Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 8 Mar 1946

Vol. 99 No. 18

Forestry Bill, 1945—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Brennan

Speaking last night, before the Adjournment, I referred to the fact that whereas the Minister did not indicate in this Bill, by way of figures or otherwise, the amount of reafforestation that he intends should take place in a particular year or during a number of years, at the same time, he placed no limit, so far as this Bill is concerned, to the amount of such work that he intends to carry out or that may be carried out. All Deputies are aware of the adverse conditions under which the Forestry Department have been working for the past five or six years of the emergency. If we take into consideration the measures indicated by the Minister in this Bill, we must assume that his intentions so far as the progress of reafforestation is concerned are of the highest order. In this Bill he is taking the necessary provisions to eradicate any difficulties that have obtained under Forestry Acts heretofore initiated, by simplifying the law in relation to the acquisition of land, etc.

During my short time in this House I have heard statements made by Deputies of all Opposition Parties and for a number of years I have been reading Press reports of such statements in which it seemed to be a common practice to tax the Government with bureaucracy or dictatorship in all matters pertaining to the welfare of the community that it is within the province of the Government to deal with in this House. It is maintained that everything is being centralised. On this question of reafforestation, the general community have an opportunity of doing for themselves something that would tend, if you like, towards decentralisation. The Forestry Department has been to a certain extent, up to the present, responsible for reafforestation but so far—at least as stated by Deputy Cogan—the farmers—and those are the people to whom I principally refer—have not taken advantage of the incentive offered to them by the Government to plant small belts of timber on their lands. Deputy Cogan said that in his opinion the farmer was not inclined to carry out all the essential work for that purpose. That work would be beneficial to every farmer in this country. It may not produce immediate results, it may not be a cash crop, but, nevertheless, by taking advantage of the incentive offered by the Government he would be doing a good day's work, not alone for the country, but for himself and his descendants. Deputy Cogan maintained that the farmers were not inclined to carry out their share, let it be ever so small, of the reafforestation of the country. I do not believe that every farmer has that outlook, even in County Wicklow which Deputy Cogan represents in this House, just as I do.

I know numbers of farmers who are supporters of Deputy Cogan who take every opportunity to plant trees on their holdings. I am sure that, spread over the other counties, there are numbers of farmers who look at the matter, not from the point of view of the immediate material gain but from the national point of view that reafforestation is good from the climatic point of view, the scenic point of view and other points of view, but, particularly, from the financial point of view when the time arrives that the timber can be disposed of.

Statements were made here that owners of timber, particularly owners of small lots of timber, have not realised the full value of the timber which they sold during the emergency. I question that. I think that any person who had the necessary licence to dispose of timber, even though he had to dispose of it at the fixed price—except, of course, he wanted to use the black market and take advantage of the emergency and the fact that we could not import timber in order to grow rich quickly—was able to dispose of it at a remunerative price to himself. Reference was made to a certain section of this Bill dealing with the right-of-way. I think every Deputy will admit that the powers asked for by the Minister under that section are very fair. The Minister and his Department are responsible for the expenditure of a large amount of money on afforestation. Every Deputy knows that for the first two or three years it is absolutely essential that the life of the young plants should be protected. Surely no Deputy can argue that, if the State goes to the expense which this Department has to go to, the Minister should not have the right to dispose of that timber when it matures and that any individual farmer or landowner should be in a position to prevent, not alone the disposal of the timber but the use of a right-of-way to the plantation in order to look after the welfare of the young plants. I might couple with that the question of vermin, because I think the same principles are involved. I do not see that there can be any objection to the Minister having the necessary powers to ensure that the State, having gone to enormous expenditure, should be able to see to it that that expenditure is not wasted and that no individual or set of individuals should be allowed to stand in the way to prevent the plantation from maturing.

While paying tribute to the Minister, I have one fault to find with this Bill. County Wicklow is a very favoured county from the point of view of afforestation work. At the college at Avondale technicians are being trained. If we are to judge by the operations carried out in the County Wicklow over a number of years, it is fair to assume that County Wicklow is visualised by the Minister as being the headquarters of a great timber industry at some future date. While I say that, I also wish to draw the Minister's attention to the conditions of the workers and technicians engaged in that work in County Wicklow. Whilst I do not wish to make a point of it or to draw a parallel as between agricultural labourers, forestry workers or road workers, and whilst I understand that the wages of the forestry workers are based on those of farm workers, nevertheless I think that the work in which they are engaged is certainly of a semi-skilled nature; not alone that, it is a type of work that calls for extra expense on the part of workers engaged in forestry, that expense mainly being incurred through footwear and clothing. I would ask the Minister to take that into consideration and make some allowance by way of rubber boots and some type of clothing for the men engaged in that work.

