the Gaeltacht. Such schemes would give useful employment, and from the State point of view would prove a good investment.

It was understood years ago that when the first chance would offer under an Irish Government a national scheme of afforestation would be initiated. Still, no effort is being made by the Department at present to proceed with a national scheme of afforestation. We have hundreds of thousands of acres, I suppose, of waste land in Mayo. That certainly would be very useful if it were planted. It would give a very considerable amount of employment, and in after years would be a very valuable asset to the State. I would like to know from the Minister if the suggestion in the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission has been considered or adopted, or if the question of planting in Mayo has been put aside as not being practicable, or if his Department has considered the question of planting at all in Mayo. I would further like to know why such a large amount of land has been planted in County Galway, while in Mayo, where the land is at least equally suitable, no afforestation scheme has been proceeded with.

Mr. Kilroy

I would like to point out to the Minister that in Mayo there are hundreds of thousands of acres of mountain land which to my knowledge has grown timber in the past. It is quite easy to trace the remains of the forests there at the present day. There is no question of doubt that the land is capable of growing any amount of the best timber, and in fact all classes of timbers that are native to this country. There is no reason, therefore, except lack of attention on the part of the Department, why it should not carry on these operations in Mayo as well as in every other county. We have been told since our childhood that Clew Bay, off the coast of Mayo, equals the Bay of Naples. Yet the area around that bay has not in any way been aided by the funds that might be expected to come from the Department for afforestation. No scheme of any kind has been carried out on either side of the bay, while more acreage is available there for planting than the Department has so far planted in the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties. Anybody who looks at the map can see that. On the north side of Mayo there is a chain of lakes, and tourists tell us that that particular district rivals Killarney in its beauty; but there, too, no scheme of any kind has been carried out by the Department. If those localities had been given a little attention by the Department, there is no reason why they should not prove a very profitable investment for the country.

As far as the question of transport is concerned, the train goes practically over the North Mayo mountains, to places where, if facilities were given, the trees could actually run down of their own impetus to the railway embankment. The argument of lack of transport cannot therefore be advanced as far as the districts to which I am referring are concerned. It is considered rightly that the production of timber and its manufacture into planks or other forms for export or for absorption into local industries would be a very profitable business to encourage. According to replies which I have received to questions I put in this House for the last couple of years, the Department have clearly shown to me that they have no policy whatever for the planting of the Mayo hills. We are anxious to get a little employment in Mayo as well as the people in Cork. I understand from the Cork Deputies that many schemes are being carried out down there. I am glad to know that, but I would be more satisfied if a few more schemes were going on in Mayo, because we have a lot of unemployment there, and we would like to see some of the unemployed absorbed into industries. Next to the production of food, I think there is nothing more important than the production of timber for our own requirements.

There are very few products that from the beginning to the finished article would give more employment than the production of timber. I hope the Minister will have some other reply than that he has no schemes for the planting of the hills of Mayo.

Mr. Aiken

When the Minister is concluding I hope he will give us an outline of his policy for the future. Deputy after Deputy has risen here and expressed his disappointment with the general outlook for reafforestation in the country. There is no doubt that the criticisms are well founded and what is proposed in this Estimate is not a reafforestation scheme whatever. One can see that the Minister has not any serious intentions of re-planting this country when one looks at the amounts that he proposes to provide for different schemes this year. I think it is ridiculous that the Minister should ask for a small sum like this, particularly when one looks at the problem and sees the enormity of it. England is looked upon as one of the worst afforested countries in Europe, yet they have four or five times the proportion of acreage under forest that we have here. We are certainly far and away the lowest country in that respect in Europe and yet we are only going to provide for 4,000 acres next year.

I would like to know whether it is the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Finance who is the nigger in the woodpile in this case. Would the Minister for Agriculture like to see more money devoted to this Department? If he got double the money this year has he any schemes in the pigeon holes that could be put into operation whereby he could expend double the money in an economic way? I do not blame the officials of the Forestry Department for the small amount of acreage. I think that they would have sufficient professional interest in reafforestation to wish to see it going ahead more quickly. Many Deputies have pointed out that forestry work is an ideal medium for helping to solve the unemployment question, as a large proportion of the money expended goes out in wages to the workers. The Minister says there are 200,000 acres which the Department considers suitable for afforestation. I suppose they put in the word "economic" there and they want to get a return. The Minister only proposes to plant 4,000 acres per year, so that it is going to take him forty years to plant the entire area. I wish he would go to Russia for one thing and take the five year plan instead of taking forty years, and thus speed up the work eight-fold. If we are aiming at providing for our needs in wood this 4,000 acres per year is not going to be sufficient.

