Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry. – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Tuesday, 8 Jun 1948

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £265,430 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1949, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Forestry (No. 13 of 1946), including a Grant-in-Aid for Acquisition of Land.

For some years past my predecessor had to report that the extent of the tree planting programme was diminishing and that nothing could be done to alter the position. After the cessation of the war it was hoped that an immediate improvement could be made, but until quite recently it was found impossible to secure from any source adequate supplies of rabbit netting. I can, however, now announce that this obstacle has been overcome. There is every prospect of a substantial increase in next winter's planting programme and for a continued expansion thereafter. In anticipation of this, steps were taken to increase the stocks of plants in the State nurseries but some further time must elapse before the full 10,000-acre programme per annum can be realised.

The present season's planting is still in progress and it is anticipated that not less than 4,000 acres will be planted during the season. The stocks of transplants in the State nurseries have been supplemented by purchases from commercial nurseries. For the season 1948-49 we are making provision for a minimum planting of 6,000 acres, and this also will be exceeded if the plant situation will allow of it.

The State nurseries at the beginning of the war were stocked with enough transplants to provide for a planting programme of 10,000 acres but the stocks gradually diminished through the impossibility of procuring the necessary seed for replacements. The situation is now improving and stocks in 1946-47 showed an increase of 10,750,000 as compared with the previous year. During the past winter orders have been placed for 1,915 lbs. of seed of various species (mainly Scots Pine, Larch and Spruce) from the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland and Scotland. It is not possible to say what proportion of this quantity will ultimately be obtained but prospects are good. To supplement purchases from abroad home seed collection has been pushed vigorously and the results have exceeded expectations. About 516 lbs. of conifer seed has been collected and over 10,000 lbs. of hardwood seeds, mainly oak and beech.

The Estimate for the coming year represents an increase of £25,910 on the amount provided for 1947-48. The increase is due in the main to provision for an increased planting programme. A large increase in the receipts from sales of firewood was anticipated but the change in the fuel position has altered the situation. There is no longer the same necessity to provide stocks of firewood in the larger cities and retail prices have fallen. Against this fall in receipts there has been a saving on labour during the past year as felling operations were stopped in many forests from which it had been intended to supply firewood to Dublin, Cork and other centres.

The position as regards acquisition of land is not very satisfactory. Though the total area acquired last year compares favourably with acquisitions for the years immediately preceding, the percentage of unplantable land included is very high. One of the main difficulties is that associated with the securing of suitable land in large blocks. Three hundred acres of plantable land is the minimum necessary for economic working. In fact much larger blocks can be developed with approximately the same overhead costs for supervision, etc. The process of building up economic blocks from small areas is slow and expensive and is complicated by the fact that mountain land is held in undivided shares by a number of people or is subject to grazing rights similarly held. For these reasons it is difficult to secure agreement with all the persons having an interest in the land and negotiations frequently drag on for years before purchase can be effected. The forestry division has a reserve of over 30,000 acres of unplanted land in hands but without a yearly increase at least equal to the area planted the reserve of land will soon begin to diminish and co-ordination of nursery and planting programmes will become still more difficult. Special attention is being given to this problem and the staff dealing with the purchase of land, particularly the outdoor staff, will be strengthened as soon as possible.

In the establishment of large forest areas, the co-ordination of nursery and planting programmes is a most important and complicated part of the business, and is one about which there appears to be widespread lack of knowledge or understanding. Trees intended for timber, and by timber I mean good commercial timber, cannot be grown as easily or as quickly as hedgerow or other ornamental or fruit trees, nor as easily or as quickly as ordinary crops. Nursery programmes have to be planned considerably in advance of the actual planting out of trees in their final positions. The plants used for planting out are normally three years old, so that sowings of seed made, say, in the autumn of 1947, will not leave the nurseries as young trees until 1950 or 1951. Assuming normal germination and healthy growth, the co-ordination of nursery and planting programmes would necessitate a decision now, i.e., at least three years beforehand, in regard to the extent and nature of the ground to be planted in the winter of 1950 and 1951. That is necessary so as to ensure that the proper variety and the requisite quantities of seeds should be purchased. Not only has the variety of the trees to be determined on a scientific basis in relation to the timber needs of the country, but it has also to be determined in relation to the type of land to be planted and to considerations affecting the best mixture of trees in the plantations. Different species behave differently, and experience is constantly pointing to the varying requirements of growing timber.

Put as a simple example in which, say, the Government might decide by systematic afforestation to build up ab initio an area of, say, 500,000 acres of plantations in 50 years at the rate of 10,000 acres per annum progress would work out in this way. More than 10,000 acres of plantable land, including nursery land, would have to be acquired in the first year. The land would have to be scientifically examined to decide the species to be planted and would have to be prepared. Nurseries would have to be established and seed purchased and sown to produce, let us say, sufficient sitka spruce plants at the end of four years to plant an area suited for that species in the first 10,000 acres acquired. No planting could be done in the first year.

In the second year at least another 10,000 acres of plantable land are acquired, the area surveyed and a selection of species made as before. Seed has to be sown in the nurseries to produce enough plants of spruce at the end of four years to plant and area selected for that species in this second 10,000 acres. In addition seed has to be sown to produce enough plants of larch and other species at the end of three years to plant an area suited for these species in the first 10,000 acres. No planting could be done.

In the third year at least another 10,000 acres of plantable land are acquired and surveyed and a selection of species made. Seed has to be sown in this year to produce spruce at the end of four years to plant the spruce areas in this third 10,000 acres. In addition, seed has to be sown to produce the larch, etc. at the end of three years for the second 10,000 acres and seed has to be sown to produce enough plants of pines and hardwoods at the end of two years to plant an area suitable for these species in the first 10,000 acres. No planting could be done.

In the fourth year at least another 10,000 acres of plantable land are acquired. Seed has to be purchased to produce spruce at the end of four years to plant the spruce areas in this fourth 10,000 acres. In addition, seed has to be sown to produce larch, etc. at the end of three years for the third 10,000 acres and seed has to be sown to produce pines, etc. at the end of two years for the second 10,000 acres.

In the fourth year planting of the first 10,000 acres can, now be carried out with four years' old spruce, three years' old larch, etc., and two years' old pines, etc. The number of plants grown, if everything has gone satisfactorily, should be just sufficient for planting this area and no more. In the meantime, however, many things may have happened to prevent the correct numbers being produced. There may be surplus of some species and deficiencies in others.

In the fifth and subsequent years the procedure is as for the fourth year and the afforestation scheme should be in full swing.

The procedure just outlined would be ideal for carrying out an afforestation programme, but its success depends on the regular acquisition of not less than 10,000 acres of plantable land annually, upon a delay of four years before any area is planted to enable the proper species and types of plants to be grown in the proper proportions, and, lastly, upon no hindrance to the production of these trees in the numbers required.

This simple position is, however, very different from what is and has been actually happening in this country for many years past. Owing to the great difficulties of getting land, seeds and materials, there has not been, and there could not have been, a firmly fixed programme for annual planting. The annual programme had to be arranged as best it could, and had to be built up of a large number of small patches of land here and there, some of which have been acquired for three years, some for two years, some for one year and some for only a few weeks before being planted.

In dealing with the different subheads of the Forestry Vote, I propose to refer in detail only to those items which show appreciable differences from last year's figures.

The provision under sub-head C. (1.) has been reduced by a sum of £5,000 as compared with last year. This does not indicate any slackening of efforts to secure additional land for forestry, the intention being, as I mentioned earlier, to endeavour to increase the rate of acquisition as soon as possible. The reduction is, I hope, a temporary one and due merely to passing conditions. During last year, the forestry division purchased 7,345 acres of land and now has in the Land Acquisition Fund a total of approximately £44,800. Subject to the completion of the usual legal formalities, the division has agreed to purchase, from private landowners, at a cost of £23,034, areas totalling 5,890 acres and from the Land Commission 765 acres at a cost of £2,475.

Negotiations have also reached an advanced stage for the purchase of of 3,476 acres from private landowners at a cost of £9,847 and negotiations are proceeding with the Land Commission for the purchase of 6,397 acres at a cost of £22,760.

For various reasons some of these negotiations may ultimately prove abortive and others will take a considerable time to complete, so that the provision of £20,000 will probably be sufficient to meet actual outgoings during this financial year.

Sub-head C (2) is the main item in the Forestry Estimates and provides for the maintenance of existing plantations and the planting and development of new areas.

The amount first voted under this sub-head last year was £260,089 and was intended to provide for a planting programme of 6,000 acres. Owing to the nursery situation and late arrival of rabbit netting such a programme could not be carried out, nor, owing to a rise of about 20 per cent. in the wages of forestry labourers, would the amount provided have been sufficient. During the year the provision was increased by a sum of £52,216 to provide for additional labour to be recruited for the felling and preparation of about 40,000 tons of firewood for Messrs. Fuel Importers' depôts in the non-turf areas. The anticipated shortage of fuel was relieved by the arrival of imports of coal and fellings were discontinued or reduced at many centres. Considerable quantities of logs and blocks intended for transport to the cities will be available for sale locally in the neighbourhood of the forests.

The programme of road making which has been in operation for some years past will be continued this year wherever necessary to allow of the extraction of poles and timber from those plantations which have reached the thinning stage. At present there is a good market at home for poles for various uses and any surplus over requirements can be sold for export as pitprops, etc.

It is essential, for the purpose of extending planting operations in future years, that adequate stocks of plants be built up in the State nurseries. This requirement is not being overlooked though certain varieties of seed are still in short supply. Since it takes on an average three years to produce a transplant of the proper age for planting out, no immediate replacement of unforeseen shortages is possible. Nor is any advantage to be gained by the sowing of unduly large stocks of such varieties as are obtainable without an assurance that suitable ground for the growth of such species will be available for planting in three or four years' time. In view of the length of time it takes to grow a tree to the stage at which it becomes a marketable commodity, it would be a mistake, for the sake of a year or two, to plant any species on ground where soil or other conditions were definitely unsuitable for their normal growth.

