Committee on Finance. - Forestry Bill, 1945—Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 13 Mar 1946

Committee on Finance. - Forestry Bill, 1945—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Hughes

This new piece of legislation, which is a codification of legislation dealing with forestry, is intended to tidy up existing legislation and to provide certain improvements in existing machinery. Having read the Bill I feel the Minister certainly ought to have under this Bill machinery adequate for the purpose. I was not here when the Minister spoke on the Second Reading but I have read his statement and I have been struck by the casual way in which he is dealing with this matter. In the circumstances in which we live and in the circumstances of the future, when there will be a huge demand on the world's supplies of timber for the tremendous amount of repair and reconstruction work that will have to be carried out in Europe, we might have got some review from the Minister as to the real position. I think we will experience great difficulty in getting supplies of timber for some time. As the Minister knows, foreign exchange will present a difficulty for a long time. The tremendous increase in the world demand for timber will undoubtedly make for a situation in which timber will be very expensive for a long time to come. I feel that the Minister might have availed of this opportunity to give us a survey of our position here: what has been achieved under existing legislation; what improvement has been effected in the quantity of afforestation; what success has attended the efforts of the forestry organisation under the Minister's control?

I feel that something has been achieved—that cannot be denied—but, at the same time, even before the first Great War this country suffered very severely so far as its timber supplies, woods and forests were concerned. I think the Minister was right when he pointed out that our landscape here is probably the most bleak in Europe, that we have very little timber resources. At the same time, I am convinced that very much more could be done in that respect. I do not think we will advance very much by dealing with this matter on a purely economic basis. Apart altogether from the commercial value of timber, it has many other advantages. There is the question of drainage which is affected by the timber in a country; the climate and, in fact, the health of the people of the country are also affected by the presence of the timber. These are aspects of the problem that can hardly be measured by hard cash. I agree with Deputy Dillon when he says that he does not stand for replacing men with trees; in other words, that the trees should not get preference over men. I do not think it is necessary to do that. I do not think we have gone that far at any time yet, and I do not think the Minister proposes to supersede men by trees.

I feel that in this country we should have some sort of central authority to deal with land utilisation which will decide in a strictly scientific way what land should be used for agricultural purposes, what land should be used for forestry purposes, and what land should be used for building purposes and that sort of thing around towns and cities. In view of the resolutions passed by many nations at conferences held in recent years and realising the marginal line so far as productive land in the world is concerned, although we have quite a lot of productive land in this country in proportion to the population that we carry, yet I think we should eliminate waste as far as possible and ensure that we have some authority here to decide scientifically how land should to be used to the best advantage nationally. In that respect, it often struck me that we should have that sort of body which would deal with the matter. We have not sufficient co-operation between the Minister, as Minister for Lands and the man responsible to this House for forestry, and the Minister for Agriculture on the other hand. I would be glad to hear from the Minister that the Minister for Agriculture is consulted on matters relating to land and land utilisation, especially where there is a question of whether the land is more suitable for the production of food or for the growing of trees. There is a good deal of mountain land suitable for the production of mutton, which would carry a considerable number of sheep. At the same time, it is ideal and for forestry purposes. The question arises there right away whether that land should be planted, or whether we should continue to produce food from that land, or, in fact, make an effort to improve the quality of the land with a view to further production.

I am glad that under this Bill the Minister takes power to set up a consultative committee. I welcome a committee that will deal with matters of that sort because there is a difference of opinion as to whether, from the point of view of food production, marginal land situated on high altitudes should be planted or not. There is the problem, so far as afforestation is concerned, of the smaller areas. So far as the Minister is concerned and the work done directly under his Department, there must be an area that is economic from the point of view of appointing a forester to look after it as a forest area. I think it comprises something like 200 acres. We can understand that in order to make it economical there must be a considerable amount of land available within a reasonable area for a forester to look after and keep in order. There are, however, many small pieces of land all over the country that could be planted and that ought to be planted. Under the system at present in operation, I think there is very little hope of ever getting that land planted. I suggest that that land ought to be planted and that we should not be approach the matter from an economic point of view at all. The preservation of timber in the country is a matter of wider consideration than the mere economic aspect of it. I think there is not sufficient inducement held out to local authorities to do anything in that respect.

So far as the private individual is concerned, there is no encouragement. The whole picture has changed in recent years since the farmer became the owner of his land and the big landlord disappeared. The old landlord, who controlled a very substantial estate and who thought that it was going to pass down in his family for generations was quite satisfied to plant and to improve the estate. To-day, the picture has changed completely. The smallholder has no interest at all in the matter when he knows that, if he wants to cut timber at any time, he has to have the sanction of the Minister. I feel, therefore, that there is very little hope of inducing the individual farmer to plant timber to any extent. I feel that the only way you can have these small plantations put in and cared for is by utilising the local authorities to the maximum.

The Minister is taking power and has power under the existing law to provide facilities in the way of loans and advances. One aspect of that again arises. If we are to do that, we ought to have cheap money. If money is advanced at 4 per cent. or over 4 per cent., and if the local authority has to wait 30 or 40 years to realise on the money invested, it means that there is a very substantial increase in the original outlay. If we are to make any real advance, I submit that the Minister should make every effort to convince the Minister for Finance that money should be advanced at the lowest possible rate and that we should provide a substantial subsidy for the local authorities and induce every local authority to be interested in planting small patches which are waste land at present. It will increase the beauty of the country and will have very definite advantages, apart altogether from the economic aspect.

I should like to know how many local authorities are really interested in afforestation, and how many have a forester in their service. I think they are very few, and I suggest that the Minister should examine the whole matter of inducing local authorities to take an interest in small woodlands in their respective administrative districts. If we are really interested in this problem of planting trees, we will make reasonable financial provision and will thereby get many local authorities interested, and get very useful work done. The Minister should also give the information, for which many Deputies have asked, as to the present position and the rate of expansion over a number of years past. We appreciate the difficulty with which the Minister was faced during the emergency years, particularly with regard to securing wire netting to keep out vermin. There is very little use in planting small young trees if you are unable to protect them from attack by vermin.

Another aspect of this problem is the aspect of research, in respect of which sufficient work has not been done. We are often told that a lot of land is not suitable for forestry purposes and we have been told time and time again that a reasonable degree of fertility is necessary to produce commercial timber and that there are certain lands whose condition makes them unsuited to forestry. Soils may be highly acid or deficient in certain things necessary for tree production. I admit that I have not read very much about it, but I remember reading of successes achieved in other countries through research. In a certain type of bog land, trees have been established by not digging any hole but merely planting the young tree on top of the turf and building turf around the roots. So far as acidity is concerned, we ought to try to correct that condition, just as we must correct it in agricultural land, and I should like to hear that a substantial sum of money is set aside for research purposes.