We will have to speed up afforestation by at least five or six times its present rate of progress. I hope that Deputies will force the Minister to speed up his schemes in the future. If the Department of Finance is responsible I hope that the Cumann na nGaedheal people will bring pressure to bear on that Department and so speed up the work. It would relieve unemployment and help in many other ways.

I would like to support the plea made by Deputy Dr. Ryan for the giving of grants to farmers where the area available for planting is less than five acres. There are very few farmers who can plant five or six acres. If we could get a couple of hundred thousand farmers to plant a half acre, or even a quarter acre, more could be done in one year than the Minister proposes to do through his Department in twenty or thirty years. I do not see any reason in the world why a proportionate amount in the way of grants could not be given to the farmer who plants half an acre of a shelter belt. The Department of Forestry can never popularise reafforestation if they insist on a minimum of five acre schemes. Such a policy is not at all suitable to this country, where 55 per cent. of the farmers have less than thirty acres of land altogether. Such farmers could not be expected to lay down five acres in trees out of that quantity of land. If the 55 per cent. of the farmers who hold under 30 acres of land were properly encouraged I believe a great many of them would plant half an acre or an acre of trees on waste ground, or plant an occasional shelter belt. These shelter belts of a detached acre, or couple of acres, would do most of all to beautify the country. I hope the Minister will amend his scheme and make the grants available in cases where less than five acres are about to be planted, even for a half acre of land.

The people appear to have lost all forestry sense. As a matter of fact, they have no forestry sense at all. This is a matter that requires to be taken up in the schools. Nothing has been done in the schools towards educating the people in that direction. In the Educational Vote for the Department of Agriculture we have been urging that something in this direction should be done in the schools. This is a subject that should be of considerable interest to children. If they only spent half an hour in the week learning about the different types of trees, and if they were taught to gather pods, and so on, sew them and watch the trees growing, they would then have their interest aroused in these matters. I wish the Minister would take some steps to get the Department of Education to take a little interest in this subject. There can be a lot of good done in that way inside a couple of years. We have been talking of propaganda, but this would be the cheapest and most effective form of propaganda we could indulge in in the matter of forestry. Children will take an interest in it when they are taught a few things about it. They will pay more attention to questions of afforestation and of making trees grow than they would pay to a great many other subjects.

I want to say in conclusion that everybody is disgusted with the slowness of the work of reafforestation. There is no excuse now for the little that is being done in this direction. We have the land. The Minister has already acquired 46,000 acres, but he has planted only 26,000 acres. There are 200,000 acres of land that the Forestry Department think particularly suitable for tree-planting as against any other crop. The President, the Minister for Agriculture and many other members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party go around the country saying that our credit is good. If our credit is good it should be good enough to get men who are drawing unemployment grants to work on schemes of this sort. We have nurseries to plant much more than 3,000 acres. The few nurseries that I see myself would supply plants for three or four times that amount of land. I hope, if the Minister does not do this work this year, that next year, if he is in office, he will come in here with a scheme of afforestation that will make it possible to do the things that we have been urging, and not continue tinkering with it, as he has been doing up to the present.

Mr. Esmonde

What is the suggestion about financing afforestation schemes? The last speaker said that the Government claimed that their credit was good. Does he suggest that we can borrow money for afforestation purposes?

Mr. Aiken

If necessary.

Mr. Esmonde

He also said that we should hurry up the planting of trees to five times its present rate. That would be a quarter of a million a year. I am very glad that there is some unanimity amongst Deputies on the other side of the House with regard to this matter. It will strengthen the hands of the Minister when he puts forward a scheme next year to the Minister for Finance. As far as I can see, from the Party point of view, the net result of this debate is that the Opposition Party are to get the credit for increasing expenditure in the development of afforestation in this country, and the Government is to get the blame for putting on extra taxes or raising taxes in order to do it.

Mr. Lemass

We will relieve them of that.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy suggested that we should take a leaf from the book of the Russian Government and have a five-year plan. That is altogether irrelevant. A five-year plan is supposed to be a paying proposition at the end of five years. I have yet to learn that any type of tree that can be grown becomes a paying proposition within that time. The Deputy became very enthusiastic about tree-planting and referred to arbor days. I understand that a large proportion of the trees planted at that time in a moment of enthusiasm were pulled up by the roots by the members of the R.I.C.