I say that on behalf of the ordinary or semi-skilled worker, but I would also like to draw the Minister's attention to the inadequate wage, in my opinion, that is being paid to forest overseers and technicians who have been trained in forestry work in the forestry college at Avondale. I am sure that all of these men had to have a certain standard of education before they passed into the college. Having spent a certain amount of time in the college, they are allocated to certain areas, and not alone are they responsible for the practical work of planting, but they are also responsible for the administrative work in their respective spheres of forestry activities in their own particular county.

Those men are responsible for keeping time sheets; they are responsible for paying wages, keeping the accounts, etc., and I think that if the Minister got down to it and investigated the conditions under which those men are working: taking into consideration the fact that they are an educated body of men, in the first instance, that they have been trained as technical experts in forestry, in the second instance, he would see the force and reasoning of my argument and, perhaps, he would in his own good time see that those individuals receive a proper wage, commensurate with the work that they give to the State, thereby ensuring that in that county, at any rate, which is the home of forestry at the moment so far as this country is concerned, the forestry worker, let him be an ordinary semi-skilled worker or a technical expert, will receive a wage that will make him happy and contented. In that way we would ensure that at some future date, we would arrive at that happy position where reafforestation will have reached a point where it will be, not alone a benefit from the climatic point of view, but also where it will be of material benefit to the country from both the commercial and industrial point of view.

Captain Giles

I think that of all the schemes in this country for which it was most essential to have post-war planning, it is forestry. As long as I am alive I have always heard that forestry could give a vast amount of employment, that it could absorb thousands of men who are idle in this country. I do not believe that the Minister himself is quite satisfied with this, and, as far as I can see, it is Finance that is at fault and that prevents us from having an intensive forestry scheme, now that the war is over. Such a scheme could have absorbed 10,000 or 20,000 men on a permanent basis. I know that if Deputy Dowdall, God rest his soul, were alive to-day and were here in this House, there would be skin and hair flying here, because he was intensely interested in this matter of forestry. He seemed to be a great expert on forestry; he had studied the matter a great deal, and I believe that he was quite right in his views. I did think, however, that by now some of his efforts would have taken effect and that some Minister would have taken in hands the putting of forestry on a proper national basis.

At the present moment, the county from which I come is stripped bare. It was one of the most beautiful landscape counties in this country but now it is an absolute wilderness. I come from a county where Cromwell, centuries ago, did his best to clear the people off the land, and nobody was allowed back in after years except to plant trees for the gentry who had taken their lands from them. As I have said, it is a county where landscape was on a scale of grandeur, particularly on some of the big estates. Now that these estates are being divided into small holdings, and what with the war and all the rest of it, that county is stripped bare and it is one of the most desolate places you ever saw. You have the Land Commission taking over the vast estates, selling the timber and leaving the stumps there, and tearing down old, picturesque castles. It is a county in which a vast amount of improvement could be made by afforestation. I do not believe that the Land Commission is playing the game so far as forestry in my county is concerned. In Wicklow and other counties, they may be active but, in my county, they have taken up large quantities of woodland and sold the timber. They say that they plant three or four trees for every tree taken up but that has not been done in my county. Even from a scenic point of view, they should give us some forestry belts. But they take away the timber and give the old timberland to a small farmer who gets a bit of land from them. That is unfair because that man is unable to clear away the old brushwood and scrub and the land is left as a run for hares, foxes and rabbits. The Forestry Department should clean up such land and replant it.

In my own neighbourhood there are two large estates, the Langford estate and the Winter estate. Between those two estates, there are 300 acres of good woodland which should be taken over for reafforestation. Beside one of those estates there is one of the finest little nurseries in Ireland. It is not a growth of yesterday. It has been carried on for hundreds of years and carried on on very progressive lines. It had, and has, an export market. Small people there with an acre of a garden can make up to £700 or £800 a year. Men who grow onions can take £200 or £300 out of a little patch. These men ought to be encouraged and their industry fostered. There could be a good forestry and nursery business in that area. I do not speak in this way because the place is near me but because I think this is a thing which should be done.