If we feel that we should not utilise agricultural land—even marginal land —which is suitable for the production of different classes of food—and if the Minister is of opinion that such land should not be utilised for forestry purposes, then we appreciate immediately that we are up against a problem. Land outside that class is land of a low degree of fertility, in which there are deficiencies which research and experimentation may get over to a very great extent, and I should like to hear from the Minister that his Department is paying attention to the matter of finding a solution of the difficulties which operate against the possibility of growing timber on land of that sort.

I should like to hear from him also what his programme is with regard to deciduous timber, because I think we have not done enough in the matter of hardwoods. There appears to be a general shortage—a shortage not merely in this country but in others— of hardwoods. The supplies of softwoods in the past have presented no great difficulty at all and a real world shortage will show up in hardwoods long before it is possible for it to show up in softwoods. I think we can produce, as a class, better hardwoods than softwoods in this country. That is only a personal opinion, but I think very little hardwood is planted by the Department and surely that does not show foresight or any attempt to anticipate what conditions are likely to be in the next 40 or 60 years. We realise—and I suppose this has had some effect on policy—that softwoods will come to maturity much earlier than hardwoods, and it is possible to cash in years earlier on the capital invested if forests are planted with softwoods than with hardwoods. Nevertheless, I think we should devote an increased proportion of the acreage planted annually to deciduous timber.

The Bill deals with some of the enemies of afforestation. One enemy has always been the fellow who wants to exploit a wood and not replace it, and I think the Minister is right in putting responsibility for replanting on the owner. Hereto fore, the policy has been to grant a licence for the felling of timber to a man who does not own the land, and, once he had cleared it, nothing could be done about it and it was not possible to compel the owner to replant. For this reason, the Minister is right in granting a felling licence only to the owner and compelling him to replant. We have examples all over the country of the tremendous slaughter of timber which took place, especially during the first great war, which has not been replaced even to this day. It has resulted in unsightly areas, and if we can avoid it in future by providing that wherever such slaughter takes place, the trees will be replaced at the earliest possible moment, it will be a step in the right direction.

In that connection, I would expect the Minister to inform the House of the amount of slaughter which took place during the recent emergency and of what is the position so far as replacement, the nursery position, is concerned. Has the Department expanded the nurseries in anticipation of an expanded scheme of planting immediately wire and other materials become available, the shortage of which hampered activities during the emergency? The Minister should be more vigorous in his attitude and his policy on afforestation. I am not, however, one of the enthusiasts who are boiling over with enthusiasm and who put forestry before anything else. I put the production of food and other matters before forestry, but I still think that much more could be done.

Section 9 empowers the Minister to make advances by way of grant or loan and to give advice. There again, I think there is very little propaganda. I have never seen a leaflet from the Department as propaganda for the planting of trees. Money spent on that sort of propaganda might induce private individuals to take part. I have not much hope of the private owner doing very much, as the whole situation has changed completely from that of 50, 60 or 100 years ago. However, a certain amount of propaganda should be done by the Department to encourage individuals to plant trees. There is no use in stressing the economic aspect, since the planting of timber is very valuable in itself, apart altogether from the economic aspect.

The Minister is taking power to extinguish existing rights over forest lands, even in the case of land that he acquires at present or in the future for forestry purposes. This problem of rights-of-way is a very difficult one, and I can appreciate the anxiety of the Department to eliminate trespassing and the damage that might be done by people passing through forests. I appreciate that the Bill provides for appeals from the Land Commission to an appeals tribunal, but hardships might definitely occur where the Minister extinguishes a right. Where there is a number of interests involved, the Minister can acquire land by agreement and, where there may be one individual with a right-of-way, holding up the agreement, the Minister is taking power to extinguish that right. I believe that the Minister should not press for the extinguishing of that right, if there is any hardship involved.

In the same way, in the question of providing facilities for a temporary right-of-way over a farm, for the purpose of removing timber from a forest, it may be that, from the Department's point of view, those facilities may be of advantage or may be absolutely essential, as there may be no other access to the public road. However, as a farmer, I can appreciate that very considerable damage could be done to a farm adjoining a forest, especially if the timber were removed over soft ground in the winter time. The men would simply cart all over the place and there would be very considerable damage to property. I would not like to be the owner of a farm adjoining a forest where a considerable quantity of timber had to be removed across my place. I would anticipate a tremendous amount of damage being done. I suppose there is no alternative, but great caution should be exercised in the granting of facilities of this sort. There may be a long and difficult approach to a wood by a lane, in very bad condition, while at the other side of the wood there may be a field belonging to a local farmer, intervening between the road and the forest. There will be a tendency, in a case like that, to look for facilities to cross the field, instead of attempting to use the difficult approach by the lane on the other side.

I do not like all the facilities the Minister is looking for here. I admit that fairly elaborate provision is made to assess compensation and that, where the owner is not satisfied, he has a right to appeal. I am very doubtful whether the Land Commission are the right people to assess and fix compensation. The Minister paid great tribute to the capacity of the Land Commission and said, in column 1601:

"The Land Commission is the most competent and most independent body in this country to assess the value of land of the type with which we are concerned in this Bill."

The Land Commission confiscated a lot of land in the 30's, in the last decade, they took any amount of very valuable land from individuals in this country, and paid them little or no compensation.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is another story.

Mr. Hughes

It is not a story, because these are the very people we are paying tribute to for their competence to value land and assess compensation. You can only judge a person's competence by his record.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy want to examine their consciences also?

Mr. Hughes

It is nearly time for them to do so. So far as fixing compensation for land is concerned, there are many people—I know at least two or three cases where widows were concerned and these have been mentioned from time to time in the past—who were treated in a scandalous way by the Land Commission in regard to the fixing of compensation. Now we are going to entrust them with the responsibility of fixing compensation here. The Land Commission is involved in this, in acquiring land for forestry purposes, and where a dispute arises between them and an individual it is proposed to appeal to the Land Commission to fix the compensation, though they are a party to the dispute themselves and have an interest in it. There is no justice in that at all. The Minister should provide some impartial tribunal to fix compensation. It is like going to law with the devil, and holding the court in hell. The very same thing applies here. The Land Commission is a party to the dispute, but is to sit in a judicial capacity to fix compensation. Their past record does not convince me that they are competent to be fair and impartial in fixing compensation as between themselves and another person.