Mr. Aiken

To whom you are giving large pensions.

Mr. Esmonde

I doubt if there are any parts of the country in which there are now any remains of that particular activity I hope the Minister will lend an ear to the plea made by a Deputy from Mayo. It is regrettable that Mayo has been left out of any scheme. I would put it as a suggestion that the Minister might make Mayo a self-supporting county in this respect. If we could persuade the Minister for Finance to tax the production of poteen in Mayo and devote the whole proceeds of that tax to afforestation much tree planting would be done.

Mr. Allen

Now that the Dáil has got sufficiently convalescent to leave the hospitals and get out into the woods, I hope the Minister will indicate to us his policy with regard to afforestation. There have been disappointments all over the country at the attitude of the Forestry Department in the matter of the planting of trees and woods. There is one matter on which I want some information with reference to the cutting of timber. Within the last three or four months between Dublin and Wexford I noticed dozens of places in which timber has been cut. Is the Minister satisfied that too much timber is not being cut? This timber is exported in the rough state, in the raw. It is not even sawn in this country. In one particular case there had been a lot of damage done to a very beautiful plantation. The Minister has ample powers under the Forestry Act of 1929 with regard to tree planting and tree cutting. I wonder in how many cases has he exercised those powers? In reading the local papers one sees where the small farmer who cuts a few trees off a ditch has been brought to the courts and prosecuted. I suppose other people can get permission to cut trees.

Another matter I want to refer to is the importation of trees and shrubs. I was informed that last winter trees and shrubs were imported from Belgium to this country. I think the Minister should put a tariff on these imports. They could be grown very well in this country. Another matter into which the Minister might inquire is whether any timber can be grown in this country capable of making butter boxes. I have been told that within the past month two large shiploads of butter boxes were landed in Cork. Whether the timber can be grown here or not, we know very well the butter boxes can be made in the country. This perhaps is not under the Forestry Vote, but the Minister might take a note of it. He might also inform us what number of acres have been planted each year for the last eight or nine years and the cost per acre. He might also let the House know whether three pounds or four pounds per acre is the highest price that the Forestry Department would give for land, and whether the money here in this Estimate will purchase 3,250 acres at £4 per acre?

I understand that land must be free of all annuities before being taken over by the Land Commission. A great part of this £13,000 would go towards relieving the outstanding annuities on certain of the lands to be taken over. If that be so, there will not be even 3,000 acres taken over during the present year. With regard to the matters raised by other Wexford Deputies there is general dissatisfaction in Wexford because the Forestry Department have been so slow in acquiring land on the Forth Mountain. This mountain as we are all aware is a commonage. I understand that everybody has the same right to a commonage. Nobody has any certain right in it. I do not know if that is true.

A question was raised by Deputy Dr. Ryan with regard to the plantation belonging to the Department on Camolin Park. There is no doubt that the Forestry Department was responsible for breaking up the roads in that district. A deputation of small farmers was promised that these roads would be repaired but nothing has been done yet. I suppose it will be just like the Forestry Department, slow but sure. I would like if the Minister would see that these roads are put in proper repair. To do it properly it will cost something like £2,000. The roads are absolutely broken up, and there is no use in spending small sums of £50 or £100 on them. Because of the state of the roads the number of farmers cannot get into their land. They were built originally on a bog.

Deputy Kilroy raised the question of plantation along the sea coast. There are big tracts of land along the coast of Wexford that I would like to see planted. Sea-pine, I understand, would be suitable for such land. As regards the number of acres in respect of which grants will be given, I do not see why the minimum should be five acres. I think the Department should reduce the acreage down to an acre, or even half an acre, and give farmers the trees and shrubs to plant. In that way they would be encouraged to plant shelter belts along the roads and otherwise. At the moment there is no encouragement to plant, and no trees are being planted except by the Forestry Department. No encouragement is given to plant fruit trees. I do not know if that would come in under this Vote.