Shortly before the outbreak of war, the forestry division purchased a number of portable crosscutting machines for use in the preparation of firewood blocks from inferior timber standing on ground which had to be cleared for the planting of more suitable varieties. With the fuel situation which developed during the war, the number of these machines was increased and some of them have been continuously in use so that they are now nearing the end of their periods of usefulness. This happily coincides with the disposal of the greater part of the stocks of purely firewood timber which the Department had on hands and also with a probable large falling off in the demand for firewood. The provision for the upkeep and running of these machines has, therefore, been reduced and probably some of them will have to be sold as scrap and a reduced number concentrated in those areas where a market for firewood, fencing stakes, etc. can still be found.

Under sub-head C (3) provision is made for the working of the Department's sawmills, of which the two most important ones are those at Dundrum, County Tipperary, and Cong, County Mayo. The third mill is at Avondale, County Wicklow, and is used mainly to give experience to the forestry trainees. The mills at Dundrum and Cong do a steady local trade in rough boards, fencing stakes, cart material, felloes, spokes, etc. Both of the mills are old, and consideration is being given to the remodelling of them for more efficient working. The erection of up-to-date drying kilns at Dundrum from which seasoned timber can be turned out, both for the Department's own use and for sale, is also under active consideration. It is hoped to demonstrate by means of the products of these kilns that native timber can be marketed in a condition to compare most favourably with imported timber, and that the prejudice against native timber which appears to exist amongst architects, builders and others is due, not to any inherent defects in the timber itself, but to the way in which it has hitherto been used in an unseasoned state.

Under sub-head D an increase of £500 is required in the provision under this sub-head, out of which payment is made of the grant of £10 per acre, which, under certain conditions, the Department is prepared to pay to private landowners and local authorities who carry out planting operations on their own lands. Up to the present, very little planting has been possible owing to the impossibility of procuring rabbit netting and the scarcity of suitable plants.

The position regarding rabbit netting for general use is improving slowly. During the past year the forestry division were in consultation with the tree nursery trade, on which falls the duty of meeting, at reasonable charges, the public demand for suitable transplants, and I should like to state that any persons who are bound to plant as a condition of a felling licence, and who find difficulty in procuring the specified varieties, will be advised as to the substitution of other suitable varieties if details are submitted to the forestry division. I am particularly anxious that everybody who has an acre of land suitable for the growth of trees should take advantage of this grant.

In sub-head H, it will be observed that there is a drop of about £18,500 in the receipts estimated for this year. This is due to the fact that a considerable quantity of firewood prepared during last summer and winter for despatch to Fuel Importers' depôts is no longer required and the material will have to be disposed of locally at the best prices obtainable. Apart from this there is likely to be a decrease in the receipts from large sales of timber due to the fact that most of the mature timber in the State forests has been sold to meet demands arising out of the shortage of imported timber during the war years and to the necessity of conserving the small remaining lots of timber of building quality for the Department's own requirements.

In consequence of the reappearance in the markets of quantities of imported timber, the number of felling notices being received annually had begun to show a decided decrease but the abnormal weather of the spring of 1947, coupled with the shortage of all types of fuel, caused a large and sudden increase. It is hoped that for the future the number of felling notices will decrease and that owners will endeavour to reduce fellings to a minimum and to retain ornamental strips and groves wherever possible.

It is also to be hoped that a considerable amount of voluntary planting will be done on private lands to make up for the abnormal fellings which conditions during the past eight years have forced upon the country. Apart from what may be done in this way, there is considerable leeway to be made up in regard to replanting which has to be carried out as a condition of the issue of felling licences. The factors which rendered replanting practically impossible are slowly disappearing and as soon as conditions permit the Department intends to take up strongly the question of enforcing replanting conditions. Persons concerned are reminded that, so far as registered land is concerned, the obligation to replant will, as soon as the Act of 1946 comes into force, and this will now not be long, be entered in the relative folio as a burden on the holding and will continue as a burden until evidence has been produced to show that the necessary planting has been satisfactorily carried out. Failure to replant, apart from the other penalties which may be inflicted and which may be considerable, as it is a continuing offence which cannot be escaped at the cost of a fine, will render sale of a holding less easy and may appreciably reduce the price which might otherwise be obtained.

Mr. Moylan

A Minister has a great advantage in presenting an Estimate. Of course, at the start he discloses his views to criticism, but he has always the opportunity of finishing up and confusing his critics. I am not the only one to notice that. It seemed to me during the Lands Estimate debate that there was as much jostling for position as there was at the Derby a few days ago. Everybody waited for his colleague to get up so that he could have a crack at his own opponent. I would like, too, to wait until I hear some of the developments.

Looking round the House a while ago when the Minister spoke on forestry, I began to ask myself: "Where are the snows of yesterday?"—60,000 acres from Clann na Talmhan per annum; 1,000,000 acres in four years—and only Deputy Kinnane in the House.

Captain Cowan

The Deputy is often absent, too.

Mr. Moylan

Having said that much, I think that this is an Estimate on which we might have a completely non-Party discussion. All of us regard forestry development on the largest scale possible as wholly desirable and our only differences are as to the methods that might be used and the extent of the development. I do not mind very much what is said in this House between my opponents and myself. One time Tim Healy was accused of attacking William O'Brien very harshly and he said: "I have never said a word to William O'Brien save in the way of business." One would expect, however, from the newspapers a more objective outlook and when they hold up the opposition by Fianna Fáil as being completely destructive, they are, I think, doing us a good deal less than justice. I think that the best thing that has happened to this Government in quite a long while is the fact that they have a strong coherent Opposition in the House.

Captain Cowan

I only wish there was.

Mr. Moylan

I hope, whatever Government is in power in the future, that we will have a strong coherent Opposition. I am that old-fashioned thing, a patriot. I will admit that I do not see much hope for the country from the present Government, but I wish them every success. Anything that they can do to forward the welfare of this country I wish them success in it and offer them my co-operation. That is the attitude of Fianna Fáil, even though we will criticise anything that we do think needs criticism. Therefore, in this important matter of forestry I want an entirely objective approach. The things that I could say about the 1,000,000 acres in four years and the things that I might say about the 60,000 acres a year would be very interesting, but probably they would not make for progress.

What we ought to look at here is what are the problems presented to us by the Estimate, and I think they are: an assessment of the value of the work done; a decision as to how and how far forestry development should proceed; and suggestions from the various Deputies as to the methods whereby the desirable end might be achieved by the shortest route. The present position is, I take it, that the Land Commission have roughly about 200,000 acres of land, about 120,000 acres of these planted, about 300 acres of nursery, about 40,000 acres of plantable land, and about 40,000 acres of unplantable mountain and marsh.

Now the Fianna Fáil policy was 10,000 acres a year, with an eventual forest cover of 600,000 acres, and possibly 100,000 acres of scrub and rough protective land. That was a more effective policy in regard to forestry than the Cumann na nGaedheal policy was. But, when Cumann na nGaedheal took office, there is no doubt that forestry was moribund in this country. There were not 1,000 acres per annum being planted, and it is difficult to build up an organisation and to create a new idea, and credit must be given to Cumann na nGaedheal for bringing the plantation from 1,000 to 3,000 acres in their time. Then Fianna Fáil took office with their idea of planting 10,000 acres a year. They never reached it. The greatest amount planted in any year was 7,500 acres. That was, I think, in 1938, and I believe we would have reached 10,000 acres but for the war. I think the greatest hope we have for the future is in the fact that all during the war years, under tremendous difficulties, difficulties due to shortages of all kinds, an average of 4,000 acres per year were planted. Knowing the difficulties, that to my mind is a great achievement.

In trying to discover what exactly should be our aim, if I refer to proposals of Parties other than the Fianna Fáil, I am not doing it in the spirit of the hustings. I merely want to discover what is the right thing to do and to try to see how we might get agreement upon it and be helpful to each other. Clann na Poblachta promised 1,000,000 acres in four years, Clann na Talmhan, of course, not to be outdone, promised 60,000 acres per annum. I do not know if they promised it, but I did see an advertisement in the newspapers during the election time putting up this idea as a feasible one. Fianna Fáil policy was 10,000 acres a year. But the policy of Clann na Poblachta and of Clann na Talmhan are impossible and, if they were possible, they would be wholly undesirable. Experience in other countries, particularly in New Zealand, would show how entirely undesirable was the 60,000 acres per year, and it would be impossible apart from its undesirability.

My own view that I hold strongly and have held is that the rate of planting envisaged by Fianna Fáil at 10,000 acres per year is too little. I think we should do much more. But there are many difficulties. One difficulty is that the demand for forestry is an urban demand and not a rural demand. There is so much of a desire for agricultural land and, indeed, any kind of land, that the rural opposition to forestry outweighs urban enthusiasm. There is no shadow of doubt about that. The Land Commission had an experience in County Galway some time ago—at Gort, I think it was—where an attempt was made by the Land Commission to plant, when guns were brought out, people were moonlighted and every opposition to the plans of the Forestry Department was carried on. In Tipperary, on land eminently suitable for forestry, all kinds of destruction was carried out by the local people, people who had not a shadow of a right, legally or morally, to the land which was being planted. Recently the Land Commission did everything to meet the needs and the desires of the people in County Mayo at Cong. Here again is land eminently suitable for forestry. It is a most desirable place to plant. All the arable and agricultural land that could be given has been given to people there. Yet we had opposition to any planting down in Cong, and that with the support of a number of Deputies.