On Section 31, the Minister rightly talks about the provision for compulsory acquisition being used only in very rare cases. He wisely anticipates that, if land is acquired compulsorily for a forest, a lot of damage might be done to the timber there, that you must have the approval and support of the local community, and that there is no possibility of success if they do not approve of the planting scheme.

In Section 36, there is a new provision for excluding certain species of trees and I wonder if the Minister would say what particular species is envisaged. In another section, certain types of land are excluded. I suggest to the Minister that, if we had some sort of central authority to deal with land utilisation, it would deal with that point, as to whether land should be exempt as agricultural land, or as land adjoining a town which might be used later for building or certain other purposes. I feel that we require a body of that sort to deal with the problem of how we shall best utilise the land in the national interest.

Generally speaking, the Bill ought to give adequate powers to the Minister to deal with afforestation here. The only thing that I have objected to is that in all the problems with which we have to deal—rights-of-way, extinguishing a right-of-way, and the compulsory acquisition of land—we are appealing to the Land Commission, as a party, and entrusting to it the problem of assessing compensation, to be the judge and jury as it were, in matters where it has an interest. I do not think it is right to provide that sort of machinery. I do not know what sort of tribunal should be provided, but, at all events, it should be a tribunal outside the Land Commission.

I suppose the Minister felt that it would be better to deal with the policy of the Land Commission on the Estimate and, for the moment, he is dealing merely with the machinery that is being introduced in this legislation. We have had from the Minister information only on the machinery arising out of this piece of legislation, explaining the purpose of the different sections. We have had no information good, bad or indifferent, about the policy of his Department, what the position is and what he proposes to do with the machinery he now has at hand. I hope he will give us some more information in that respect.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin

Chuireas an-spéis sa gcaint a rinne an cainteoir deireannach faoi go mba chóir lárudarás a bheith ann a chinnfeadh, i dtaobh na gceanntar éagsúil, cén usáid a b'fhearr a d'fhéadfaí a bhaint as a leithéiad seo nó siúd de thalamh nó de cheantar; a shocródh cén barr a b'fhearr a bheadh tairbheach don tír tré chéile. Dá n-abrófaíé sin ón taobh seo den teach chaithfí deachtóireacht inár leith agus d'fhreagrófaí go bhfuil cead ag gach talmhaí a rogha rud a dhéanamh lena chuid fhéin. Meabhraíonn an chaint sin dom go bhfuiltear i gceantar na Fairche agus Chúnga ag iarraidh ar lucht na foraoiseachta gan crainte a chur ag fás i dtrí nó ceithre céad d'acraí de thalamh mhaith chuir atá suite ar dhúiche Ashford. Mar tá a fhios ag an Aire, tá na gantanas talamh chuir imeasc na dtalmhaithe sa cheanntar sin agus síleann siad gur mór an traugh é an oiread seo talún mhaith a chlúdú le crainte nuair a d'fhéadfadh sí beatha a sholáthrú do dhaoine atá go mór ina call. Tá eadarghuidhe déanta cheana leis an Aire agus tá súil agam go meáfaidh sé an chúis chómh fabharach agus is féidir.

Tá pointe eile ba mhaith liom a chur os comhaire an Aire. Nuair a bhí eolaí as an nGearmáin i bhfeighil na Fo-Roinne seo dúradh liom nach raibh i gConamara ach dhá áit gur féidir crainte—gur fiú crainnte a thabhairt orthu—d'fhás iontu i. Gleann an Mháma agus an ceantar idir Srath Salach agus Baile na hInse. Cé gurbh shin é an tuairim a bhí acu an t-am sin níor plandáladh aon áit ann. Ba mhaith liom 'fháil amach an bhfuil an intinn sin acu i gcomhnaí, agus má tá, an bhfuil sé de rún acu beartú dá réir.

Táim ag iarraidh ar an Aire tagradh don dá phoinnte seo nuair a bheas sé ag tabhairt freagra ar an ndíospóireacht.

Mr. Everett

I have no objection to any section of the Bill. My complaint against the Minister is that he has failed to bring in some provision to protect the workers engaged in forestry. It is the custom of the State, through most of its Departments, to provide that the rate of wages or the salaries paid should be the same as that paid by good employers in the district. I think the Forestry Department is the greatest slave-driver of any of the Government Departments. We can picture to-day men engaged in my constituency out on the side of a hill, working from 8 o'clock in the morning until 5.30 in the evening, bringing what food they may have with them, after a journey of four or five miles. If they are lucky to put in five and a half days on that type of work, they receive 38/- or 39/- a week.

Our whole fight with the Forestry Department is on the basis that it will not pay men the same as good employers in the district pay their workers. We have been negotiating on the Wages Tribunal with employers engaged in a similar way to the Forestry Department. The Forestry Department is engaged in commercial work now. It has sawmills in the county and is disposing of its timber for sale in Dublin, in competition with employers who pay 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. higher wages. The position is that when we are before the Wages Tribunal in Kildare Street the owners of sawmills always put up the argument: "How can we compete against the Forestry Department which has men employed for 39/- a week and sawyers and other skilled men engaged for less than £2 5s. a week?" It is difficult to argue against that, because the Forestry Department is a Government concern. As it is a Government concern, we are unable to move, other than through propaganda, to try to make it change its views, or to try to bring about some change of heart.

In this Bill the Minister has failed, to bring relief or consolation to the men who have been engaged in skilled, work in forestry for the past ten or 20 years. I have had experience, and I am sure other Deputies have had it, too, of men who have given their services in the forestry section prior to the establishement of this State and, when they arrived, at 70 years of age, they were deprived even of the old age pension; because they earned over £52 a year, they could not get the full pension.

When you contrast that treatment of skilled men, who gave loyal service, to the treatment accorded in other industries, where they are guaranteed pensions, I say that the Government and the forestry section are adopting a policy of class distinction towards workers in rural areas. I am surprised that the Government Party tolerates such a state of affairs. Members of the Government Party must be aware of the volume of public opinion in the country that protests against conditions that the Government forces these employees to accept. When members of this House appeal for greater progress in the way of afforestation do they realise that they are asking for a continuation of the conditions I outlined? Do they imagine that they are going to get men to work under such conditions in future? In view of the post war schemes that are announced, men will not be available for work on them, as they will have gone away to England or elsewhere where conditions are better. In asking the Minister to simplify the Bill, I ask him to make provision for the staff, by having in it a section guaranteeing to workers employed on forestry a living wage, as well as conditions similar to those provided by private employers, many of whom grant pensions to their staffs.