One of the speakers has dealt with the question of compulsion. In the forestry business, I believe you require plenty of compulsion. Some of those big estates to which I have referred are in the hands of absentee landowners. In the big wind of 1903, trees were blown down and they have been left to rot, as well as other trees which have since fallen. Nobody is allowed to take a sprig off them. They would be locked up if they entered the lands for that purpose. The Forestry Department should enter upon those lands. That would involve compulsion but it would be just. Why should old royal oaks be allowed, when they fall, to rot instead of turning them to some useful or commercial purpose? There is opportunity for the Minister to act there. These absentee landlords get their wealth in a handy way but they should not be allowed to permit the wealth of the nation to rot and decay. They are making not the slightest effort to obtain a return for the nation from their forestry land. It is time that the Minister stepped in and prevented this vast woodland from going to decay. Nearly all those old forestry belts in my county have been there for hundreds of years. The timber is dying away and rotting and nothing is being done about it. I thought that we would be able to get some cheap timber for the poor during the emergency but we had to pay through the nose for the bits of scrub which we got. I think that the people would be justified in marching into these estates and showing those people that it is not just to treat their timber in this way while some of our people are famished. Compulsion in that direction would be good for the country. I do not believe in too much compulsion for people on small holdings but, when I see these big gentry living in luxury and realise how they acquired their estates and how they worked them and the regard they had for the poor who lived on the sloblands, I think it is only fair to say those things. The Forestry Department should inspect the woodlands of those absentees, set about cleaning them up and putting down young trees and, in that way, give work to people whose ancestors were fired out of those lands hundreds of years ago. I understand that, at the headquarters of our Forestry Department, things are not well. Somebody told me that they were holding up work. Somebody told me that a Scotsman there——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for his Department and the Deputy must not attack civil servants.

Captain Giles

They would want a clean-up and more drive.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must not pursue that line.

Captain Giles

I shall turn from it. I think that the Minister himself is not happy. I know that he is, and always was, a man of great drive. I am sure that he would like to see money spent on forestry. But this Bill is merely a sort of camouflage. What is wanted is a really big scheme in which there would be co-ordination between the Board of Works, the Land Commission and the Minister for Agriculture. Forestry will never be successful until you drain the sloblands and cut-away bogs. The Minister for Agriculture should work hand in hand with the Minister for Lands, and there should be co-operation in a big scheme. All over the Midlands there is cut-away bogland which is no use for timber or grazing, but which would be ideal for timber of different types. Those lands should not be left idle. Hundreds of acres from the town of Kilcock and the Hill of Down into Mullingar are lying idle. There is a sort of wilderness there at present, where there could be thousands of acres of fine forestry belts. The land of which I am talking is giving no return to anybody. It may feed a few old goats and cows, but I am sure they never give milk. You may see the gentry going out for snipe-shooting on it at certain periods, but there is no return to the community.

I think that, in connection with forestry, there is too much concentration upon Wicklow and a few other counties at the expense of the counties of the Midlands. Forestry should be scattered throughout the country. If we had sufficient forestry, I believe that the climatic conditions would change appreciably. There is an almost continuous rainfall in some areas and in others there is very little rainfall. These matters should be studied with a view to ascertaining how forestry belts affect weather conditions. I think that they have a very great effect upon them. I suppose the excuse for not having proper forestry development is that we have not the cash. Freedom should have brought a better outlook to our people. We see the drift from the land and across to Britain. I do not see why those people should not be absorbed in a national scheme of forestry.

It would be one of the greatest assets we could have. Money should not be an obstacle. We were able to find millions of money during the emergency. Why not get the £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 we need now to clear away the sloblands and get afforestation under way? The land is idle, and it could be used to provide work for our people. There is no reason why we should not do that. If we cannot do it under present conditions, then we shall have to get control of our own credit.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a different subject.

Captain Giles

There should be a national drive by the Minister, the clergy and local people to get our farmers, small and big, to plant shelter belts. Most of the farms which have been divided in the past 25 years are very bleak. A few little quicks have been planted to provide a fence, but there are no shelter belts on those holdings. The man concerned will tell you that his holding of land is small enough without putting timber on it, but I think that a small holding of 20 or 30 acres should have half an acre of a shelter belt. It may be as useful to the farmer to shelter his cattle as a stable. The biggest snag, of course, is that the farmer does not like to lose the half-acre of land. It is also a costly business to plant and protect the shelter belt. If you do not properly protect it, all the hares for miles around will come and clip the bark off every tree in it. I put down some young trees, and, if I had not been a fairly handy man with the gun, I would not have one of them left on account of the hares. The goats of neighbours also find the young trees a very savoury dish, with the result that, unless you properly fence the belt, there will be no trees left. Your last state will then be worse than your first. You will have to cut them again or else they will die.