Mr. Commons

There was land planted on which I saw wheat growing.

Mr. Moylan

Listening to the debate on the Land Commission, I often wonder how some Deputies form their opinions in regard to land. Deputy O'Higgins the other night spoke about the number of people waiting in Laoighis for an estate to be divided and gave the impression that his view was that these people had a perfect right to demand land. I was glad to hear the Minister say in the Land Commission debates that we will have fixity of tenure.

Mr. Donnellan

On a point of order. The debate is on forestry. I think the debate on lands is over.

Mr. Kissane

On land acquisition and forestry.

Judging by what I can see, I think the pool of land is drying up and I doubt if, by the present methods, we can ever hope to reach even the modest amount that is envisaged in the Fianna Fáil programme of forestry. I have the view that we ought to have a secondary forestry policy. Our policy is that of growing 600,000 acres of commercial timber. I would be sorry to accuse the Land Commission people of being perfectionists but I think that is a doctrine of perfectionism. That will not be grown immediately or in time and you will not get the land to grow it immediately or in time. I think it is necessary that we should have a secondary forestry policy, an uneconomic policy, for the purpose of creating soil conditions that would help us in 20 or 30 years' time to develop our real forestry policy of commercial timber.

Since Cumann na nGaedheal took office and even since Fianna Fáil took office, soil science has progressed a good deal. Methods of reclamation and soil aeration are known now that were not known 16 years ago and much of the unplantable land that we hear about, if it is not on too high an elevation, might be prepared nowadays for planting. At least, the thing is so important that it is well worth a few failures and a few experiments. I will not blame the Minister, I will defend him, if he makes an attempt to develop a secondary forestry policy and, if he fails in it, I will say that it was worth while doing it. I am sorry my interrupter, the Parliamentary Secretary, has gone because he might interrupt me again. I confess that I am not entirely enamoured of the Arterial Drainage Act. It will be possible to give a good deal of relief in river areas, marshy areas, and low-lying bog areas but, conceivably, the Arterial Drainage Act, put into full operation, could lower the water level in the country and make arid what is very valuable land now and what you gain on the roundabouts you may lose on the swings. We ought to combine our policy of drainage with a policy of water conservation and flood control.

All Deputies will have read within the past few weeks of the great disaster in Oregon and Vanport on the Columbia River. That was brought about by the destruction of forests in British Columbia, in Washington, and in Oregon. What happened in the River Columbia yesterday has been happening every year on the Mississippi and on the Tennessee Rivers and you will notice that on the Tennessee River particularly the American Government has combined with drainage the question of flood conservation and forestry. We had recently a lesser known but much more damnable flooding in Turkey, in a valley on the shore of the Mediterranean where, again because of the destruction of forestry, a whole countryside was laid waste.

I appeal to the Minister. In regard to embankments, something might be done there but we have the Shannon in Munster and the Blackwater and all the Kerry Rivers doing tremendous damage every year to the farmers and a wise policy of afforestation combined with our arterial drainage work would be of tremendous benefit to the farmers and would not affect the now arable lands that might be made arid by the operations of the Arterial Drainage Act.

I think I heard the Minister say that a good deal of success had accrued to the collection of native seeds. It will be a long time, I do think, before we will be able to get the amount of plants we would need from foreign countries and no matter what success you have had in the past year, that success could be quadrupled if a real effort were made. Without the seeds, we cannot have the plants.

We ought to have this year adequate lands in hand at least to bring us to the 10,000 acres, if we have the plants. It is quite possible that we have not the plants but, if we have, there is nothing really to stop the Land Commission or the Department of Forestry from getting us the 10,000 acres this year, and I will be very pleased with the Minister, and glad that we have changed places, if he achieves the 10,000 acres this year. This is a very uncertain world—the 18th February told us that—and it may not always be easy to get rabbit wire, barbed wire and tools of various kinds. I trust that the Minister is taking steps to build up, against eventualities, a big reserve of these items. While the Land Commission made tremendous efforts during the last war and had great successes, the successes might have been greater if we had had a big reserve of material.

On the Land Commission Estimate the Minister said that no Minister appointed by Fianna Fáil knew anything about land and, of course, the implication was that the Minister now knows everything about land. I have no belief at all in the Minister-expert. I believe that a man with an open mind who has experts to help him will do a far better job as Minister than a man who knows the job particularly well. Experts are like the mills of God: they grind exceeding small, and it takes them a long time to do it. Every advice the Minister will get from the experts of the Land Commission—who are real experts and know their job— will be ca' canny. If Deputy Dunne advised the Federation of Irish Labour to go as ca' canny as the commissioners and inspectors will advise the Minister here, we would all be knocking Deputy Dunne. Forestry in its initial stages employs one man to every 100 acres.

There is no good in telling the general public of the tremendous dent we can make in unemployment by a proper forestry policy. The Minister should persuade his experts to present him with a method, while he is in office, of increasing the amount of employment in forestry to at least one in 50 acres. In ten or 15 years' time, with a progressive policy, there is no reason why we should not have one man employed on every 25 acres. If we can employ one man on every 25 acres of our worst land, we will be doing more for the country than all that might be done in the efforts to relieve congestion in the West.

I saw in some newspapers that caretaking of our forests was costing 1½d. an acre. That is a very small sum and I think that much more must be paid. Listening to the Minister's statement, as well as I could hear and understand it, it was a litany of difficulties, where it was not a litany of glorification. I would like the Minister to tell us something about the fire hazards and about the forest that has been destroyed during the past year as a result, in some cases, of the fact that we pay only 1½d. an acre for caretaking. There were 100 acres of a ten-year-old forest burned in Killarney a few days ago. To my mind, that is inexcusable. There will be burnings, there will be accidents; but to lose 100 acres of ten-year-old forest seems to me to be inexcusable. As our forests develop, the risks will be greater. I wonder if enough care is taken, apart from the question of getting timber to grow, with the general lay-out of forests, with the creating of rides and roads through them, as fire gaps? I wonder also if it would not be a wise thing, in this climate of ours where we get now and again a very hot season, to have a greater proportion of broad leaf trees? I would like the Minister to tell us what percentage of hardwood he proposes to plant in future. I think we are given too much to conifers and that we should try to plant a good deal more of the hardwoods.

We will not have forestry without the creation of public opinion. I believe in forestry development and I was glad to see Clann na Poblachta talking about 1,000,000 acres in five years, even though I know it could not be done. I was very glad to see that the barb of Clann na Poblachta had got stuck somewhere in the hindquarters of Clann na Talmhan, as they came along with "60,000 acres a year"—but that is all to the good. We really must try to instruct the general public with regard to the value of forestry and the need for it. I saw on a few occasions a map and exhibit at the Dublin Show—a very informative map and a very valuable exhibit—in which a tremendous amount of interest was taken by the people here in Dublin. Why cannot we have that map and that forestry exhibit in provincial centres, where the country people could get a look at what is being done and see the value of forestry?

The Minister for Local Government has been very wrath with the Land Commission because they have not planted trees in West Cork. If there is forestable land in West Cork would not one way of getting after it, one way of creating public opinion, be to take that forestry exhibit and map down to a very well run show in Clonakilty and let the West Cork people see the value of forestry?

Criticism may be made of the ambitious policy of Clann na Poblachta. I do not criticise as ambitious a policy that looks for 1,000,000 acres over a number of years. If it failed to get it, I would not criticise the policy that aimed at getting the maximum done in the shortest possible time where forestry is concerned. Whether the policy is practical or not, is a question that, I think, has not yet been properly resolved by any Department, and least of all by the Forestry Department. I am going to subscribe to one thing that Deputy Moylan said. I think he was perfectly right and in my opinion it is worth a good deal of respect. He suggested to the Minister that he should go in for a secondary forestry policy, and said that if the Minister failed in that, that he, at least, would offer no criticism of him. He suggested that such a policy was well worth trying.

I think that the maximum effort will have to be applied to forestry as a whole. I am not satisfied that the experts, to whom Deputy Moylan has just paid tribute, have really done their utmost either by way of experiment or by way of a proper survey to give the Minister full information as to what land in this country would be suitable for forestry purposes. Even though they suggest that we have much land that is not suitable for forestry, I think that, with a little of the preparation suggested by Deputy Moylan, and indeed in some cases without preparation but with the introduction of certain new types of trees, much of our land would become plantable.

I want to say to the Minister with all earnestness that his statement was far from the approach to forestry that I had hoped for. I am sure it is conceded by everybody that there is an ultimate benefit to the State in forestry, and that at some future date the present day investment of this State in forestry is going to show an appreciable profit. If that is not conceded, then the whole theory with regard to forestry is meaningless; but, working on that basis, I want to suggest to the Minister that in the situation in which he finds this country at the moment, a country with an agreed high credit, he should use his best endeavours—and if he does he will have my earnest support—to get raised at once what he and his experts would consider as an adequate amount of money to enable him to tackle, in the shortest possible time, the question of the complete afforestation of the country.

I suggest that he do that so that he will have adequate money to give proper conditions to his workers, adequate money to give a chance of real experiment to his various forestry experts, adequate money to place at the disposal of the Forestry Department to pay a reasonable price for the acquisition of land suitable for forestry and adequate money to advance, as was very sensibly suggested by Deputy Moylan, a propaganda campaign whereby the country could be educated into a forestry policy. If there is any justification in any economy for a large expenditure of money, I say that one of the fields in which it can be spent is forestry.