I agree with Deputy Brennan that forestry is skilled work for which men taken from labour exchanges would not be suitable. Between October and April all men engaged in forestry plant a number of trees each day. I am sure the numbers, if known, would surprise Deputies. The present position is that young men will not take up forestry work if they can get across to England. I appeal to the Minister to bring it to the notice of the Government that the conditions I have referred to cannot continue in rural areas. I agree with Deputy Hughes that county councils could and should do more for the encouragement of forestry. At one time the Government Party—in fact, all Parties—were in favour of arbor days. A rate was struck under which farmers could plant shelter belts. I should like public bodies to be permitted to raise a rate of, say, 3d. in the £ for that purpose. That rate should not be charged against their borrowing powers, as it would be 25 or 30 years before there would be any return from the money. In County Wicklow the farmers availed of such grants to provide shelter belts.

Some Deputies asked why forestry work was concentrated in County Wicklow. They wanted to know why such work was not undertaken in the West or in other portions of the State. Everybody knows that there is congestion in the West and that there is a great demand for arable land. If it was proposed to take a couple of hundred acres of land in the West that was suitable for cultivation, on which to plant trees, I am sure that that matter would be often raised on the Adjournment. I have never known land suitable for cultivation being used for forestry in County Wicklow. The Land Commission and the forestry section work in co-operation, and unless the sanction of the Land Commission is obtained land cannot be taken for forestry. In County Wicklow much of the land is hilly, and farmers are anxious to dispose of it, seeing that it relieves them from the payment of high rates, as well as allowing them more time for the cultivation of arable land. If county committees of agriculture could undertake propaganda for the establishment of arbor days the people generally might be got to take a greater interest in afforestation.

If we are to do that on a national scale we will have to change our outlook as regards wages and conditions. I am sure the Minister will be surprised to learn that if a man arrives at his work a quarter of an hour late, because his bicycle was punctured, and if he works a three-quarters day, he will be paid only for a half-day. In previous years strikes occurred and certain concessions were granted. The bad conditions I mentioned do not apply to workers alone, but also to overseers and charge hands responsible for administration. Although these are civil servants they do not enjoy the same conditions as other civil servants. I am aware that some of these men work seven days in the week, as on Sundays they make up their time sheets and reports. I appeal to the Minister to take a special interest in forestry workers, as if forestry is going to be the success that we all hope it will be, we must get away from the idea of employing men simply because numbers of them offer themselves for such work in rural areas at any wages and under any conditions. If they were organised there would be very little forestry work done in County Wicklow, except by men who have long service. Having drawn attention to the matter I am sure the Minister in his Estimate will give an account of what work was done during the past 12 months.

I have no objection to the Bill as a whole. I only regret that the Minister did not bring in other sections to improve the conditions to which I have referred. I hope that as a result of my remarks, wherever there are the slave conditions to which I referred, there will be a change. If there is not a change, I am certain, from what I know of the people in the country, that the treatment they are receiving cannot continue. There will not always be wars raging. In the rural areas the people realise that for years the position of those in the cities and towns has been considered, while they have been neglected for motives that I do not understand. I can assure the House that rural workers are beginning to awaken and that they will give the Government, when it again appeals to the country, a shock that they require. There will not always be a war to give you a majority. The people realise that for some years the Government have considered the towns and cities in relation to unemployment assistance and everything else and have neglected men in employment in rural areas. Whatever has been the motive, I cannot understand it. However, we are now giving the assurance that the rural workers are beginning to awake and will give the Government in all parts of the country the rude awakening they require, if they get an opportunity. It will be no use to throw out a sop to them before a general election. I am stating the opinion of men in the Government Party. These men may be members of the Party but they know, as I know, the feelings of the people in the rural areas. I know that they are not in agreement with the conditions the Government have imposed on the forestry workers and road workers. They are not parties to that policy. They are trying to defend them but there is no defending them in the rural areas. I would ask the Minister, knowing his views in connection with workers generally, to take courage in his hands and to fight the finance experts in the Department of Finance in order to secure something for the workers of the Department he represents so faithfully. I appeal to him to do something on behalf of the forestry workers generally under his control so that the national scheme he is initiating will meet with success and have the support of all sections of the community.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have been a close observer of timber, particularly in the area in which I live, midway between the Galtee and the Knockmealdown Mountains. These mountains are very well planted along the lower slopes. The Cahir sawmill there gives employment to a large number of men. Were it not for the existence of this sawmill we would be in a very bad state. The Galtee Mountains are planted along the lower slopes on the southern and northern sides but only up to a depth of perhaps half a mile. I understand that trees cannot be grown successfully in the higher altitudes. There are certain types of trees that should be grown there. I believe the Minister knows a good deal about his job. There is scarcely any Minister who has studied his work as well as he has. I believe that certain parts of that mountain could supply larch capable of being made into ordinary farm carts. Two generations ago the Earl of Glengal planted a certain area. After 25 or 30 years the timber was cut and sold. The sawmill was started about 40 years ago. I think the timber grown on these mountains is not much use after 30 to 40 years. As the timber was cut and sold, the land was replanted. These lands supply timber for 14 miles around but there is a demand for 20 times the amount of timber they are able to supply. We in the valley, 14 or 15 miles away, would be definitely in a bad way were it not for that timber.

In the lowlands, in the middle of the valley, there is a turf bank that has been dug out for about 100 years. That was planted with deal trees which, I understand, were cut 50 years ago and all it was fit for was for pit-props for Welsh mines. I do not think that trees of that type can be very successfully grown in the lowlands. My idea is that larch should be grown on the mountains. In certain sheltered areas hardwoods were grown, such as elm, oak and ash, and it is on record that the oak used to roof the Parliament House 400 years ago is quite good yet. That goes to show the great quality of hardwood that was reared in Ireland.

With the development of plastices, I do not know whether or not all this timber will be needed. I understand sawdust will be used in future but I do not know that wholesale plantings, except on the mountains, would be of much use. On Saturday evening I visited a seven-acre field of mine, where there was an old ditch of elm mixed with thorns that had not been cut for 50 years. Twenty yards out from that ditch the roots of the elms were growing and those roots would be four or five inches thick. These roots would break a plough and would have to be broken with a hatchet. I have come to the conclusion that I would not allow a tree to be grown along any farm ditch. They are only a vantage point from which crows can make depredations on the nearest field. They do not serve any useful purpose. I am not so enamoured of these ditches from the aesthetic point of view. I prefer the utilitarian point of view. I was greatly impressed by Deputy Dillon when he said he would prefer men on the land to trees. I do not always agree with Deputy Dillon. There should be not trees on arable land except as shelter belts. One Deputy suggested a shelter belt along the west side of the farms to protect against the prevailing winds. I would not agree. Shelter belts in the south-west corners would be very good. I think it is wrong indiscriminately to plant trees in ditches of the elm, ash or sycamore type, because the roots extend 40 or 50 feet; they impoverish the ground and the leaves falling in October and November poison the grass. Timber should be confined, practically, to the mountains.