Mr. Hogan

There was a lot of propaganda and talk about afforestation in the past, but there was a considerable amount of that hot air. Deputies have to remember that there are two very distinct limitations in any programme of tree planting. On the one side you have bad land, and on the other good land. It is idle to talk about planting hundreds of thousands of acres of land annually, or even in a period of five years in this country. Where are the hundreds of thousands of acres to come from? It is only since 1930 that we have compulsory powers to acquire land for forestry purposes, and until we had these powers we had to get land by agreement. That causes a certain amount of delay. Now that we have the compulsory powers the question arises: is there sufficient land in the country suitable for afforestation to enable us to carry out a programme of planting hundreds of thousands of acres in five years, even if there were no practical difficulties in the way? There are not, or anything like it. As I said before, the first limitation is, on the one side, good land which is suitable for planting may be suitable also for agriculture, and, on the other side, bad land is not suitable for planting and will not grow trees at all. High bog will not grow trees. It is because high bog will not grow trees that we are spending this £350 in making experiments in planting trees in the West. Mountains over 1,200 feet high will not grow trees. There are a great many classes of land that Deputies would class as bad land. You want fairly good land of a special type for planting purposes. If Deputies travel in other countries, on looking out of the trains they will see trees growing on what looks like rock, for instance, in Sweden or Switzerland. They will ask why should not that be done in Ireland. There, again, special soil and climatic conditions are necessary for the planting of trees, as well as for the planting of crops, in those countries. Land on the Continent that looks poor contains mineral constituents for the growing of trees; in addition, climatic conditions are suitable. Anyway, it can be taken not as experimental but as ascertained that in this country it takes fairish land to grow even soft timber, and it can be taken as definitely ascertained, except in very sheltered places, that timber will not grow on ground over 1,200 feet. So that you have a very definite limitation on the one side, namely, that bad land is not suitable for afforestation. On the other hand, take fair land that could be planted in theory. Can it be all planted in practice?

Two Deputies spoke of County Mayo and said that there were hundreds of thousands of acres in County Mayo that would be quite suitable for planting. I cannot recall what the area of any particular county is, but I know there are not so many hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Mayo altogether. Let us take it that what they mean is that there are large tracts of land suitable for planting. What are these tracts of land? They are either upland or ordinary lowland, of poor quality agriculturally. But look at the other side of it. There are hundreds and hundreds of congests in Mayo whose holdings can never be brought up to an economic standard, and the first duty of the Forestry Branch is to see to it that they do not take any land which could be used for agricultural purposes.

Deputies talked a lot about mountains in Mayo. We all know that a £3 or £4 valuation holding, with the rights of grazing on a fairly good mountain in a county like Mayo, is as valuable as a £15 or £20 holding in the Midlands, and that a farmer is able to make more out of it. It would be nothing short of madness to take a very big portion of the mountain or hilly land that is suitable for forestry for that purpose, in view of the fact that it is so urgently needed for the other purpose. Deputies can take it that when you come down to brass tacks and make the calculation there is not a very considerable area of land suitable for forestry which in practice can be taken. Even though we have compulsory powers, we cannot exercise them, except in accordance with general policy. We would not dream of exercising them to acquire land which, even though it was suitable for planting, was also suitable for mountain grazing. If we did, and carried out that policy, all Parties in the Dáil would find it necessary to stop it in a very short time, and anybody who attempted such a policy would come in for very serious criticism.

On the few occasions on which we began to apply the Act since it was passed we were up against very considerable difficulties. Take the case of the Forth Mountain. That mountain has been talked of for a long time and I have been making conditional promises for a long time about it. But Deputies are not quite frank when they say that they have heard nothing about it recently. Wexford Deputies ought to have heard something about it, because last March all the Wexford papers contained advertisements that the Forestry Branch had decided to take it over. These were official notices published within the terms of the regulations made under the Forestry Act. They were the first steps taken towards acquiring part of the Forth Mountain compulsorily. Since then we have had a number of objectors. I do not know the Forth Mountain myself, but I do not believe that it is very valuable for grazing even. But, such as it is, we have had a number of objectors. We have had a number of people who claim rights of one kind or another over it. Luckily, we can dispose of them now, and we will dispose of them. The case is listed before the Land Commission and I have asked the Department to see to it that the Land Commission hear that case this summer. If I may be allowed to say something which is in contempt of court I presume that on the day on which they deal with these objections, if they overrule these objections they will place us in possession of the mountain. If they do, then we will begin planting on 1st October next. That is the earliest we can plant.

Dr. Ryan

That is very good.