I think that the farm improvements scheme could be extended to include these shelter belts. It would be work which would give a good return, and the farmers, I imagine, would take it up fairly keenly. At present the farmer is given very little incentive to engage in work of this kind, and very few farmers will venture on it because it is costly work, and the farmer, as I said, is in danger of losing that acre of land if it is not properly fenced in. I suggest that the Department of Agriculture should assist farmers in establishing these shelter belts by offering to provide the wire and stakes for fencing if the farmer undertakes the planting. Planting of that kind would beautify the whole country, and it would also have the result of improving the condition of our cattle generally, because under present conditions cattle are starved during the winter. They have scarcely regained their condition after the summer, when the winter months come on again. If proper shelter belts were provided, they would be a great asset in assisting farmers to keep their cattle in good condition. I should like the Minister to take up this question with the Minister for Agriculture, and ascertain if the farm improvements scheme could be extended to facilitate planting even on a small scale by private individuals.

If the present Bill is a bad one, I do not believe that it is the Minister's fault. I think that Finance must be to blame, because I know the Minister is a man of "drive" and that nothing will hold him back if he can get a thing done. I know myself he is not a man who likes to see our people emigrating to get a living which should be provided for them at home. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to persevere in his efforts with the Minister for Finance so as to shake him up, because the Minister for Finance will always keep the strings of the purse tightly pulled. If, however, he is shaken up by the Minister for Lands so that money can be provided for this purpose, I think we can go a long way towards solving the unemployment problem in this country. I therefore ask the Minister to apply as much pressure as he can to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Heskin

I am sure the Minister would be only too happy to go a long way towards meeting the wishes of Deputies in regard to the reafforestation of the country, but the fact is that if we undertake a big forestry scheme, a scheme commensurate with the needs of the country at the moment, it will involve the taxpayers of the country generally in a huge liability, possibly to the extent of some millions of money. I would suggest that, prior to undertaking a general scheme of that sort, we should have a survey of the country, county by county. In practically all counties a certain amount of forestry work has been carried on, in conjunction with the horticultural section, by people who are interested in the shelter belts scheme. If such a survey were undertaken, county by county, we would be able to arrive at an estimate of the country's needs. Having got that, the Minister could submit to the Government and the House an estimate of what this gigantic scheme is going to cost the country. First and foremost, I think we must face the fact that the public generally have lost all respect for Government property. For some years past—I am sure the Minister could give the details over a long period—we find that a lot of destruction has been done to State forests throughout the country. I should like the Minister to give even a rough estimate of the damage to forests, Government property, during that period.

I would also suggest to the Minister that more encouragement should be given to county committees of agriculture to assist forestry schemes. I heard Deputy Giles refer to the farm improvements scheme, but I do not know if every county committee of agriculture operates the shelter belts scheme. If they do, I would suggest to the Minister that the grants be increased, at least doubled, in order to encourage more planting by private individuals. Certainly, shelter belt schemes would tend to beautify the country to a great extent. On many small holdings in mountain areas, where it was thought timber could not be brought to maturity, it is a great consolation to see that the occupiers, some to a smaller extent, some to a greater extent, have planted shelter belts. Growing timber on small holdings such as these has much the same effect as furniture in a house. It beautifies the surroundings. Every step which the Minister or his Department takes to encourage private enterprise in the planting of timber and the provision of shelter belts will be a step in the right direction. You may have a certain number of people who have on their farms ten or 12 acres of land that is fit only for rough grazing, and if substantial grants were provided they might be induced to plant such land to a greater extent.

If schemes of that kind were adopted on a larger scale, the possibility is that people generally would have more respect for private property and in the long run more respect for public property or State property. If the Government could be persuaded to undertake a big scheme of that kind they would be doing a good day's work and in 40 or 50 years to come the trees which are now planted would form a very valuable national asset.

Again, in the post-war period there may be a good deal of unemployment in certain areas. Owing to the demobilisation of the armies in England and at home many men will be returning to their native places and if a forestry scheme were prepared on the lines I have suggested it would go a long way towards alleviating unemployment. Certainly it would be much better to provide employment for these men on reproductive schemes than to be doing out money to them for nothing. I think that is a bad policy, giving assistance and getting nothing in return for it. Every tree that is planted will be an asset in years to come to the individual and to the State. Another point that has to be considered is that during the emergency quite a lot of woods were felled and in many cases the timber was utilised for firewood. I drew attention to that matter some time ago by way of a question and I pointed out that much of the timber that was being used for firewood could be planked and put aside for housing purposes. Deputy Morrissey referred recently in the House here to the case of a contractor who could not get timber to complete four or five houses. If a contractor could not get a sufficient quantity for that purpose, how are the local authorities to deal with the housing problem in the future? Every local authority in the country is confronted with the difficulty of providing adequate housing. I am satisfied that a lot of the timber cut during the emergency has been wasted inasmuch as it has been used for firewood instead of being put away carefully to be utilised later in the erection of houses.