I wonder will agricultural science advance to the point when it will be possible to reclaim boglands. I wonder, with the aid of chemicals, will they become food-producing. If so, the planting of the lowlands may not be the success that we anticipate it will be. Wood grown on bogland is no good for anything except to burn, and if, after 25 years, it is cut down and burned or used merely as props for mines, what value is it? I have grave doubts as to the utility of planting land that is any way fair except for the purpose of shelter belts. I do not approve of wholesale planting. There are certain trees that could be planted in the higher altitudes that would be of value. On the western slopes of the mountains you will see trees planted—they are to be seen in Clare and Connemara—which grow to a certain height and are then stunted, and inclined towards the east. In the southern slopes of all the Irish mountains trees will grow. I know they are growing successfully on both sides of the Galtees. Plenty of good commercial timber can be grown on the higher regions that would be of commercial value.

Trees are certainly wonderful things. Somebody has written: "Poems are made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree." If the plastic business develops, trees can be grown in bog areas and on other land with great advantage. The development of plastics may make it very useful. But there is very little use in growing trees on reclaimed bog in the lowlands. There is no difficulty in planting on the higher altitudes in the mountains or in giving farmers every opportunity for having shelter belts. Ash is very little used except for handles or hurleys. There is a great planting of ash, but it poisons the ground around. Then there are beech and elm and oak, which is not very much used in this country because it takes so long to grow. I think shelter belts of elm might come in with larch planting, sufficient for the needs of each farm. The time may come when the bogs are reclaimed and, with the scientific development of farming, they may be fit for producing food.

Mr. Coogan

In a recent Press report of a meeting held in Dublin an official of the Forestry Department is quoted as saying that the development of forestry and national afforestation here depended on the Department of Finance and that there was no use in talking about it until the Government and the Department of Finance dropped the Scotsman's reputation in regard to it. That is probably the background for the Minister's statement in introducing this Bill. He was very careful to say nothing with regard to the future policy of afforestation, but to assure us that the views of the experts responsible for the technical control of forestry work were that the present scheme of expansion was adequate and best suited to the country's needs. But the Minister gave us no picture of that scheme of expansion.

It may be that, as a new member of the House, I am unfamiliar with what happened in the past. It may be that this is old history for some of the older Deputies. But I, for one, felt rather disappointed that we had not been given some picture of our position in the matter of afforestation. Have we or have we not a forestry policy? When the Minister, in introducing this Bill, said that since 1928 the forestry service has expanded its activities in extent and, were it not for the recent war, the service would be now probably have come close to attaining the rate of annual growth which is believed by the experts to be the desirable aim of this country's needs, I felt that he should have gone on and told us what was the desirable aim and what eventually we have decided upon as our policy in this matter. A predecessor of his in a former administration, when introducing the 1928 Act, I think it was, quite frankly admitted that in the matter of afforestation policy we were unambitious. That was the word he used. In other words, we were tinkering with the problem. Since then, undoubtedly, a considerable development has taken place, and we have made some progress. But, if we are to go on as we are going, to my mind we are simply carrying on by what is commonly described in this House as stop-gap methods. We are not doing anything on a broad scale to reach our peak point in afforestation within a minimum of years. So far as I can make out from the figures, we seem to have reached our peak point in 1938-39. Since then, due to emergency conditions, of course there has been a complete slow-down. But now that we are at the end of the emergency period and that materials which were in short supply during the emergency will be coming on the market again, we should have been given an indication of our probable annual rate of expansion and the minimum period in which we hope to reach our ultimate development of forestry.

I do not pretend to be a practical expert in this matter or to have any practical knowledge of it, but I do happen to have, over a great number of years, read a good deal about this matter. In the old days when we were fighting for our freedom, one of the things held before the youth of the country was that when we got our freedom we were going to restore the ancient forests of Ireland. Neither this Administration nor its predecessor, to my mind, has done anything serious in the matter of forestry. I know that there are many practical difficulties in the way and that the Minister can give us a very satisfactory explanation of the slow rate of progress. At the same time, I feel that forestry has been the Cinderella of the services. When a civil servant makes a statement of that kind and lets the cat out of the bag, I think we are getting the real kernel of the trouble. The Minister is being starved for money. I put it to the Minister that he should take his courage in his hands and fight the Minister for Finance every inch of the road in this matter of finding money for afforestation.

I do not want to go into the case made, I think it is a common case, that we are all satisfied that a sound forestry plan will have beneficent effects on the health and the climate of the country. At the same time, I do not want to be taken as endeavouring to encroach on what you might call the agricultural problem and the rights of a farmer to cultivate his soil, etc. But, allowing for all the agricultural problems we may have connected with this problem of forestry, I still believe we have a big margin of land which is uneconomic from the agricultural point of view and which can still be acquired by the Minister in large economic units for forestry purposes. There are large belts of lands on the east coast and on the south coast, sand-belts if you like on the fringe there, which to my mind are useless. There are miles and miles of that type of land in Wicklow and Wexford and along the south coast to Cork which, I am sure, could be acquired if there was what you might call a courageous policy in this matter of forestry. If we are ever to take the matter seriously, the sooner the better.

At the present rate of progress. I visualise a period of from 50 to 60 years before we can even achieve the limited plan which the Minister apparently has in mind in this matter. It has been accepted in the House here, I think, that our ultimate development will be something in the nature of 700,000 acres. That is considerably less than half of what experts, enthusiastic experts, if you like, in this matter, in the past have set out as our requirements in this country. I think the informations we have now on forestry is so old and out of date that the time is ripe for the Minister to establish some new survey so that we could have our requirements in this matter settled once and for all.

Do we wish to develop timber, hard or softwood, and to what extent? Are we satisfied that developments outside this country are such that we shall have to look after our own resources here? Are we satisfied that we will not face a further period of emergency in 20 or 30 years, time when we may need all the timber we have and all the wood pulp we have? Are we satisfied that other nations are conserving their forests in such a way that the world supply of timber and pulp and of the by-products of forestry will be available in normal supply? If we are not satisfied with world developments, we should have our own policy here in relation to such developments abroad, and try to link up with the world supply position so that at least we can provide that future generations will not be left in the lurch should the occasion arise.