Mr. Hogan

But take that case. The Forth Mountain is a case which has been canvassed, the circumstances connected with it are well known in the Forestry Branch, and there is no necessity to send inspectors down there to see what are the equities, apart from the legal rights of the people who make claims. We know that the land is not very suitable for grazing. There is a large area of it, and we can take a reasonably big proportion without doing very much harm to anyone and we are proceeding in that way. In nine out of ten cases you cannot proceed in that way. We could, for instance, go into an area in Mayo of, say, 2,000 acres of hills which are under 1,200 feet and list it at once to be acquired compulsorily under the Act for afforestation and have notices published. Possibly these notices would be ignored by a number of people and it might be only when we had acquired the area we would find that while we were the owners of the land we could not in equity proceed to plant it. We might find that it was of the greatest possible value to a number of congests who have rights of grazing on the mountain. Anyway, whether it was or not, it is absolutely certain that they would make that case and demand compensation. I do not think that a claim for compensation in that case could be resisted.

Consequently, before putting into operation the compulsory provisions of the Act we have to make a certain examination ourselves and make sure, as far as we can, that the area which we are asking the Judicial Commissioner to acquire compulsorily for us is an area on which there are no real equities and is an area which we can take without doing any real hardship to anyone. I think the policy of the Forestry Branch is quite sound in refusing to take areas which are under 300 acres. The only case in which they take areas of less than 300 acres is where they have a forestry centre and where they take a smaller area adjoining it, hoping to get other small areas so as to make the whole ultimately into 300 acres. If we made the unit less than 300 acres we would increase considerably the expenses of planting, and the expenses of supervision of fencing, maintenance, inspection and care afterwards are very much greater in a smaller area than in a bigger area.

I said that our forestry programme was to try and plant 5,000 acres of land per annum and that what we aimed at was to have 200,000 acres of State forests. That looks a small programme, but the fact is that we have not been able to carry it out. The average amount of land which we could acquire for the last three or four years is not 5,000 acres, but about 3,500 acres. We have been offered land in West Cork and Donegal and, in fact, half of the bad and useless land of the country. We have been offered land in all parts of the country, but a very high proportion of the land offered is quite useless for forestry and a very high proportion of the useless land has been offered in small lots which are entirely uneconomic. It has been stated that we have planted very big areas in Tipperary and parts of Cork—not West Cork—and in Wicklow, whereas in congested districts like Donegal, West Cork, and Mayo we have planted nothing. Obviously you are likely to get better land in the counties I have mentioned than in the poorer areas of the congested districts, and while we are very anxious to carry out afforestation schemes in the congested districts we have a handicap in these districts which we have not got elsewhere, namely, that the areas of land suitable for forestry are much smaller and much harder to get. Of course, there are special circumstances in Wicklow and the land there is particularly suitable for forestry, but in counties like Tipperary and Cork you have very suitable forestry land and less congestion. For that reason we can acquire areas readily. Are we to refuse to acquire these areas because we cannot get similar areas in Mayo and Galway? It was mentioned that there was a certain amount of land planted in Galway. None of the land there is poor land; it is mainly around Ballygar. It is upland.

Mr. Cassidy

Does the Minister maintain that fertile land is required for afforestation?

Mr. Hogan

No. I think I explained that. You do not require land at £1 per acre to plant. The point I want to stress is that the idea that any sort of bad land will do for forestry is wrong. I enumerated the classes of land that will not suit—land over 1,200 feet high and high bog. Cut-away bog is very suitable, but cut-away bog is excellent for agriculture. In any event, you have two classes of land that are not suitable—high bog and land over 1,200 feet. You require a "goodish" type of land for the purpose of forestry. You require land which very often is extremely suitable for the grazing of sheep and the wintering of cattle, for forestry purposes. You cannot exactly draw a line and say what is suitable for grazing and what is suitable for forestry. The point I want to stress is that far the biggest proportion of the bad land offered to us was quite unsuitable for forestry, and it would be quite useless to plant it.

Mr. Maguire

The Minister said that high bog is unsuitable for planting. I wish to contradict that, to this extent: In County Leitrim I have seen planting carried on very successfully on high bog in certain areas. If the Minister would send down one of his inspectors there it might facilitate very considerably the experiments which are being carried out, because high bog has been planted very successfully there, and very useful timber can be seen there.