I am not thinking of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000; I am thinking in terms of the raising of a loan, if the situation demands it, of £7,000,000, £8,000,000, £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. Let posterity pay for the benefit it will reap and let the approach to forestry be on a real business basis in order to put this country in a position in which, in 40 or 50 years' time, it will be able, on a rotational system, to supply, or nearly supply, the timber needs of this State. There was a lot of hard, common sense in the suggestion made by Deputy Moylan that it might be better if we started growing more hardwoods. What is wrong with the forestry system, to my mind, is that it is over-conservative, and much criticism will probably be levelled at me for weaving webs or spinning fantasies; but when you have a situation in which the country has high credit and there is a lot of money floating around, I cannot see any real obstacle in the way of this new Government raising, by way of loan to be repaid by posterity, a sum to tackle the complete problem of afforestation.

I am not at all sure that the target of a very large acreage is as impossible as suggested by Deputy Moylan, but I will agree with him that it is an absolute impossibility, if the Department is to carry on its present slow but sure, plodding activity. If the propaganda campaign so lucidly described by Deputy Moylan is to be carried out in other constituencies, I have no objection to posters going from one end of West Cork to the other to advocate something which the people are looking for, if, in their wake, comes some practical evidence in the shape of planting to show that the Government is in earnest.

There are a lot of difficulties, I will be told, in the way of this scheme. I suppose the first and loudest cry will be that the seed situation is very difficult. I wonder whether an exhaustive search throughout the length and breadth of this world has been made for seed. I wonder if this searching for seed has really been done on an extensive basis or if the Department, with its typical conservatism, has limited its inquiries to sources from which it at one time got seeds. I wonder whether any Government in this country to date has been in earnest about afforestation, or whether they have accepted it as a necessary evil. I wonder if there was any real appreciation of the reproductive value of trees, apart altogether from the aspect of picturesqueness and apart from the protection which forests can give in certain areas, if there was any real appreciation of the true economic value or true potential economic value of adequate forests. Because I am young and have not become too versed in the conservative ways of politics, I may be described as reaching for the moon, but will anybody give a practical reason why, in a problem of this nature, this Government, the previous Government or the Government before them, were not entitled to commit the credit of the country for this ultimate benefit to posterity and ask posterity to pay for it?

We approach big national problems in the wrong way. Maybe the fault is not in ourselves, but in our systems, but, wherever it lies, I am taking this, the first, opportunity I have had of airing my views on forestry in an endeavour to get somebody to tell me why the approach I suggest on a large national basis cannot be made. There is a tremendous amount of land in Ireland available for afforestation. I do not think that all the opposition spoken about by Deputy Moylan exists. My limited experience in my own constituency has been that in many areas there is an insistent cry that land be acquired and that afforestation should go ahead. I feel I should say, in fairness to all Governments in this country, that their approach to forestry was hemmed in by budgetary considerations, but the time has come when, where you have a really sound definite value with which to back the moneys you ask for, where any money asked for is backed by the ultimate return to the Exchequer which will come from State forests, this new Government—it may be a case of "third time lucky"—should establish what I describe as a completely independent forestry bureau or Department, with only the drive and the constant insistent pressing of the Houses of the Oireachtas for more activity as a check on it. So much for my general idea as to how the problem should be approached.

Taking it on that basis and taking it that the country is willing—and if it is in earnest about afforestation it must be willing—to give a considerable sum of money towards the carrying out of general forestry schemes, I would suggest that forestry be planned on the basis of getting the maximum possible done immediately, having due regard to the seed position. Side by side with that, I would suggest that the maximum possible preparation should be made to get further areas that may not be absolutely suitable for forestry into a position where they would be suitable for forestry, and that an all-out intensive search, a world-wide search, be made to try to find our seed requirements; that conditions of employment for all sections of the community engaged in forestry work be stepped up and made attractive.

I am not going to encroach much on the province of forestry workers or their wages because I have the feeling that Deputy Dunne of the Labour Party, having a good deal more knowledge than I, will most probably adequately handle that matter, but I would say that if the Government is really earnest about afforestation, the lot of the forestry worker must be radically improved. I may be countered by the argument that we have not an adequate number of trained experts to deal with forestry as I envisage it, but I would say to the Minister: let the amount of money that you are going to ask posterity to pay for the gain that ultimately is going to be posterity's, be sufficient to cover all your needs. Let it be sufficient to cover all essentials in training, equipping and getting as large a staff as is necessary to implement a complete scheme.

I know that like many other things advocated in this country what I advocate may fall on deaf ears but at least I should like to know from the present Government, through the Minister, whether they are prepared to consider the problem of afforestation on the plane I put it because I feel if it is not considered on this basis, these piecemeal contributions towards a solution of the problem will continue to an inglorious end. Let my exhortation to the Minister be: face the problem courageously, do not be afraid to look for money and to fight for money outside budgetary considerations so that you can shake off the grip of conservatism and sloth of your Department. Do not be afraid to ask posterity to pay for its own ultimate gain. Let the Minister not be afraid to try to implement and in fact to try to exceed, the stated ambition of his own Party, that we might have 60,000 acres a year planted in this country.

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Rith Coiste Talmhaíochta na hIar Mhídhe rún le goirid a iarraidh ar an Aire na sreathanna crann atá acu a ghlacadh agus a chur faoi chúram na Rannóige Foraoiseachta atá ar bun sa chontae sin. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh sé an méid sin. Fiafraím den Aire an bhfuair sé an rún sin. Iarraim, freisin, alt 50 den Acht Foraoiseachta, 1946, a chur i bhfeidhm.

A considerable amount of timber was felled in my county during the emergency years, particularly in the last two years. It indicated in one respect the value of forestry units, the value of belts of trees. They were a valuable source of wealth to the owners of the land on which the trees grew. We appreciated the difficulties during the emergency, and perhaps up to the present, of putting Section 50 of the 1946 Act into operation in the country because of the lack of net wire or rabbit wire. The Minister has indicated to us that supplies are becoming available to a greater extent. Inasmuch as they are becoming available, we ask the Minister in my constituency to put into operation Section 50 of the Act in order that land owners shall be compelled to replant the valuable belts of forest on which they cashed in during the emergency. A large amount of ditch timber was felled. Valuable ash and elm, which provided shelter and protection in the Midlands and which were a picturesque feature of our roads around there, have been removed. There were hundreds of them. In my own parish there were small ditches for which the owners got £300, £400 or £500 because of the timber in them. No attempt has been made to replant these. It may be a difficult task to implement Section 50 of the Act. In the case of the ditch timber wire netting would not be necessary.

I know that if the Minister turned the entire Army and Garda force out on this work night and day they could not keep count or a proper record of the amount of trees felled. A felling permit was given for so many trees in a district. It did not matter whether a tree was five feet thick or only 18 inches, everything went down before the axe and everything was carted to Dublin so that an area which had been under wood became in time a wilderness. Possibly some land owners will do their duty. Others are under the impression seemingly that if they fell 100 trees they need then only stick in 100 young plants into any corner in order to fulfil the conditions of the Forestry Acts. With the staff the Minister has at his disposal at the present time it would be impossible for him to enforce the full code in regard to replanting.

I was glad to hear Deputy Collins advocating a loan, if necessary, for the purpose of carrying out the various sections of the Forestry Acts. If the Minister needs a loan or a Supplementary Estimate for that purpose, he should not hesitate to ask the House for it. Apart from the commercial value of timber, Deputy Moylan has indicated how afforestation can affect climate, drainage and the fertility of land. He has indicated what has been done in America in that respect. In England, too, the British people are beginning to realise the losses they have suffered through the destruction of forests all over Great Britain and Scotland during the 1914-18 war and again during the more recent one. In the north of Scotland very successful experiments have been carried out. Up as far as the Hebrides and towards the Shetland Islands, experiments have been carried out on the sand dunes whereby the sand has been fixed. Scrub planting has then followed on that and now forests are being built up. Surely, that is something we might examine here.

I dispute with the experts, who advised the previous Government and who will probably advise the present Minister, that one cannot plant trees beyond certain heights in Ireland. The roots of the trees are there on these heights showing clearly that forests stood there in bygone days. On the Gradwell estate in my own parish the forestry unit are only going to a certain height on the hills; they will not go above 750 feet. They are not taking in the tops of the hills at all. I do not know the reason for that.

Mr. Blowick

Are they not doing the tops of the hills?

Mr. Kennedy

They are not doing the tops of the hills at all. They plant to a certain height and then stop. That is the standing policy of the forestry section of the Land Commission. I have seen forests in Germany and elsewhere going up thousands of feet. I understand that in Norway forests grow on the crags over the ocean. Here the theory is commonly held that one cannot plant successfully beyond 800 or 900 feet. I think that is a ridiculous theory and the whole position should be re-examined in the light of what has been done successfully in other countries.

In County Westmeath a short time ago, we passed a resolution asking the forestry branch of the Department of Lands to take over certain belts of wood which are now under the care of the Westmeath County Committee of Agriculture. These woods are all over the County Westmeath. They are a monument to those people who planted them when the county committees were first set up. Some of that wood proved very useful during the emergency in the county institutions and the mental home. Unfortunately the management of them is not all that can be desired.

I am not going to take up the time of the House detailing these particular belts. I am sure the information will be available to the Minister from our committee. The belts are nicely situated and the land adjoining them could be acquired, if necessary. I think the forestry branch should take over their care, maintenance and development. That is the unanimous decision of the committee, and I appeal now to the Minister to take them over.

I asked a question, either in this House or directly to the Land Commission, as to what lands were available in County Westmeath for further forestry development. I was told that the only lands on offer were the lands of Kinturk. I ask the Minister to get to work on these immediately. There will be a big labour content in them. There is a lot of drainage to be done, a lot of levelling and a lot of development. There is a good deal of cut-away bog and some marsh-land. With proper expert management by the forestry branch these could be developed, drained and planted, thereby giving much needed employment. It is noticeable that since the woods were cut in County Westmeath, cold and frost are much more severe; there is more flooding since the timber was cut down. It is somewhat remarkable that at the same levels where timber still remains standing, the ground is not marshy and provides good grazing. I am convinced from that that forestry serves a useful purpose in drying the land. At certain levels it helps to retain moisture.