It may be that technical developments in other fields of industry have rendered the forestry problem—at least, from the point of view I am advocating—out of date, but on the other hand, I have had no technical information on the subject which would suggest to me that that is so. I realise that with the freedom now being given to yellow races and the probable developments in education and so on that may arise from the extension of such freedom in the Middle East and the Far East, a new problem may arise in the very near future, and it may be that there will be such a demand for the world supply of wood pulp and timber as will render our position here singularly acute.

In this matter, we have really to make up our minds whether or not we are going to reverse the happenings of history. Our forests disappeared about 300 years ago, practically overnight. In one or two rebellions, our forests were wiped out and apart from such developments as were brought about by private enterprise—really the private enterprise of the landed class in the past—we have been left in the lurch since. We have to make up our minds whether we intend to rectify that historical problem of the deprivation of this country of its forests and its timber.

I personally think that, despite all the demand for land on the part of the agricultural community, there is still a margin that we could work on and that we should be able to achieve at least the 1,000,000 acres mark, without unduly hampering the agriculturists in any way. I agree with Deputy Hughes when he says that this problem will largely have to be met by the State and the local authorities. I feel that we shall have to depend more on State development than on local authority development, because the amount of land available in economic units to any local authority is negligible. The State, however, if it took the problem up, could get land in the quantities required. The question is, have we a policy and is the Minister for Finance prepared to facilitate the Minister for Lands in implementing that policy? I want to hear from the Minister what is our long-term policy, in all these matters, and, given our long-term policy, what he hopes to do this year, next year and in the years to come to work towards that ultimate end.

As to the Bill itself, I think it is a good Bill, deserving of the support of all Parties. There may be certain aspects which will require attention on Committee Stage, but I do not propose to go into them now. Deputy Hughes mentioned that, in the matter of compensation, there was a need for something more than the appeal given to the Appeal Tribunal of the Land Commission. That is so. In regard to forestry, the position is that when the Land Commission seeks to acquire land compulsorily, it is definitely and interested party. The appeal given here is a considerable improvement on the form of appeals provided in other Bills which come before the House, that the aggrieved person in the matter of compensation has a right of appeal from the lay commissioners to an appeals tribunal presided over by a judge. It is a considerable improvement on what we have in other Bills, where the appeal is to the Minister per se, without any judicial intervention. I do not want to press the point, but it is a matter which will have to be fought out sooner or later.

Where a Government Department is interested in a matter, it cannot be regarded as an impartial party to that matter and therefore cannot be accepted in the sense of a judicial tribunal or judge in its own cause, and the sooner we face up to this development the better. The old theory on which we are working here of the king not being capable of doing any wrong should, to my mind, be scrapped, and we should get to the position in which the State is a corporate entity, with no greater rights in relation to its citizens than any other corporate entity. It will have its rights and the citizen will have his, and the citizen will have the right to face the State in the courts of law at least on an equal footing. That is the position in other countries. It is the position in Australia where the State is a corporate entity and where the citizen has his recognised rights and can fight his rights against the State in the courts of law.

There is, as I have said, in the appeal system in the Land Commission the advantages that at least one has the protection of a judicial tribunal presided over by a judge, but I am not satisfied even with that. I should like to go the whole hog and have the appeal to the courts proper. Some Minister said that if we were to have appeals in every case, the courts would be glutted. It is an extraordinary fact that where the State is simply a corporate entity, with no more and no less rights than what it has by statute vis-á-vis the citizen, there is not that glut of litigation which we are supposed to get here, if we give the citizen his rights.

I have already said that I think the Minister should take a courageous viewpoint on this matter. A courageous viewpoint is being taken across the water at the moment—I am constantly quoting what is being done across the water and it is inevitable because they are near neighbours—and the same development is taking place in the United States. In Britain, at the moment, they are embarking on a scheme of 3,000,000 acres. They were able during the emergency to take over 100,000 acres in the border countries and to proceed with their development, although they were fighting the greatest war in history. We here are hampered apparently by certain reasons of agriculture more than anything else, and if there is nothing standing in the way as between the Minister and agriculture, there should be more importance attached to reconciling the two view points and getting a move on.

This is our first generation of freedom and the results since 1921 are negligible compared with what we told the world we would do when fighting for that freedom. I should therefore like to see the Minister developing a courageous policy in this matter of forestry, and, above all, I should like to see him, if he is satisfied that he can face the House with such a courageous policy, going one step further and facing the Minister for Finance with the same courage. Let us embark upon a scheme which, within 25 years, say, will bring us to the end of the road. At the present rate of progress, it will more likely be 100 years before we see the end of the road.

Mr. Moylan

Deputy Coogan says this is the first generation since we won our freedom and that, when we were engaged in the winning of it, we were telling the world what we were going to accomplish. People who are engaged in telling the world what they are going to accomplish never accomplish anything. We were too busy on the job at that time to tell anyone what we were going to do. The reason we are regarded, possibly, as not being so successful since is that we have been engaged in going on with the job, without telling the world what we are doing.

There are two points I would like to deal with before taking the Bill generally and they are matters in regard to civil servants. Deputy Giles mentioned one particular civil servant, the head of the Forestry Department. He is not an Irishman, but he is above all things a forester. I am fully confident about his knowledge, his capacity and his honesty in regard to his work. I also remember that another Scotsman, Thomas Drummond, was one of the greatest friends of Ireland we ever had, and in the Scotsman we have now I have the fullest confidence. In regard to a statement made by an official of my Department at a recent lecture on State forests, the man who gave that lecture has done and is doing very valuable work for this country and anything he says must be taken seriously. He wrote an article in a well-known magazine here, in regard to national forests. I and the officials in my Department, being interested in the work we have to do, read that article and formed our own opinion on the views stated; and when we were invited to attend the lecture given by that gentleman, we discussed before going there what our attitude was to be. I think those of us who were able to attend surprised the lecturer by the previous knowledge we had of his proposals. I know exactly what the official said at the lecture on national parks. He said exactly what I would have said. Journalists and sub-editors —while I have no personal quarrel with them—are very often in a hurry and are as liable to make mistakes as are politicians. The official who spoke at the lecture here in Dublin is too wise, too experienced, and has too great a knowledge of his duty to make the statement attributed to him. The fact of the matter is that at no time has there been any quarrel between the Department of Lands and Forestry and the Department of Finance in regard to the provision of money for forestry. Any money needed for the development of forestry is available to us always from the Department of Finance, at the order of the Government. There has never been any quarrel about it.