Mr. Hogan

I do not know the circumstances connected with the area the Deputy has mentioned. Perhaps we do not mean the same thing by high bog. I mean, by high bog, high bank. Everybody knows that practically all the planting done in high bog has failed. You have only to look out of any railway train to see that. We saw a lot of bogs planted in the past, but there are certain things that are now past the experimental stage, and up to this we have failed actually in large areas of high bog. You might have a very small area very highly drained, well-sheltered high bog, with some particular constituent of soil, where you succeeded, but I do not know anything about that.

Mr. Maguire

There is only high bog in the parts of Leitrim I referred to, but to that was added a very substantial portion of gravel.

Mr. Hogan

Why waste time telling me this, because I take it that is all elementary to any forester?

Mr. Maguire

When the Minister made a statement that successful timber cannot be grown on high bog I want to bring to his notice that I know the facts and they are beyond the experimental stage.

Mr. Hogan

I know very little about forestry except what I am told, but before I took charge of the forestry branch I knew you could not plant timber successfully on 95 high bogs out of 100. There is hardly an agriculturist Deputy in the Dáil that does not know that. Deputy Maguire says that if you add some other constituent like gravel it would help the soil. I am sure it would, but that is not the problem.

Mr. Maguire

Let the Minister send down his inspector and he can see for himself that what I state is a fact and that will facilitate his experiment.

Mr. Hogan

I do not want to make a short answer but it would be like sending a man from the livestock branch to verify that Aberdeen Angus bulls should not have horns. It is but elementary to state that high bog will not grow timber.

Mr. Maguire

It is not a fact.

Mr. Hogan

Very well, and it is because of that that we make the experiments that have been welcomed by Deputies on the opposite benches. These experiments are directed towards planting, not so much the special type of trees, but towards draining and in a special way planting trees with a view to seeing whether we can encourage by these devices the growing of certain kinds of timber on high bog. If we ascertained we could, there would be at once very large areas of land available in the country. I dare say if we added a top coat of gravel on soil of that sort to ordinary, high bog we could plant it, but that process would be too expensive. What we are really endeavouring to ascertain is whether high bog as it exists at present can be planted. I said we are aiming at planting 5,000 acres a year. We have failed up to the present to get 5,000 acres of land per annum at a price of £4 per share. We have been trying, and trying fairly hard to get suitable land. We find it extremely difficult to live up to our programme. It is said that we should look for land and not wait until we had a general offer. There is no lack of offers. We have had numerous offers, but I do not think that we should lightly contemplate the employment of inspectors going round the country to see whether suitable forestry land is available.

As Deputy Esmonde says, certain parties in the Dáil would like to be in the position of taking all the credit for getting more work done while giving all the blame to us for increasing the expense which may be necessary in order to get the work done. I am not in favour of employing inspectors to go round the country to find out where suitable land for afforestation is. I think it is the wrong way to do it. We cannot be always going on pressing people to do things for their own advantage. You had exactly the same suggestion in connection with the shelter belts from Deputy Goulding. He said he thought we should give some facilities for shelter belts and that we should put forward some scheme. Deputy Ryan suggested supplying trees free; and Deputy Goulding suggested giving some grant towards fencing and looking after them afterwards. Will there be anything left in the way of planting for anyone else to do if we are to do all these things? A shelter belt is, after all, only a rood of land, and it is planted in October, November and December. Surely a farmer could be expected to do that himself. What prevents him? It is not the trees. A hundred seedlings or transplants cost little. Take that proposition. It is very illuminating from one point of view. The work could be done in October, November and December. The cost is extremely small. It is all unskilled labour, and could be done by the man's own labour and his sons'. It is merely a question of fencing the land and making holes.

Dr. Ryan

How many trees will it take to plant a rood?

Mr. Hogan

May I ask a question in return? What would a hundred spruce cost?

Dr. Ryan

I paid 7s. 6d. for them.

Mr. Doherty

Two shillings.

Dr. Ryan

I paid 7s. 6d. last year.

Mr. Hogan

Well, we will not fall out over the figure. Let us take 7s. 6d. as the price of one hundred trees. That would be quite a big shelter belt.

Dr. Ryan

It would not shelter this House.

Mr. Hogan

One hundred trees along a fence would go a very long way.

Dr. Ryan

One row would not do.

Mr. Hogan

Make it one hundred or two hundred. How many farmers plant one hundred trees? Let us take two hundred, at a cost of 15s. For £1 he could plant large shelter belts. That is the only expense except the expense of fencing, and that is very small indeed. It is all unskilled labour, and at a time of the year when there was very little doing. It is not the expense that is stopping them. After all, I think, with great respect to Deputies opposite, we would be all better on this occasion in concentrating on the farmer and not so much on the Department.