In connection with those forests and woods that have been cut down during the emergency period, I hope the people who purchased lands for the purpose of acquiring the timber on them will not be allowed now to transfer the land to the Department of Forestry with a view to having it planted and so shifting the baby from themselves. I am inclined to think that many of those people who purchased land to acquire the timber may wish to say to the Minister: "You take the land and plant it". I suggest to the Minister that he should put his foot down on anything like that. Such people should be made carry out their obligations to the State and if they got a profit from the timber so felled they should be made re-plant them and look after them. I hope the Minister will see that the taxpayer is not mulcted by those people. I hope also he will see his way at least to double the grants to local committees and encourage a shelter-belt scheme, which would be an improvement generally to the country.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I wish to express my approval of the Bill. We have heard much criticism from Opposition Parties on particular parts of the Bill, but that is only natural and to be expected. I have not very much to say on afforestation, as I come from a district where there is not very much timber. However, I want particularly to draw the Minister's attention to one district I represent, the district of Collon, County Louth. There are some 200 acres of land there which have been offered to the Department over the past 20 years. For one reason or another, the Nelson eye has been turned on it. During World War No. 1, some 300 acres of forest lands were cut down in that district and very little reafforestation has taken place. The 200 acres offered to the Department of Lands are still lying derelict and unsuitable for tillage. There is 20 years' growth on that 200 acres being wasted. If afforestation had taken place 20 years ago, as it should have been when first suggested, we would have 20 years' growth of timber to-day. I would ask the Minister to give special attention to that particular district, because in the past it was even a nursery district for plants. Even 40 years ago, the nurseries of Collon were well known and there you could get any quality of plant required for afforestation on your own lands. A good deal of that has been done, but I think it is rather amiss of the Minister's Department that the district should have been overlooked for so long. The present Minister is a pretty energetic man and I hope when he comes to consider the question of afforestation he will give particular attention to this district.

We have heard some references to the scarcity of timber for housing purposes, which is very true, but I know most parts of this country pretty well and there is still a tremendous lot of timber standing and becoming old, which could have been felled and made available for building purposes. There is not a county in the Twenty-Six but has an abundance of such timber. Deputy Giles referred to it in his speech, mentioning western Meath and Westmeath. In the very eastern ends of County Meath, adjacent to us, he will find tremendous numbers of trees which are outliving their usefulness and which in a few years more will be deteriorating rather than improving. It is regrettable that we should be at such a loss for building timber while that timber is still standing over the last six years, when it could and should have been felled and would be seasoned now and available. The Minister should waste no more time in allowing people to retain those trees, but should let them be cut down and made available for building purposes and the ground replanted with new trees.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

I have great pleasure in welcoming this Bill, as it marks a further advance on the road to afforestation. I have listened to many speeches made here regarding reafforestation and would like to support the encouragement of shelter-belts on small farms. In my constituency, there are many small farms which have not enough land to allow them to have a proper shelter-belt. However, when a man has 35 or 40 acres, or even only 30 acres, if he were encouraged to have a small shelter-belt and if a grant could be given to him for that purpose, the belt would prove its usefulness in timber in years to come, as well as being useful for sheltering cattle in the winter. If reafforestation could be attacked in that way, we would definitely go ahead more rapidly.

The Minister and the Department have been doing their best with the money at their disposal and no one could have done more. This is a really big issue and we must consider this country in comparison to other countries. We all know that our timber resources are lower than almost any other country in the world. In other countries where they have attacked the reafforestation problem in a proper manner—take France, for instance— they have encouraged the farmers themselves to replant the land. We cannot progress as fast as we would wish, unless the Minister and the Department get the assistance of the people who have land at their disposal.

County Dublin was very much denuded during the emergency and, if I might say so myself, being secretary of a parish council, I was as big a culprit as anyone else in that way. We have a lot of waste land still in County Dublin, slobland which is of no use for tillage or grazing and, if properly drained, it could be used for State forests. We have mountains in South County Dublin, some of which would be suitable, especially around the Castlekelly end, where at present there are ferns responsible for killing the cattle. I had to go out to a few cases there.

I would like to see reafforestation more decentralised than it is at present, while our whole approach to reafforestation is only in its infancy now. If there were a central nursery in each county, worked in conjunction with the county committee of agriculture and the Forestry Department, it would mean that, at certain times during the year, the county committee inspectors and the forestry inspectors could get the small farmers to come to see how the trees were progressing in the nursery beds and could ask them to take a deep interest in them. That would encourage them to take an interest in the growing of trees and to see the benefit it would be to the country later on.