I agree with the previous speakers who asked for bigger staffs and better development. I cannot see why the present Government should as an economy measure have dismissed a number of staff under the forestry branch to which I have already referred. If the Department of Lands took over Kinturk, plenty of employment could be provided there. I appeal to them to take that over and to take over also the belts to which I have referred.

Mr. Dunne

As a new Deputy in the House, I must express my disappointment at the lack of interest shown in this Estimate. That lack of interest is evident from the sparse attendance of members in the House. I think this problem of forestry is one of the most important matters with which our Government has to deal. I believe it has potentialities of which a great number of people have no conception. Deputy Moylan in the course of his remarks made a statement—practically his only statement with which I agree. It was to the effect that the Irish public very badly need to be educated on the value of afforestation. However, if we were to embark on a policy of advising the Irish people of how valuable forestry is we would need a much more ambitious scheme of advertisement and education than the mere sending of our map down to Clonakilty.

I believe it should be part of the policy of the Government to develop a campaign throughout the country to advise our people fully as to what a good, well-developed, programme of reafforestation can mean. Deputy Moylan stated that the target of 60,000 acres per year was not alone an impossible target but an undesirable one. He did not state why he thought it was undesirable or even why he thought it was impossible. To my mind it is both desirable and possible. If we examine the details of the working of the Forestry Section of the Department we will find that what previous speakers have referred to is entirely true. We find very grave understaffing. We also find a decided lack of imagination on the part of the responsible Minister and the senior officials who have dealt with this problem in the past. British rule in Ireland was responsible, in a large measure, for the denuding of this country of a great deal of its timber. That was done with a purpose. It was done because the British realised that by denuding our country of its timber they were helping to impoverish it. The reverse, that the more timber we grow the more we enrich our country, must also apply. One of the foremost authorities on afforestation has stated that the greatest loss a country can sustain is the loss of its forests.

Reference was made, I think by Deputy Moylan, to the need for soil examination. It is undoubtedly true that one of the first steps that must be taken, in so far as the growing of trees is concerned, is to secure a scientific survey of the potentialities of our soil. I am sorry Deputy Moylan has left the House because I would have liked to ask him how it was that such a survey was not undertaken over the past long number of years—why, when the previous Government was in office, they did not take the opportunity which they then had to embark on such a survey.

The number of acres in this country that are or could be made available for forestry is, I believe, a question of opinion. I am told that successive Ministers in the different Governments which we have had in this country hitherto have insisted that we have not in the country an area of more than 300,000 acres suitable for planting. A commission was set up by the British Government in 1906 who gave as their opinion that the total amount of land available for reafforestation was in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 acres. I do not consider for one moment that any political Party which advocated the maximum reafforestation was speaking foolishly or that it was indulging in flights of imagination. I believe there is no greater enterprise which can have a larger labour content than the planting of trees. I would urge our present Minister for Lands most strongly to bring to this question of afforestation a desire, which has not been evidenced in the past, to inflame the imagination of the entire country as to the great potentialities of reafforestation. We need a completely new policy in this regard. Deputy Moylan spoke of 10,000 acres per annum as being something which should be striven for. It seems to me that that is a policy of restriction and one which holds out very little hope for the future of forestry in the country generally.

I wish to refer especially to the question of forestry labourers. I regret that the Minister did not deal with this very fully in his statement—he made a passing reference to it and no more. They are a body of men who have been the subject of many Parliamentary questions here from time to time in years gone by. I consider that forestry labourers form one of the most unjustly treated sections of workers in the country. Deputy Moylan stated that their wages are geared to those of the agricultural workers. Why are they so geared? Is there any good reason why there should be that relationship between the wages? I have a considerable amount of experience dealing with this question and I have never yet heard a convincing argument brought forward to support the contention that because a farmer working a small, uneconomic farm—bad land—cannot pay more than a certain figure, the forestry worker logically, must not receive more. I think that is a very bad policy, one which must be abandoned.

Deputy Moylan complained—and it certainly is to me a novel experience to hear him complaining—that the increase for forestry labourers had been delayed. They have so far received an increase of three shillings since the Agricultural Wages Board increased the minimum rate by five shillings. I feel confident that the Minister will listen to the demand of forestry workers all over Ireland that the policy of tying their wages down to the level which obtains in respect of agricultural labourers should be thrown overboard, abandoned. There should be an admission of the fact that these men who work in the nurseries and in the forests of the country, in very great hardship most of the time, should receive at least a reasonable rate of wages. Nobody, I am sure, will argue that the wages they are receiving can be described as living wages. There is no reason whatsoever why this State should not make available to these men a wage on which they can live.

Wherever forestry workers are employed, I am certain that Deputies are aware of the hardships they undergo. I know cases of hardship even in my own constituency in County Dublin, which has been neglected to a great extent so far as reafforestation is concerned. In that county there are cases of workers who have to travel up to eight miles across open mountain before they start work. They must leave their homes at six or before six o'clock, get out on the bleak mountainside, and be available to start work at the usual starting time. Not alone that, but they have so far been denied protective clothing of any kind. I would have liked to have asked Deputy Moylan on how many occasions he refused the request that forestry workers be provided with rubber boots, which is a simple requirement that any reasonable employer will provide.

Men who work in the nurseries and forests are skilled. Many of them are engaged upon what are relatively dangerous occupations. As regards timber fellers and sawyers, any man who has worked in rural areas or any Deputy with experience of this class of work knows well that the worker who has to knock timber or work a saw-bench is in continual danger. Although in other employment such workers are given special consideration, these workers employed by the forestry branch have hitherto been denied any kind of reasonable consideration. I brought to the notice of the Minister instances where such workers have been denied an opportunity even to attend Mass on Holydays.

Deputies have an opportunity of discussing the policy and the administration of the Department on occasions such as this. There are two things that struck me forcibly on this Estimate. We must have a new outlook so far as forestry is concerned, and we must build that outlook on the principle of fair and equitable treatment for forestry workers.

There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. It relates to the wages of forestry workers. These workers, although reduced as it were to the level of agricultural labourers, must yet pay a greater rate by way of national health contribution than is required from agricultural labourers. It may seem a small matter, a difference of 2d. per week, but it is not so small to the men who are-concerned. I ask the Minister to take steps to have that complaint remedied.

Much has been said here concerning unemployment in different areas. I am one who subscribes to the view that it is the Government's duty to see that every worker who is able to work should be provided with an opportunity to do so. Here, I believe, is one avenue whereby work can be provided for any unemployed we may have, work of a productive nature which will enrich the country, not work of a type which will leave unwanted piles of fuel on our hands, such as we now have in the Phoenix Park. It is work which will mean in time to come that the country will be richer than it is; it is work upon the results of which future generations can look and say that the Government responsible for it had indeed done well by the nation.

Mr. Cogan

This is a deliberative Assembly. We have the right to inquire into the working of every Government Department, and, as far as it lies in our power, to give whatever help we can to the Minister with a view to greater efficiency. There is one thing that many of us have to complain of. It is difficult for us to obtain the accurate information which we require in order to form a clear idea as to how the Department is working or what it ought to set out to achieve. Some time ago I asked the Minister a question, and I must apologise for asking a question at a time when the Minister was so new in office—I think he was only a week in office at the time. I asked the question with a view to obtaining information which would enable me, and other Deputies too, I suppose, to form a clear idea of the value of the work which is being done. I asked the Minister to state the net average profit on State forests. I did not ask for definite figures but for an approximate estimate of that profit. The Minister, in his reply, said that he could not give such an estimate as it takes from 50 to 100 years for a forest to mature, and that in any case the work of afforestation was not undertaken solely for the profit. I quite agree with those two statements; the work of the Forestry Department is not undertaken exclusively as a commercial undertaking, but at the same time it is necessary, in order to make progress in this matter, to be able to compare the value of an acre of timber with the value of the same acre of land if it were utilised for agricultural purposes. We must remember that there will always be a considerable amount of land which can be utilised either for agricultural purposes or for planting You have the type of high, dry land on hillsides which, with a little reclamation, a little application of fertilisers, could be turned into good grazing land. It is of little value at the present time but it could be turned into agricultural land suitable for grazing sheep. You have to decide whether it would be better in the national interests—you have always to look at a case of this kind in the national interests—to utilise this land for sheep grazing or to utilise it for the production of timber. If we have an accurate estimate, or rather an approximate estimate, of the value of native timber and the cost of production, we might be able to come to a decision more readily between utilising that type of land for grazing sheep or for afforestation. But we have never got that estimate and we can never get it, I am afraid, and that is a mistake.

In connection with afforestation, we do not come up against the same difficulties as the Minister and all of us come up against in the administration of the Department of Lands regarding the acquisition and division of land. In afforestation you are dealing with a work of national development; you are seeking to provide a national asset; you are not taking property from one set of individuals to give it to another; you are taking property from its present owners to utilise it for national development. You have not the ancient clash between the haves and the have nots, but you have, perhaps, a clash of interests between the community and an individual. In the main, the Forestry Department have always sought to meet the existing owners in a fair and reasonable way and wherever possible to give a fair exchange to the existing owners who are dispossessed.