I did not think, when I heard all the Deputies here defending individual liberty and democracy, that we would have so many appeals on this Bill for compulsion. Deputy Hughes talks fluently on individual liberty in regard to other matters, but wants a tribunal set up to go into the question of the utilisation of soil and a tribunal for certain other purposes. Everybody complains of the tremendous number of inspectors we have in the country, but if we agree with the idea of setting up further tribunals, there will not be room on the farms for the farmers to work. Again, in regard to Deputy Coogan's suggestion for a special court to deal with matters as between the landowner and the Department of Forestry, this is what Deputy Coogan said last week:—

"I would entirely agree with the present system if there were a right of appeal to the courts of the land, that is in a matter of dispute between John Citizen and officialdom if the final word did not rest with officialdom but the aggrieved citizen had the right of appeal not to the Minister but to a court. That may give rise to a host of cases and may inevitably lead to the setting up of some special court to deal with matters of that kind."

The Land Commission is a court. It was set up to deal with the vexed question of land, because the ordinary courts of justice could not possibly have dealt with the amount of litigation taking place about land. It is a court, with a judge at its head, and is the most suitable court for our purpose in assessing compensation under this Bill.

Deputy Mulcahy opened up for the Opposition and, listening to the various members of the Opposition who spoke on the Bill, it seems to me that their speeches cancelled one another out. Each presented a totally different view from that of his predecessor. Deputy Mulcahy, like another famous statesman we had in this country, has apparently grafted a slip of poetry on his economic tree. He suggested that, in this Bill and in the policy of the Department, there was no imagination. Half a dozen other Deputies followed him, telling me that I had no imagination, that there was no imagination in the Bill or in the policy. Many years ago, I divorced myself from the leprechaun. I have not sufficient imagination to populate the woodlands of Ireland with dryads and I must harness my imagination to the chariot of common-sense. What we want in regard to forestry is something that will give results, a policy so resilient as to be capable of absorbing the shock of obstruction and difficulty, sufficiently elastic as to be capable of expansion when opportunities offer for swifter expansion and wider development. What are the facts in regard to the development of forestry? In 1923-1924 we planted 1,176 acres and we had reached an annual planting, in 1931-1932, of 3,645 acres.

Deputy Coogan said that my predecessor here, speaking on forestry, declared that he was not ambitious, about forestry, and I know that to be true. Nevertheless, from 1923-24 to 1931-32, every year, the acreage of forestry planted increased. After 1932 and until 1939 there was an increase. In 1939 we had reached 7,603 acres per year and in the war years, from 1939 until now, we have never planted less than, 4,000 acres, much more than was planted in any year before this Government came into office. I am not blaming the previous Government, because I know that no big undertaking reaches its peak point of production immediately, and the bigger the undertaking the less easily can you get your policy under way. I say the last Government and this Government have done their duty in the development of forestry over the years.

During the war years the greatest achievement of all took place because, notwithstanding the difficulties with which we were confronted, never in any year was there less than 4,000 acres planted. I am not satisfied that we could not have a greater acreage planted per year. Our target was 10,000 acres per year and eventually. an area of forestry of 700,000 acres. I believe we can go faster than 10,000 acres a year. I believe that when we reach anywhere near the amount we now think adequate, there will be a new viewpoint in this country in regard to forestry and then it will be time enough to change our views as to whether we want 700,000 acres or 7,000,000 acres—whatever amount you have.

Deputy Mulcahy, having done with his imaginings, came along to the restrictions imposed by the Bill. You cannot cut a single tree without the permission of the Forestry Department. There must be restrictions, and the restrictions imposed here are very reasonable. The attitude of the Department of Forestry to the people concerned was at all times reasonable. They were swiftly answered; they got permission whenever it was possible to give them permission. In other countries these restrictions are also in force—in countries where forestry is much more highly developed. In France no one is allowed to turn woodland to any other use, no matter for what reason. In Switzerland no tree can be marked for felling unless with the permission of and in the presence of an official of the Forest Office. I told you here in my opening statement of the number of permits that were applied for and the number given, and of the number given to which conditions of replanting were attached, to show you how reasonable the Forestry Department was with the people.

Deputy Blowick raised the question of interference with small holders. Deputy Blowick need not have any fear of interference with small holders. Trees scattered over a farm are a menace and a nuisance. No edible vegetation grows under them. They interfere with seeding and harvesting and the sooner these trees are cut off the small farms, the better. Hedgerow timber is useless. It does not produce timber. It affects the vegetation beside the fences and I am no believer in the growth of such timber, although I would suggest to Deputy O'Donnell that they might plant a little ash along the fences of Tipperary, because hurleys are getting scarce. I suggest that, having got the scattered timber off the farm, there is hardly any farmer in the country who has not a waste acre of land which he could put under trees. I suggest to you people here that it is a most essential thing that we should have those waste acres on every farm planted.

We are told we have no imagination, and the British Forestry Report has been quoted here. Britain is also anxious that her farmers should grow timber on their lands along the lines I suggest. Their idea of the best contribution they can give to the farmer in the planting of land is to give him advice. They will give £2 per acre for softwoods and £4 per acre for hardwoods. In this country the Forestry Department will give all the advice and assistance necessary to anybody who wants to plant timber and will also give such persons £10 per acre. That seems to me to be a better form of imagination than what has struck the imaginative people across the water.

Deputy O'Sullivan spoke, not about lack of imagination, but about lack of enthusiasm. All my life I have been very fearful of enthusiasm, I have seen so many enthusiastic people getting tired. Enthusiasm is no good if it is not based on conviction and determination. I am convinced about this question of forestry, about the need for its development and of its utility to the country, and I am determined, while I am in this office, to do everything I can to forward the development of forestry. Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about what the Minister for Agriculture said in 1928. He might just as well have talked about what Gladstone said in 1870. I would remind Deputy O'Sullivan that a false consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds or, if I might put it in the more homely phrase of Deputy Dillon, we live and learn. He also argued about arable and non-arable land. In dealing with forestry, we do not discuss arable land and non-arable land; we talk about land that is plantable or non-plantable.

He also spoke—and Deputy Murphy spoke of it, too—about the number of unemployed men who could be absorbed into forestry, the number of men who are now attending at labour exchanges and who might be immediately utilised in the development of forestry. Evidence given before the Royal Commission in 1909 was very adverse to the use of the unemployed in towns in planting trees, as it was found that such men were unaccustomed to the spade and few of them were able to stand the rough weather of winter. Anybody who has any experience of the beginning of the Army Construction Corps and the attempt to use young men from the towns on the bogs, will realise the difficulty of absorbing in such an employment as forestry the unemployed men of the towns. It cannot be done. But we can, by the development of forestry, employ from year to year more and more men on a permanent staff and, from year to year, we can absorb more and more men in temporary employment.

