I was speaking, Sir, on this Estimate last night when the House adjourned, and I was endeavouring to point out to the Minister and to the House that, in my opinion, there has not been any serious effort made, either by this or the previous Administration, to tackle forestry. Now, as I pointed out last night, it is very evident from the fact that there is a carry-over of over £40,000 and an accumulation of £5,000 per annum which has not been utilised by the Forestry Department—that, in itself, is condemnatory of the activity of the Department. I was also pointing out that the sum of £650 per annum, which is the expenditure incurred under D(1) —Grants and Advances for Afforestation Purposes—shows the absolute futility of the particular type of inducement which the Department was endeavouring to offer to people to give land for the purpose of afforestation.
The Minister, in the opening remarks, pointed out to us that if any person was so disposed as to give land amounting to five acres, or two persons joined together to do that, the Department was prepared to give a subsidy of £4 per acre, paid in two instalments, to these people who help them with fencing and sowing. The fact, that in the Twenty-Six Counties only £650 has been paid out shows that that scheme has been a complete failure. There might be some hope for a scheme of that kind if the inducements were so that this House was paying out a sum of possibly £60,000 or £100,000 per annum, because this is a very important matter and, personally, I think that some Government or some board, or some Forestry Department if we are ever going to get anywhere in forestry, would have to take a plunge in this matter. Possibly there might be thousands lost but we will never get anywhere the way we are tackling the problem. I think a scheme could be evolved, instead of that particular scheme of a subsidy of £4 per acre, whereby farmers and land-owners all over the country who would have five, or six, or ten acres of land that they did not really value for grazing purposes or for tillage purposes, and were prepared to give that for plenting, I think the Government Department should say to these people, "if you give us ten acres we will plant it for you and we will pay the whole cost of it." See what you would be doing in that case. Let us examine it. In the first place the owner of the land would be forfeiting, during his life-time at least, all profits from that particular portion of the land. The Forestry Department would be setting up all over the country a number of small plantations which would afterwards come in under the ordinary scheme of afforestation which prescribes that for every tree cut, one must be planted. If we could get, by any means whatever, even though it cost a good deal of money, to a point at which we had a certain reasonable amount of forest cover, then, by applying the condition that for every tree cut one must be planted, we would be able to maintain it. We will never get that by the methods we are working on at the moment. Some people might think it a far-fetched idea that the State should say to a farmer: "If you lend us 100 acres of land, we will plant them "even though that land reverts to his grandchild later on, but after all, it is an asset to the State and if we cannot find some other way of dealing with the matter, we ought to try something like that. As I say, it might be regarded as far-fetched that the State should plant a man's land for him and then leave him in possession of the land and the plantation, but at least we would be getting somewhere and we are not getting anywhere by present methods.
There are huge potentialities in forestry, and a great deal of attention has been drawn to the matter recently. I think the Minister should take the bull by the horns and set up a board, a commission or some organisation of persons who would interest themselves in forestry. With that could be coupled, not alone the benefits which the State would derive from forestry itself, but the benefit derived from the reclamation of land in giving work— decent work and devent wages—to the unemployed. The Minister was asked how many acres were fit for forestry, but I would not be so much concerned with the figure at all, because there is a much greater area which can be made available with a certain amount of labour, and the labour is there. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance has been looking for schemes for years past, so that he might spend money in relief of unemployment and distress. I think this is a good way out and I think that, sooner or later, it can be tackled in that way.
Deputy Mongan spoke here last night in Irish, and I suppose his speech was not followed by the majority of Deputies. I think, however, that he accused the Minister for Lands of a very gross libel on Connemara at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. I would not say that the Minister for Lands would be deliberately guilty of a gross libel on any person or place, but I think the facts justify what Deputy Mongan said last night. According to the report of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis—and I am sure the Minister for Lands would not contradict the Irish Press report—the Minister, when questioned with regard to afforestation by some people in County Galway, said:—
"A certain district in Galway called Knockboy was planted under the old Congested Districts Board. The scheme cost £30,000 and the scheme was a complete failure. After 36 years, the few trees that lived were no thicker than a man's arm."
I think it is really time that the ghost of Knockboy was laid, and I think that Deputy Mongan went a fair way towards doing it. He quoted, and he gave me the volume afterwards, from the annual report of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, Volume 1. The eighth report sets out the figures expended on Knockboy, amounting in all to £8,000, and not £30,000, as the Minister said.
The first time I visited Connemara, some years ago, the district was pointed out to me by a person living there as one of the great British blunders. I still think that district represents a British blunder and I still think it can grow timber. I do not think it is fair that, at this hour of the day, the Minister and people in the Forestry Department should endeavour to perpetuate the libel on that district. If the Minister wants proof that trees will grow, and grow well, there, let him go down and see places in which some individuals have planted trees. I admit the positions may be more sheltered, but it is nearly half a century ago since the British Government tried that experiment, and surely we have made advances in half a century. I believe that from the scientific point of view advances have been made, and, in the matter of forestry, there are at present better ideas with regard to shelter and sheltering shrubs for the young saplings than there were 50 years ago. As Deputy Mongan pointed out, the conditions under which this planting was carried out were entirely abnormal, and it was absolutely impossible for the trees to survive. He pointed out, for instance, that the trees came in thousands on a steamer and were landed at a little place called Kilkevin. At that time there were very poor roads and very few horses and carts to travel them, such as they were, in Connemara. I believe that in all the parish there were not six horses and carts to transport the tree. According to my information and to what Deputy Mongan said, those trees lay for weeks, and in fact for months, before they were planted.
Before a responsible Minister or any responsible officials would endeavour to pronounce judgment on a matter like that, surely they ought to inquire into it. I have no doubt whatever that what the Minister said about it was said in perfectly good faith, but at the same time, I have no doubt, that the whole thing should be retried, or at least to some extent. It happened in 1890, and it continued for six or seven years. The whole report is available, and the whole expenditure is available. There are some extraordinary figures to be found in the figures of expenditure. For instance, in one year the expenditure on planting is shown to be £300 odd, and only a small number of trees were planted. In the following year the number of trees was about four times as great, while the cost of planting was half the previous figure. There is something to be read between the lines. I believe that half the trees brought there were not planted because they were ruined by exposure. I know that district, and a good many other districts in Connemara, and I agree with what Deputy Dowdall said last night, that much of the land in Connemara and other places is more suitable for planting and growing timber than the lands of Southern France of which such a success was made.
If we are going to get anywhere in this matter it must be tackled boldly. Let us not falter even at the loss of a few thousand pounds because it is better to do that if we are to make a success of it. There is no doubt that if there was some compelling influence to force us to drain an amount of land that wants draining to-morow and make it suitable for afforestation, we would find a way. i advise the Minister to tackle this question and to tackle it by setting up some kind of board—let it be a mobile board or a commission—that will try to get to the bottom of this problem, and will try to interest local authorities and individuals in it. Only in that way, be educating the people and getting them interested, will we ever get to the position which we ought to occupy with regard to forestry. It is really sad to make any comparison between the forest-cover in this country and that of any other country. It has been admitted that it would be beneficial to health, to the weather, to the State and to everybody to have the country re-afforested. That matter ought to be tackled in a way that would make it a success, if it can be done at all.