As far as County Dublin is concerned, there are some small farmers who have not the land to plant timber, but there are others who have and I am sure that, if they were properly encouraged by the county committee of agriculture and the Department's inspectors, we would find, in ten, 12 or 20 years' time—if we are alive to see it—that reafforestation has improved and that there has been a big increase in the number of trees. I hope that the people of the country will be only too anxious, from a national point of view, to help the Minister and his Department in trying to make our country what it should be from a wooded and scenic point of view. With such co-operation I believe we could have our country growing timber which will be useful to us in the coming years.

Mr. McMenamin

One gets rather perplexed by a debate of this kind. Listening yesterday evening and to-day to Deputies, one wonders what the people of the country think about what is said in this House. There has been a lot of talk about shelter belts. There is provision made already for shelter belts. The committee of agriculture in each county gives plants practically free in order to establish shelter belts, and the Forestry Department give a grant of £60 an acre for planting larger areas.

The main issue is, do we want trees in this country or do we want men? I was struck by what Deputy Morrissey stated here last night about areas that he knows of in his part of the country that should be planted and that would grow timber: that have already grown timber. In the past the Department's policy was that there are certain districts that will not grow timber, that bogland will not grow timber. That is a mere statement. What I regret is that the Department did not take some steps to demonstrate to those people who put up this contention, that timber cannot be grown on it. I would like to see substantial research work carried out to demonstrate to the people that timber will not grow on bogland.

It is quite easy to demonstrate to anybody that trees will not grow along the western side of the mountains of this country, along the west coast. You can easily demonstrate that and you want no research work in that connection. Trees planted there are destroyed by the storms sweeping in from the Atlantic. But, on the eastern side of the hills and mountains, which everybody says should be planted, no steps have been taken to prove or disprove that trees would grow there.

The main question is the planting of trees on tillage land. Deputy Giles is very enthusiastic about planting trees in County Meath. From my county, and other western counties, people leave in order to take holdings on the royal lands of Meath. I expect there would be a regular storm if it was suggested that trees would be placed on the lands of Meath instead of people. We cannot have it both ways. Are we or are we not to grow trees in places not suitable for human beings? There is a lot of land that human beings should not be living on. In sheer desperation they had to settle down on that land—their ancestors were driven there many years ago. Should we grow timber there and put the people on the good land? If we are to put the people on the good land we cannot grow timber on it.

To what extent can we successfully grow timber in the western parts of this country and in the poorer parts of it? I am disappointed that some research work has not taken place so as to indicate to everybody what can be done with regard to the growing of timber on what is known as land that is not suitable for any other purpose. I cannot see why very poor land that will not grow grass or crops but that might grow commercial timber, should not be planted. Unless it does grow commercial timber, I do not see what is the use of planting it, but if you put some scrub timber on it, it would add to the beauty of the country.

We are aiming at producing timber for commercial purposes and as a national asset. The Department may be quite right in saying that timber will not grow on what appear to be semi-barren tracts of country, but that timber will not grow there has never been physically disproved and no steps have been taken to disprove it. Perhaps in a laboratory or an office you can prove that on paper, but you have never proved it to the people. I would like active steps to be taken to prove or disprove it. I would be prepared even to lose a considerable sum of money in demonstrating that this cannot be done. You should settle the thing one way or the other.

What I do know from my own experience is that at some stage or other in the evolution of the earth timber did grow in places where bogs now exist. What is troubling me, before making any charges that timber would or would not grow there, is, did that timber grow away from there at an earlier age, say several centuries ago, and then some cyclone which swept over this country tossed that timber and buried it and then there was an accumulation of bog on top of it? I cannot prove that the timber grew there, or how the bog accumulated; it would take someone with scientific knowledge to do that. The fact is that at some stage good timber grew on what is now bogland. Of course, the timber is now buried in the bog. The point is, how did it get down there? There is no doubt about the timber growing, but the question is, when it did grow was it bogland or not? I suggest that is an issue that could be quite easily demonstrated by the Department. If it could be solved, it would settle a very vexed question in this country. So long as something is not done about it, the problem will still remain and those who come after us will talk here year after year on Forestry Estimates and will put up the same proposal.

If the Minister is satisfied that he has sufficient land on which to plant timber to meet the requirements of this country, then the problem is practically solved, but one is quite sceptical about that. Statements are made in the House on issues of this kind and events falsify them absolutely. I am sure most people will remain quite sceptical as to the ultimate vindication of the Minister's hope with regard to meeting the full timber requirements of the country.