I think it is possible to form an accurate estimate of the acreage of land which we require for afforestation. On this question we should be guided mainly—and we must be guided mainly —by national requirements, and consideration of what would be a reasonable measure of self-sufficiency in the matter of timber must be a guiding factor in deciding the acreage of timber which we are going to plant. Having regard to the ever increasing need for timber for various purposes, such as housing and so on, we must recognise that the acreage which the nation will require will be very substantial and that the present rate of afforestation is only tinkering with the problem. We need not a double or a treble increase but an almost tenfold increase on the existing annual plantation. I think that can be done but it requires a great national effort and it requires the provision of a very substantial amount of finance. In this connection I have often wondered why it is—since the provision of State forests is the establishment of a national asset—that it is not considered desirable to borrow for the purpose of creating more State forests. I do not know why afforestation should be paid for out of current taxation. Since we are establishing an asset that will benefit posterity, I think that it would be only right and proper that posterity should pay their share of the cost.

I can readily see that there will always be difficulties, as the Minister said in his opening statement—and I know those difficulties perhaps as well as the Minister—in acquiring land and in meeting all the claims of the various people who are interested in that land. Most hill land is owned jointly by a number of owners and there is difficulty in meeting all their rival claims and even in ascertaining the number of people who have legal rights in an area of land. With goodwill, however, and with the support of public opinion generally, I think it should be possible to move forward much more rapidly than the Department are doing at present.

I have said that the Department almost invariably treat existing owners fairly and I think that is only right and proper. When you disturb a person's right of ownership and dispossess a person of his property, it is only right that he should get the full market value of that property and even in some cases some little compensation for being dispossessed. I know in my own constituency when the Electricity Supply Board decided to acquire a large area of country for hydro-electric development, they paid the full market value of the land and compensation for the disturbance. It is only fair and right, proper and desirable that the policy of the Forestry Department should be to treat the existing owners fairly.

There will always be a conflict of opinion with regard to what particular land is suitable for planting and what land is unsuitable. Deputy Kennedy suggested that there is a tendency on the part of the Department not to plant on higher lands. I am sure the Forestry Department have good grounds for any action they have taken in this matter. I am sure they have made many tests and experiments in regard to it. Having regard to the difficulty they have in acquiring land, they would be exceedingly foolish if they were to leave high mountainy land bare and unplanted after acquiring it. That is a matter about which we may differ, but it is a matter which must be handled carefully. I know that in recent years quite a number of plantations were damaged by the severe frost. I do not know to what extent they were damaged, but I know it was fairly extensive, thus revealing the fact that everything is not plain sailing in the matter of planting trees. It is not merely a question of putting them down and they will go ahead. A lot of things have to be considered, such as the nature and type of land and the type of plantation that is suitable. But, having regard to the enormous work that has to be undertaken and the amount of money and effort that will have to be put into it, it is essential that the work should be carried out on the most thorough and efficient lines.

Farmers are often accused of being antiquated in their efforts, of failing to utilise up-to-date mechanisation. It is only right, therefore, to draw the attention of the Minister to the desirability of the Forestry Department utilising the most modern and up-to-date methods of clearing land and of draining and fencing it. The most modern and up-to-date machinery should be acquired. I agree with Deputy Dunne that it is most desirable that Forestry Department workers should be well paid. These men have to undertake work of a very strenuous type. It must be remembered also that many of them are highly skilled. They have got to learn their trade over a number of years. A man does not become a skilled forestry worker within a year or two years. It takes quite a long time to become fully trained. It is only right, therefore, that such men should be reasonably paid.

Another matter that often struck me is that we all recognise that forestry workers, by the nature of their work, have frequently to travel long distances to work. It is desirable, therefore, that some system of transport should be provided wherever necessary. It is unfair to expect men to travel long distances on bicycles or to walk long distances to their work. When they have to travel long distances by road, they should be provided with some sort of mechanical transport. Having travelled a considerable distance by road, we all know that they often have to travel a long distance across hills to their work. So far as the road portion of the journey is concerned, they should be given means of transport. Everything should be done to get the utmost output from the number of men engaged, and every assistance should be given to them in the way of mechanisation and also in the way of transport. These things are necessary if we are to make progress.

One of the difficulties the Department always complained of coming up against is securing a sufficiently large area for plantation in the one place. I have commented on that in this House in the past and I think it is necessary to direct attention to the problem again. From a national point of view and the point of view improving the general appearance of the country, we all know that it would be much better if we could have more plantations scattered about the length and breadth of the country. It would be much better if we could secure planting in very much smaller areas than the Department at present considers economic. I know the difficulty that arises in regard to fencing and supervision. Nevertheless, the desirability of having smaller areas of plantation scattered throughout the country is so urgent that I think this problem should be considered again. If anything could be done to reduce the cost of fencing or to improve the method of supervision, it should be done. You can get areas in every parish of five, ten, 20 or 30 acres which would be very useful for afforestation, but which, under the present policy of the Department, are considered uneconomic. Yet, though the Department may consider them uneconomic, they would be better almost from every point of view.

I was interested in the statement made by Deputy Kennedy that the County Committee of Agriculture in Westmeath were seeking to induce the Forestry Department to take over certain woods planted by the county committee in former years. I would be rather inclined to think that the development should be in the opposite direction, that we should be travelling more in the direction of decentralisation. I think the Forestry Department should be endeavouring to get local committees to take control of small woods. One Deputy said that the British during their régime denuded the country completely of timber. I do not know how far that may be true; it may be true of certain parts of the country.

We all know, however, that what was known as the British garrison, the landlords, in many areas tried to provide for forestry. They did provide woodlands which were very desirable. Unfortunately, in some places when the landlords were got rid of the woods were also got rid of. I think that some kind of local organisation or committee should take the place of these big land owners in the various parishes and, with the assistance and cooperation of the Forestry Department, plant lands which were formerly planted and plant small areas which are eminently suitable for planting. There may be small areas of ten or 20 acres which the individual farmer might be unable or unwilling to plant but which a local committee could undertake to plant. It would be a very progressive step to provide the capital for such local or district committees by way of a long-term loan, which would enable them to acquire an area of waste land and to plant it. That would encourage local initiative. It would help local people to take an active interest in beautifying their localities. It would encourage the local or district forestry committee to take an active interest in their own areas and it would give them a valuable asset which they could own and develop and in which they could take pride. There is no reason why that should not be done. Of course, at present, there is a scheme whereby farmers may obtain assistance from the Forestry Department to plant up to five acres but in many cases the farmer who owns the waste land is not in a position to avail of that assistance. A local committee, if provided with a long-term loan, could much more easily undertake it and in that way would be contributing their quota to the great work of the reafforestation of the country.

I think it was Deputy Seán Dunne who said that the British estimated that 2,000,000 acres were available for planting in this country. That would be a reasonable estimate and I think that amount could be secured if we were prepared to undertake the planting of the smaller areas to which I have referred. In every parish and district there are small patches of waste land which are simply crying out for forestry, which are of very little value at present but which could be turned into a national asset.

I do not know to what extent experiments have been carried out to test the value of low-lying lands for forestry purposes. We all talk a lot about 5,000,000 acres of waste land. A certain proportion of that is certainly on a high elevation and an even larger amount is boggy, low-lying land. It is a question how much of that land could be drained and utilised for afforestation. If we are ever to reach the target of 2,000,000 acres under forests, we will have to bring in some of that land for planting.

I would again urge the Minister to do two things. First of all, I would like him to investigate costs—costs of acquisition and maintenance generally. We, as a deliberative assembly, would like to know exactly what it costs to produce an acre of timber and the estimated value of that timber when produced. Having got that information, we would like to think that the Department of Forestry were concentrating their energies upon reducing costs by stepping up efficiency and by cutting out unnecessary expenditure. We all know that farmers are often blamed for the round-about and antediluvian methods they adopt on their farms. We would like to think that the Forestry Department were adopting the most modern and most up-to-date methods. There is room for a certain amount of mechanisation in afforestation. There is room for better organisation to eliminate waste of time in many directions. That is why I consider checking up on costs so essential. It is only by making the Department as efficient as possible that we can hope to produce the acreage that is required, and to produce it at a reasonable cost.

Finally, I want to direct the Minister's attention again to the question of finance. Some means should be found of raising the money for afforestation and it should be raised at the lowest possible rate of interest. Forestry involves a high rate of expenditure and a very long period must elapse before there is a return. It is therefore essential that the rate of interest at which the money is obtained should be as low as possible.

In one of the Minority Reports of the Banking Commission it was recommended that a development commission should be set up which should have power to raise the money required for development work, including afforestation, by the issue of credit. I do not know whether that report has been seriously examined by the present Government but I believe that afforestation is one of the types of national development work for which credit is required at the lowest possible rate of interest.

Mr. Derrig

I think the Minister has the assurance from all parts of the House that Dáil Eireann is very keenly interested in the development of afforestation and that any steps which he may take to expand the programme, to make the work more efficient or to create more employment will be enthusiastically supported. At the same time, those of us who have had experience of the administration of forestry work, as well as giving some views based on our experience, whatever their value, are in duty bound to suggest that if we are to get the best value for the country and the best return—those who are most enthusiastically in favour of afforestation will not deny that these also should be objects of our interest—we ought to approach the problem somewhat more realistically than some Deputies who are new to the House seem to view it. In the first place, we have not had very long experience of afforestation. Reference is made from time to time to reports by English commissions, but these commissions, I suggest, cannot possibly give us the data or the evidence that is necessary to help us to come to conclusions as to what are the best courses to pursue in this matter. That can be obtained only by experience. We have had a good deal of experience now since the Irish Government was established.