There is no doubt about it that planting is an operation that could be done in a small way by the small farmer himself. He has all the facilities, and he ought to do it. He does not do it. Everyone knows that there is no difficulty in planting trees. The difficulty is in maintaining them and keeping them going. Everyone in the Dáil knows that in places where trees were planted they disappeared in three years. The Arbor Day schemes, for instance, have disappeared. Then there was a question of unskilled labour in the winter-time. No facilities for planting trees are any good unless you have the proper spirit in people for keeping them afterwards, keeping the fences up and preventing trespass. That is something farmers should do themselves. There are under certain local authorities special facilities in the way of cheap trees for shelter belts. I am as anxious as other Deputies to expedite the forestry programme of the Department. Up to the present we failed to get more than 3,500 and 4,000 acres of land, and all I can undertake is that I will try to see whether it is not possible, now that we have the compulsory powers, to ensure that we will get the full 5,000 yearly. If we do we will do fairly well. While I am on that point, Deputy Cassidy remarked that in answer to a question some time ago I told him that we planted 22,000 acres, whereas to-day in my statement I gave 26,000 acres. His question asked how much we had planted since 1922, and the figures I gave were since 1922. The balance was planted before our time.

Mr. Cassidy

The figures were from 1922 up to 31st March this year. The figures he gave were that he had planted over 26,000 acres.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy is to take it that 4,000 acres were planted before 1922.

Mr. Cassidy

May I point out to the Minister that 1922 was the first year a Vote was taken for this particular Department?

Mr. Hogan

Yes, but there was a Forestry Commission there before that which planted. I profess to give the total area of land which was planted by us or by the Forestry Commission which preceded us. Of the 26,000 acres, 22,000 acres were planted since 1922; the balance was planted before it. That is the position. I was asked about the 5-acre scheme, under which we gave £4 for planting five acres. It was suggested that we should make the unit smaller, make it two acres, or even half an acre. If we do that, the trouble there is that it is easy to plant, but the important thing is to maintain the plantation afterwards.

If we are going to give money we must have inspection afterwards, and if we had smaller units than five acres the inspection costs would be very high. It was decided in the Department, having regard to inspection costs and the responsibility for seeing that five acres were properly planted, that anything less than five acres would entail considerable inspection costs. We have got twenty-six applications this year, and we anticipate that as the scheme becomes known we will get more.

Dr. Ryan

The scheme is not known.

Mr. Hogan

It will be advertised. When there is money going these things get known. There are £2,000 available for transplanting and for seeds. We supply practically all the seedlings and the plants. A sum of £150 is provided for seeds and a very small sum for transplanting special varieties, such as macrocarpa or new types of trees which we buy for experimental purposes. The balance will be required for seedlings, a variety of which we produce ourselves, but of which we may be short owing to sowing a particularly heavy crop in an area. We have reached the stage where we produce all our own seedlings and transplants, except what we require for experimental purposes. I have answered the point with regard to Forth mountain. With regard to the other place, Camolin, in Wexford, where the road was injured, I admit the Department has the same responsibility for that as any other user, and we would have to take into account the fact that it was users of the road cut it up. We have made an offer there to the effect that we will supply labour and stones, provided the local people do something themselves. So far as the Forestry Act is concerned, where large areas of timber are cut as a rule we made it a condition that they must be replanted. We take every case on the merits, and I am informed that, as a rule, where large areas have been cut they are to be replanted.

Mr. Allen

Is the Department insisting on replanting in all cases?

Mr. Hogan

In every case. We have to have some latitude, and we take the merits of each case into account.

Mr. Allen

Is the Minister satisfied that too much timber is not being cut at present?

Mr. Hogan

We are, because no timber can be cut without a permit.

Mr. Corish

Has the Department examined the proposal with regard to Edermine?

Mr. Hogan

I am not in a position to answer that question. Is it Oylegate?

Mr. Corish

Yes.

Mr. Hogan

The position there is that we are only offered sixty acres, which is not sufficient.

Mr. Corish

I understand there is some land adjacent.

Mr. Hogan

I am informed that we have not been offered it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 68.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Daly, John.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Cassidy and T. Murphy; Níl, Deputies Duggan and Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Main question put and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until Thursday, June 4th, 1931.