Deputy Corry opened out here last night about compelling farmers to plant at least three acres of land. That may be all right, but he should qualify his statement. Surely, it is a ridiculous thing to ask allottees who have been given holdings of 22 acres or so by the Land Commission to plant three acres. In the layout of those holdings very foolish things have been done. Acres of these small holdings have been wasted erecting enormous fences with a wide gripe on either side, when a wire fence which would take up only six inches should have been erected. This valuable land has been put to loss by these enormous fences which one would think were regular fortifications, with huge gripes, made at each side as a result of getting material to build them, on plots of land 20 acres in extent, which are 30 acres too small to be economic holdings. Then it is suggested that another three acres should be taken for the planting of shelter belts. The thing is positively ridiculous.

The Department have been completely wrong in their approach to this matter in providing these miserable holdings of 22 acres and creating new problems of congestion. One would think that it was merely a matter of building up the country for hunting. It represents a terrible waste of land, and more good land is wasted in this country through the building of these fences, with gripes at each side, than in any country in the world. It would be impossible to put a value on the amount of land wasted in that way and the Land Commission is perpetuating that waste by continuing to build these enormous fences. Probably a couple of acres of good land are wasted in erecting these fences on these small holdings. Deputy Corry then suggests that three more acres should be taken from them. If they had got 50 acres originally, as they should have got, we could accept the idea of devoting an acre or two to the planting of shelter belts.

The general impression throughout the country is that this Department has not got off its mark in the matter of forestry. While a good deal has been done in some way, it does not show itself. What we see is scarcely commensurate with the effort put into it, and it will probably be another 20 years before the work becomes really apparent. Everybody is united in this matter—there is no contest about it— and everybody is desperately keen. The only problem is the matter of a proper approach, and I suggest to the Department that all that can be done should be done in the matter of research work into the growing of timber on land on which we have been told up to now it is not possible to grow timber but on which that has not been demonstrated.

With regard to shelter belts and farmers growing small quantities of timber, there should be a section in the Bill whereby farmers who grow timber and put up decent timber belts will not, when an emergency arises, be treated as outlaws. There should be provision to enable such farmers to get sufficient timber for any purpose for which they require it, because if they get it into their heads—the farmers in this country are in ways very peculiar—that they are growing this timber for other people and that, if they want a tree, they are no better off than the man who never grew a tree, they will say to themselves: "What is the use in our bothering ourselves when we are merely doing it for somebody else?" We should insert a provision in the Bill, which is a codification of the forestry law, whereby farmers who grow a belt of timber will be entitled, as of right, to get whatever timber they require for the needs of their farmhouses and dwellinghouses. The country will be happy to know that this is the basis of a scheme which will solve this vexed question of forestry. I would like to be convinced of that, but I remain somewhat sceptical. I hope, however, that the Minister's anticipations in the matter will be realised.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the fundamental problem in this connection is that we have not got enough land to relieve congestion in this country. If we wanted to give every farmer in Ireland an economic holding, we would have to reclaim a considerable area of the ocean bed. There is no getting away from that. I am informed by those who are qualified to speak that any land on which trees can be reared to maturity is capable of reclamation. We want all the land that is capable of reclamation for the extension of uneconomic holdings, and therefore we have to ask ourselves: Are we going to put on the land men or trees? I am in favour of putting men on.

There are people who will argue that, if you create forests, more men will get employment looking after those forests than would be employed if you divided the land among tenant farmers. I do not want to make the rural population of this country the paid servants of the State or anybody else. I want to make them independent proprietors and I would sooner make small farmers independent proprietors of the soil than to make trees the owners of the soil and potential farmers the servants of these trees, and the foresters who planted them, in perpetuity.

Deputy McMenamin speaks of the manifest impossibility of planting timber on the western sides of the Connemara and Donegal mountains to be destroyed by the Atlantic gales. I distinctly remember a publication by our own Department of Forestry pointing out that havoc was wrought on the western slopes of these mountains, but that, contrary to normal inexperienced expectation, when the Atlantic gale struck the western side of one of these mountains, it was not diverted into the firmament, but followed the contour of the mountain, and that if you planted trees on the eastern side, the gale came over the top and cut the tops off all the trees. I remember seeing photographs of all the trees being bent down and cut off by a gale which came over the top of the mountain.

All were agreed that you could make the trees grow to a certain point and that then they were destroyed. If that contention be true, I do not see the point of wasting oceans of money for the purpose of demonstrating to those who refuse to be convinced that which has been repeatedly demonstrated already, that, where there is a prevailing westerly gale beating on a mountain range, you cannot grow trees to maturity on the western slope at all and you cannot grow trees, again to maturity, on the eastern slope above the half-way line. If that is true, it seems to me to dispose of the matter mentioned by Deputy McMenamin.