In the first place, I would suggest that if we are to obtain the best results from discussion here we must, as Deputy Moylan suggested, address ourselves to what has been accomplished and what has not been accomplished. If Deputies feel that the accomplishments have not been up to expectations and want to know the reasons why, they will have to study the question from the administrative point of view rather than from British Blue Books or criticisms by those who have no real experience of afforestation. What we do know, and what the war brought home to us in a way that nothing else could, is that it is a very serious matter for a country to find itself so completely dependent on timber imports as we found ourselves. We are still suffering from that position. In justification of the policy of making ourselves as far as possible self-supporting eventually in regard to timber, we are safe in assuming that not for a very long period of time, perhaps never again, will timber become available from North America as freely as it has been. The forests there must be dwindling very rapidly, having regard to the demands that are being made upon them for pulp and other purposes. As far as Eastern Europe and the Baltic States are concerned, with the political condition of Europe and the fact that it is being severed into two blocs—which will, as present indications go, scarcely conduct normal trade relations again in the way they were accustomed to formerly—it looks as if the timber supply for the future, so necessary for our housing programme, will be considerably curtailed. Therefore, from that point of view, it seems to be extremely difficult to find the answer to those who strongly favour, as I do, going ahead as fast and as fully as we can with plans for the expansion of afforestation.

As well as providing a very necessary raw material which we cannot get on without, at certain times of the year when agricultural work is slack afforestation work is of extreme value in providing employment in the rural areas. Although at the present time agriculture is in a comparatively prosperous condition, we do not know whether that will continue for a long period. We may be faced again with the situation we had after the first world war, when there was a general agricultural depression here and throughout the world. In such circumstances, we may be very glad to find that we have large afforestation schemes which give constant employment and which, in times of such depression, are able to absorb an additional labour force.

The most serious question that the forestry branch is faced with is land acquisition. As the Minister has pointed out, unless there is a very substantial acquisition from year to year, based even on the target of 10,000 acres of plantation per year—which, in fact, has never been reached—and unless we turn our minds to building up such a reservoir as will enable that programme to be carried out and expanded over a period of years and unless we can fairly rapidly and speedily within the next three or four years expand the available pool of land, it is quite obvious that afforestation work cannot be expanded. As Deputy Moylan pointed out, the difficulty is that we have not a public opinion in this country on afforestation, an informed opinion to strengthen the hand of the administration in going ahead with its development. We have certain people interested and enthusiastic but, as Deputy Moylan said, the country generally and especially the rural areas apart from those where there are forestry centres and where employment is given, show very little interest. In fact, if Deputies pursue this question, they will find that there is a certain rivalry between the agricultural interests and the interests that look for more afforestation. If we are not extremely careful in dealing with that opinion, the afforestation side will suffer. Nearly half our population is interested directly in agriculture and unless it is brought home to them that it is to their advantage as well as to the advantage of the community in the long run, to expand afforestation in existing centres and in new centres where there is suitable land, we will not get the goodwill which is necessary.

Deputy Moylan put his finger on the key difficulty when he pointed out that for the relief of congestion there are powers of land acquisition. I gather that even the Minister feels that those powers may not be sufficiently drastic to enable him to do what he would like for the congests in the West. Now, whether the powers of the Land Commission are sufficiently drastic or not, no such powers are held by the Forestry Branch. If one asks why such powers were not sought and whether the Dáil would not have been willing to give them, the answer is that the Dáil probably would—and I feel that those powers will have to be secured in the long run. If, however, we are going to make progress and go into new areas, where farmers are interested in mountain grazing on a large scale and where that is important to their economy, it is just not sufficient to take over those lands and say they are necessary in the national interest. There must be a campaign in which the local interest would be fully alert to the advantages and realise that any disadvantages they might see would be overcome and set at nought by the advantages in other directions. We have to apply ourselves to the mentality of the individual farmer who is interested in this mountain grazing, who has been in possession of it for a very long time or who feels that he may secure it. His legal rights may be questionable, but he feels that he could make better use of the land than the Forestry Branch. So long as that state of affairs continues, you will have these difficulties, which have arisen not alone in the areas to which Deputy Moylan referred, but in almost every area in the eastern and southern counties, outside County Wicklow, where it was obviously good policy for the Government to acquire very large tracts of land needed for afforestation.

These areas must have reasonably good land. The land must be drained or it is not going to produce commercial timber. It may produce scrub or something that might be described as useful from the point of view of shelter or climate, but it will not give anything like the return from the point of view of being utilised as commercial timber unless the land is reasonably good. Unless the shelter and the elevation are suitable, good results will not be obtained. If there is serious exposure, the land will not be suitable for afforestation, if our objective is to produce commercial timber. Our assumption was that 600,000 acres of land under forest would be the greater part, if not the whole, of our requirements and would, in the main, enable us to be self-contained as far as wood and timber were concerned. If you have regard to the fact that some 450,000 acres or perhaps 500,000 acres more of plantation is necessary, you will see at once that very large areas must be acquired. It takes the same amount of legal procedure, the same amount of time, perhaps not the same amount of cost—I do not suppose that would mean anything significant—to acquire a comparatively small amount of land as it does to acquire a large amount. At the present time, with the work of afforestation scattered throughout the country at over 100 different centres, it follows that all that makes the programme of work very difficult.

The Minister has given particulars of the preliminary steps that are necessary, first of all, to ensure that from year to year you have sufficient in the pool, and not merely sufficient to accommodate you for the coming year or coming two years, because you cannot plant exactly the mathematical proportion that you would like at each one of your 100 centres. Each year you have to allow for a certain amount of give and take. That means that the pool will have to be sufficient to carry out the programme as a whole for several years. There is also the difficulty that he referred to of planning your nursery requirements. Having regard to the fact that these young trees will be about three years when they are transplanted, that aspect of the work takes a number of years of rotational work. Then again you have to have regard to the different species that you require. In regard to the acquisition of land and nursery requirements, you must have in your mind the fact that you have over 100 centres in the country to deal with, as well as staff and other things. Deputies will see, therefore, that it is not at all easy to work out a programme.

Moreover, the Forestry Branch is limited. It has to get sanction from the Department of Finance from year to year for its requirements. It is not an independent body like the Electricity Supply Board, which can raise money itself for its own purposes. The Forestry Branch has to get sanction, so that all questions with regard to wages and other necessary things which arise in the course of administration must receive Finance sanction. That means, perhaps, that it is not, obviously, so easy to plan a long-term programme under a Government Department. I believe that it is not as easy as if the planning body was independent and was able, as I have said, to finance its operations in its own way.

The areas that it is believed offer the greatest potentialities for the expansion of afforestation include, of course, Wicklow, which is in the premier place and which has received a good deal of attention in years past, and other mountain areas which are not too exposed such, as for example, the Slievebloom area, the Waterford area and the South Tipperary area across into Cork and Limerick, and perhaps the Blackstairs area. Unless some procedure is adopted by which the Minister will be empowered to schedule large tracts of land in those four or five chief areas where expansion seems most worth while, where it would be most economical and could be done most efficiently, where he has already a very large amount of planting done, where he has an organisation and where clearly it must be more economical to proceed with further work than to go to isolated centres which are small and where land is difficult to obtain, I do not think we can make progress. If we are to have regard to the fact, which I have already emphasised, that unless the reservoir of land in the pool is sufficient at the beginning of any particular year to cover the programme for at least three or four years ahead, you will not be able to make your plans, and you will not be able to work out things in the way that you would wish, whatever the authority might be.

Deputy Dunne referred to the question of agricultural wages and asked why should the wages of forestry workers be geared, as it has been called, to the level of agricultural wages generally. Well, the position is that the level of agricultural wages in this country is very important from the point of view of our chief occupation and chief industry. In the first Great War—Deputy Dunne will correct me if I am wrong—large increases of wages were secured for farm workers. Farming was then, as it is now, in a rather prosperous condition. Prices were high and returns were good.

Farmers were not looking forward to any depression in the future and, willingly or unwillingly, they increased the wages of their workers, but, after the war when the depression came about and prices fell, it became clear to everybody, even to those responsible in the labour organisations, that you could not maintain the wage standards of the war period. The result was that you had strife and discord and a very serious conflict indeed. Perhaps we are not in danger of such conflicts now since we have an Agricultural Wages Board to which the farmers and their workers can go to settle their differences. At any rate, there is always the possibility that if agricultural wages, or other wages related to them, are forced to unduly high levels, later on adjustment, if adjustment becomes necessary, will be more difficult. It has been stated by the Minister for Finance—we have had a great deal of reference to it in the course of the Budget debates—that, unless there are very exceptional reasons, increases in wages should not be sought. It is admitted in many countries and by many statement that where prices follow wages, the wage carner who thinks he is better off because he has got an increase may, in the end, find himself worse off because his real wage, and what he can get for it, has actually decreased.

I want to state that, as far as the County Dublin, for example, is concerned, the wages of agricultural labourers in it are higher than they are elsewhere, and so are the wages of forestry workers, accordingly. Undoubtedly, the forestry worker has a very difficult occupation. He has to be out in the open; he suffers a great deal from wetting and exposure, but in some ways he is perhaps better off than the agricultural worker.

I am not going to say that either section are as well off as we would wish them to be, but those working on the land for farmers are generally envious of those in regular employment, on either county council or other schemes, because they regard them as having certain advantages. They work regular hours; they are in company; and they are in a position very often to secure advantages and privileges which the agricultural worker may not be in a position to get in his occupation. The agricultural worker undoubtedly feels that workers in other comparable occupations in rural areas, on local authority or Government schemes, are better off. They have more permanent employment and more security. Their hours are shorter, and, through their organisations, they have from time to time been enabled to improve their working conditions.

One of the great difficulties, in my view, so far as wage levels generally are concerned in this country, is that, under these national schemes, wages are set up which have relation to the particular levels in Dublin, or round about it, but which are out of proportion in certain other rural areas, and I suggest that, in fixing wages, having regard to rural conditions and rural employment generally, the Forestry Branch and the Ministers responsible have had a certain amount of justification on their side. There are two sides to the question. You may, if you wish, take up the attitude that any organisation in this country, organised in a national way and having support throughout the country, and particularly if it is in a position to enforce its demands upon the rest of the community by withdrawing some essential service from the people, is quite entitled to do so, that that is the only way progress can be made, from the labour point of view; but I suggest that there are other larger considerations, that every section of the community must get fair play from the Government of the day and that they certainly must have regard for the interests and the economy of the farming community.