It is impossible, even if we could, to employ great numbers of unemployed men from the cities and towns in forestry plantations. I have some figures dealing with forestry plantations. In one case of 6,000 acres, planted between 1919 and 1941, employing on the average 40 men, it is hoped in 1951 that the numbers employed will rise to 200 men. "Men or trees" stated Deputy Dillon. Deputy Cogan was anxious to know something about the comparison of sheep and trees. I find it is calculated that the plantation of 100 acres means the displacement of 110 sheep. The average production from such land would be 6.66 lbs. of deadwood, and 1.75 lbs. of wool. Each acre produced 1½ tons of wood per annum. I think it is reasonable enough to believe that timber is a good substitute for sheep in many places. The most dangerous, thoughtless, unenlightened speech made against the Bill was that of Deputy Dillon, who asked: "Are we to have men or trees? I am in favour of men". It is not a question of whether we are to have men or trees. He might just as usefully have said it was a question whether we will have moustaches or mushrooms. The fact of the matter is that if you do not have trees you will tend more and more to depopulate this country. It is a known fact that industry follows the forest. It is a known fact that erosion, tremendous erosion, has been caused by de-afforestation.

Deputy Coogan mentioned just now what America had been doing in regard to forestry. That was a bad statement for Deputy Coogan to make, because America has destroyed the American land by de-afforestation, and it is only now that America is trying to repair the evil. Also in America, it might be as well for Deputies to know, a good deal of soil destruction has been done by placing too many sheep on light-soiled land. You can have more sheep if you have more forest. We can have more men if we have more forest. Those who talk of this question as one between men and forest, simply do not know what they are talking about. In the Forestry Department we have no difficulty in getting all the money we can use for forestry development. We have sufficient labour in this country, and we have sufficient experienced foresters to direct these workers. We can, I believe, in the very near future secure all the material for its swifter development. The one thing we need is land. There may be places in County Meath that could be utilised for forestry but Meath has the reputation of having land that is, at least, as good as the land in County Limerick.

Captain Giles

Some of it.

Mr. Moylan

I think there has been too much outcry about the difficulty of trying to get land in County Meath for forestry. We certainly cannot now use land for forestry that could be utilised for agricultural purposes. We have to be careful in selecting the land that we are going to utilise. We are up against all sorts of opposition in regard to the land we need. Deputy Bartley raised a question about land at Ashford. That was land we secured for the purpose of forestry. The land was eminently suited for the purpose, and yet it is declared that congestion is so rampant in that area, that it must not be used for forestry, but must be used for division amongst the people. I think that is bad policy. We in the Forestry Department have taken every care not to tread on the corns of small holders, or those who need land, because the compulsion here is a limited compulsion. We cannot have compulsion in the sense in which that word is ordinarily used. We have to cultivate goodwill. There can be no forests without the goodwill of the people. We find, where we have secured a block of land for forestry, that when the people realise the benefit that forestry conferred upon them, there is less difficulty as the years go on, in getting more and more land in that district to swell our original holding.

There must be rights of way, and people through whose land rights of way are insisted upon must be properly protected and properly compensated. I would say, particularly to rural Deputies, that this question of the preservation of many rights of way is overdone. There are many ancient rights of way in this country, the need for which no longer exists because roads have replaced these rights of way in many places. Many of the rights of way across private holdings are a great source of litigation and trouble amongst farmers. Every Deputy knows that. There are rights of way which are very tenuous, for which there is no particular need and which are merely held by those who hold them because of the spirit of acquisition that is held in every man. The fact that, over the past 20 years, we have had to have compulsory powers only on two occasions is a very good omen for the future of the wisdom with which the policy of forestry will be carried out.

I do not think that there is anything else I wanted to say because, as I say, each Deputy, as he got up, cancelled out the previous Deputy's speech. But, I do want to say again, the work of forestry development in this country is primarily a State job—it can be done by nobody else—and the State work is to try to produce timber of commercial value. Somebody has asked the question about the percentage of hardwoods. The average percentage is 12 per cent. of hardwoods to the rest of softwoods. Local authorities do not seem to me to be effective instruments for the production of forestry. The Central Government is the apparatus whereby you can develop forestry in this country. I pointed out to the House a while ago that there is no farmer in this country who has not got on his farm a waste acre of land. Every farmer Deputy knows that there is a tremendous waste of land on every farm and there is a waste acre, surely, for an acre of woodland in every farm. Every advice, every assistance will be given by the Department of Forestry to the farmer who plants an acre of land and they will also give him £10 free grant.

There has been a Turf Development Bill before this House. The Turf Development Bill is directed towards producing fuel in this country in the belief that coal will never again be had in the same quality, in the same quantity, or at the same price that we had it before the war. That difficulty will definitely arise for us. It is overlooked, however, that many a farmer in this country who had turbary rights which would last his household for the next 100 or 150 years has, because of the high price of turf during the past six years, almost completely cut out his banks. Our bogs are not inexhaustible. If there is, as I am sure there will be, a scarcity of coal in this country, our bogs will disappear very swiftly. I think it is the best investment that any farmer could make for the next generation to take advantage of the offer by the Department of Forestry, of their advice and assistance, and £10 an acre, to plant trees on his land in one compact block.

I suggest again that this Bill is merely a consolidating measure. It asks for very little extra powers. It merely makes more clear the powers, makes them possible of being put into operation. It does not, possibly, clearly set out policy in regard to forestry but everybody knows what the policy is. The amount we aimed at was 10,000 acres a year, with an ultimate area of 700,000 acres. I believe we should move much more swiftly. I think it can be done, providing we can get the land. That is the only difficulty. It is time enough to make any changes in our view as to what the ultimate acreage should be when we have achieved to a certain amount.

Deputy Everett raised the question of the wages and conditions of forestry labourers. I intend to make no defence of the wages of forestry labourers other than to say that the wages of forestry labourers must be adjusted to the current rate payable by agriculturists. I have always believed that labourers everywhere in the world are not paid what they are worth to the world. I believe every single one of us will have to change his point of view very soon in regard to the wages being paid to labourers. If this is a Christian country, at least Christianity should apply to labourers as well as to everybody else. I cannot adjust forestry wages if they must be related, as they must be, to agricultural wages. Possibly a number of the matters that were raised here would come on better at the next stage. I recommend the Bill to the House and suggest that it is a valuable measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1946