I have only one other point to make. I would like to see tree planting developed in this country. But it is all eye-wash, all this grandiose talk about forestry, when the population is overflowing off the land into the sea. I think it is a cod to be talking about vast schemes of forestry. Nobody proposes that we should depopulate wide areas and plant trees in place of people. Make up your mind if you want large areas of forestry. The first thing you will have to do is to get a Clanrickarde and institute wholesale evictions to clear the land. In the old days certain landlords wanted to make sheep-runs, and the only way to do that was to clear the people off the land, and throw down the fences and the houses. Is not the process of preparing land for afforestation closely analogous to the process of preparing it as a sheep-run? Who wants to put the people out in order to make room for trees? I do not. If that is the kind of forestry aspiration some Deputies have I have not got it, and I will resist it to the best of my ability. There are, undoubtedly, certain inland slopes that could be afforested and which I think should be afforested. My only radical complaint against the Department is that in the smaller "takes", which under recent forestry regulations they have been prepared to accept, they are planting soft wood trees. I think that is a great mistake. We can get all the soft wood we want from Russia, Canada and the Scandinavian countries. It is the merest codology for us to be growing soft wood against the imports that will be available from the natural sources of supply in 25 years' time. The timber we plant now will be mature in from 25 to 30 years. Does anybody imagine that we are going to continue in a state of siege for the next 30 years? Does anybody imagine that what we plant now will affect competition with countries like Tasmania?

What is disappearing in this country altogether as a result of our policy of land division is hard wood trees. There are no oak, and no elm, while beech is rapidly disappearing, as well as ash, and such as remains to us are very largely deformed by disease, by malnutrition or unsuitable positions. Nothing is more beautiful in a rural countryside than a well-kept and reasonably extensive beech-grove or a smaller wood of oak trees. It is quite outside the capacity of any individual in this country now to plant such timber, because that class of timber was in the past planted by great territorial owners, who looked forward to a succession of heirs to follow them.

They planted hardwood timber with their eyes on a period 150 years hence. They were, figuratively speaking, seeking to create a park or something of that kind, and were content, in the certainty of the survival of their house and family, to provide amenities, the full enjoyment of which they never contemplated seeing. No small farmer in this country can afford to keep an oak tree on his land. An oak tree or a beech tree in full leaf will cover a surprising area of land, not only with its roots and foliage, but with its shade, and under that shade the quality of the herbage must inevitably deteriorate, from the feeding point of view, with the result that the small farmer thinks it as dear to keep a tree around the place as to keep a goat. Accordingly he uproots the tree.

Anybody who lives in a congested area realises that as soon as the land was divided amongst the people, the first thing that was done was to remove the trees. The people did not do that because they were unaesthetic or because they hated beauty. They did it because they were hungry, because they wanted to live, and required every square inch of the land on the miserable 20 acres they had, to be used to the limit of its capacity in order to get a livelihood. Our people could no longer afford to keep trees, and those who, in the past, planted trees are gone, and their functions have been transferred to the Department of Forestry. It is manifestly uneconomic to grow trees on smallholdings of 25 or 30 acres. Beech, oak or elm make a very material contribution to the scenic amenities of the country and, at the same time, accumulate a very valuable deposit of hardwood which for certain specialised purposes is very useful. They can in certain circumstances be very valuable. There is no use wasting verbiage in labouring that point. I think I made it perfectly clear. So far as there is a contest between men and trees I am in favour of men. So far as planting mountains and bogs goes, it is all cod. The trees will not grow and, if they grow, it will be to a certain point, and then they die. So far as planting large forests and wide tracts of arable land is concerned, far from commending that to the House, I think it would be criminal activity to undertake it.

So far as planting hardwood trees as widely as we can as an endowment of generations yet unborn, I am all for it, and I think the money spent on it would be well spent and would ultimately, in one way or another, make a generous return to the community on whose behalf it was spent. Subject to those observations, I wish the Department of Forestry well and trust that they have under this Bill all the powers they require for the successful prosecution of a forestry policy adapted to the conditions of a country where there are far more people looking for land than we have land to give them.

Mr. Bennett

Deputy Dillon's remarks in the last part of his speech influenced me to get up, that is, his observations in connection with the hardwood trees. I have always thought the policy of the Forestry Branch of the Land Commission was somewhat wrong in that when they divided large estates they did not make some attempt to preserve the timber on them. I have spoken on this subject before in the House, and I do not think there is any harm in raising it again. Nobody expects that the owner of land is going to make his living out of a wooded area or partly wooded area—he cannot do it —but provision might have been made by the Land Commission to preserve those portions of estates on which there was valuable hardwood timber. I know estates on which there was an extensive quantity, say, of walnut timber. I venture to say there is hardly a walnut tree in the country at the moment. If there is one, I do not know where it is. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.