If the position is that farming is to be mechanised, if we are to produce a great deal more and if it be that, with a higher level of wages, we are able to get more productivity, to get more out of the land and therefore ought to be able to pay better remuneration and give better conditions to workers on the land, then, as Deputy Cogan says, if we apply the same economics of mechanisation to afforestation or to anything else, and if we can get a greater output, a better return, there is no reason whatever why, side by side with that, working conditions should not be improved; but those who address themselves seriously to this question or to any other question of wages will have to realise, if they face the position frankly, that, as the Swedish Prime Minister said some time ago, increases in wages for any section of the community without a comparable increase in production in the industry mean nothing. If you are to get real progress and if you are not to be faced with a position later on in which you have to retrace your steps after a good deal of trouble, confusion and perhaps dissension in the country, you will have to examine the question of how, side by side with improving wages and working conditions, the standard of production can be improved.

In the Forestry Branch, a principle was introduced which, I think, was rather valuable. As the position of the agricultural worker and the forestry labourer, who seemed to be in competition in certain areas, was difficult of reconcilement, a device was instituted, by which, after a period of, say, three years, the forestry worker was graded as a skilled man. His remuneration increased accordingly and he received certain increments.

Through the Labour Court, the labour organisations have been able to improve their position. Every time they went to it, they have either been able to secure increased wages or better working conditions, or both. If they did not succeed in securing them and if they did not think it right to force the issue and compel the community to accede fully to their demands, they always had the option, which I think is one of the most valuable things about both the Labour Court and the Agricultural Wages Board, that they could go back again if conditions changed or if they were able to show that the circumstances of the times were pressing unduly upon them, and have the matter reviewed.

We have then the present system of grading, having regard to agricultural wage levels in the different areas, and this principle that has been introduced of giving special recognition to men who have spent three years on forestry work. If others in the House think that that is not the best way to approach the situation, they may have it their way, but, in my opinion, afforestation and the interests of the country generally will suffer if we do not have regard to the reactions of what we may do in respect of wages to forestry workers upon wages and conditions in agriculture generally.

Mr. Desmond

My colleague, Deputy Dunne, concentrated on the conditions and pay of forestry workers and it was not my intention to dwell on that point. My idea was to deal with a few other points concerning forestry, but, in view of the statements made by Deputy Derrig, a few words on the subject will not be out of place. It has struck me forcibly for a long time that the old capitalist idea of supply and demand is at the root of the wage question in rural Ireland, and it seems clear from the attitude of the Government in this country in the past that they adhered to that principle. Deputy Derrig mentioned that these workers had the right to go before the Agricultural Wages Board, but I want to say here—and I shall be surprised if Deputy Derrig and other Deputies are not aware of it—that the Agricultural Wages Board is a board packed against the workers. Apparently, the trouble was that, if a higher rate of wages and better conditions were given to forestry workers, it would interfere with agriculture. May I now ask that is the reason why our agricultural industry at present is so far behind? If we had a little more competition, through an intensive forestry campaign, against the methods employed in agriculture, perhaps agriculture would not be to-day in the deplorable condition in which we find it. I leave the question of wages with that statement.

Looking through the Estimates there are a few points that strike me—the question of salary for the director and the question of salaries for the inspectors and mapping staff. I do not have to say that I am not objecting to the salaries these officials are getting but there is just one remark I wish to make on the question of the mapping staff. The word "forest" has been frequently used in this debate. I believe that after all the years of self-government in this country we are in a forest of bewilderment. Progress for the last 25 or 26 years in connection with reafforestation certainly cannot be said to have been on any extensive scale in this country. Deputy Moylan may point out—in justice to him perhaps I should say he is right—the difficulties that arose in the last few years but Deputy Moylan cannot say that these self-same difficulties faced the Department, and above all the responsible Minister, in the years before the war. I condemn not alone Fianna Fáil but the Government which preceded them for their attitude towards reafforestation. Many Deputies here have spoken about drainage, a very important subject in itself, but do they realise that, no matter how many million pounds we spend in connection with drainage schemes, unless we are going to put the land surrounding these valleys and rivers under timber, within a number of years we shall again be faced, through continuous downfalls forcing the soil from these woodland areas into the adjoining rivers thereby causing further silting, with more flooding which will eventually mean the expenditure of further considerable sums for drainage purposes?

The Minister in opening the debate mentioned one matter and I wonder whether it indicated another point upon which we are going to disagree. I refer to his statement that nothing under 300 acres would be worth taking over. I believe that has been the policy in the past but I sincerely hope it is not going to be the policy of the present Minister. In South Cork, we have large tracts of land which are fit for reafforestation. The late Deputy Hugo Flinn, God rest his soul, in the course of an election campaign in the Donoughmore district, referred to the necessity for planting the Baurahauring area. In justice to him, let it be said that he sent an inspector there after the election but, of course, what was not surprising, the report of the inspector was that the soil was not suitable. It is strange that the soil was suitable in years gone by for the growing of timber. Since our own native Government took power, the soil has altered so much that it is not now suitable for growing timber. I know that during the last five or six years when timber was cut down in many areas there was a price fixed for standing timber of about 7/6 per ton, but I say openly here in this House that the owners of this timber charged as much as 22/- and 23/- per ton for it. The people had to pay that price for it, they had no alternative because they were in areas where they were unable to get turf plots and they had to depend on timber for fuel. The owners of these wooded areas, after making fabulous charges for the timber —and I say openly that the prices were fabulous—were assisted to replant these areas. That is again where the joke is continued.

I spoke on this matter in the Budget debate and, though at all times I dislike repeating myself, I still consider this subject of such importance that I think it right to concentrate on it. I remember speaking to a man some time ago who had experience of afforestation in Germany. This man informed me that during the 1914 war prisoners of war were employed at cutting timber in the forests. When the trees were felled, the men had to lift the roots from the soil and the roots were sold at a cheap rate locally. Before the replanting process was undertaken, the ground had to be prepared practically as carefully as we here in this country would prepare a kitchen garden. Here in the Twenty-Six Counties, or in South Cork at any rate, certain people, after getting three times the price to which they were entitled for timber and after being subsidised in connection with replanting, paid men 5/- or 6/- per day who were occupied at the work. They had not to lift the roots out of the ground nor did they clear the ground of briars and all sorts of dirt that encumbered the place. No matter what Minister was in power, surely the inspectors of the Department should realise that it is part of their duty to see that the owners of these woodlands should be forced to ensure that the planting of the young saplings was carried out under proper conditions. It is true that the first four or five years are the most important part of the life of the young tree, and when we consider that these roots were left in the ground, within a foot or two of the young saplings, we can quite realise that when these young trees or saplings come to maturity as timber they will be fit for nothing else but firewood. They are bound to be warped. The presence of briars and all sorts of dirt choking the young trees will ensure that the trees will never mature to timber of proper quality. All that is going on and nothing is said about it.

In this country we have but 1 per cent. of our total area under timber. We may say a lot about England. We know that England is an industrial country and yet in England to-day there is up to or over 7 per cent. of the land under timber. Further they have now a special forestry commission set up to acquire land and to abolish a lot of the red tape that probably existed there in the past and that exists here to-day. I hope that the Minister will do all in his power here to cut out red tape. In France there is 18 per cent. of the land under timber. Deputy Derrig mentioned the question of climatic conditions. Is it not strange that climatic conditions should hinder afforestation here, when we realise that in northern countries like Sweden there is 22 or 23 per cent. of the area under timber? In Finland, another northern country whose climatic conditions are not as favourable for the growing of timber as ours are, there is 40 per cent. of the land under timber. Yet Deputies stand up here and say we are progressing in the year 1948 when we have 1 per cent. of our area under timber. We see land in South Cork which is valued at the present time at about 3/- per acre. If that land were put under timber in not so many years it would average from £23 to £25 per acre for valuation purposes. Would not that be an advantage to the State? Surely all these factors should be taken into consideration when we consider the subject of afforestation.

With regard to the area under afforestation, I know that in my constituency in Cork there are huge tracts covered in furze and gorse. To anyone with a poetic mind gorse in bloom in summertime may be a very pretty thing, but it is very little consolation to the unemployed in rural Ireland who are writing to Deputies in this House every other day asking if there is any hope of work. It is small consolation to them to tell them we are waiting for the bloom to go off the gorse and that we shall then concentrate on giving them employment on reafforestation work. The experts may tell us that it is not profitable to plant an area under 300 acres. Perhaps I am a poor judge in matters like this, but I would tell the experts that more than book learning is required. Experience can teach too. In order to find out whether timber growing is profitable on areas of less than 300 acres, we must ask some questions. Do the experts realise the amount of work that would be provided in the rural areas in preparing the ground and in the growing of timber? Do they realise that employment given in that way could effect a saving to the State in regard to the labour exchanges? Do they realise that for the money paid on that employment a dividend will accrue in the future? Do they realise that large tracts of land could be brought up for valuation purposes to £23 or £24 per acre per annum? Do they realise that at present in Sweden afforestation, and the industries allied to it, are giving employment to many people, while here in Ireland we are giving employment to a miserable 4,000?

I say to these experts that afforestation must be considered as a subject vastly different from anything that has been considered by our Government up to this. It is in a vastly different position from that of the industrialist in Cork or Dublin who, when he considers any outlay made by him, considers how long he must wait until he reaps a return plus a profit on his outlay. We cannot look for a quick return on timber growing. The importance of afforestation is not whether it will bring an advantage to us. We are something passing. At some stage we will cease to be members of this House. But we have a duty as Deputies in regard to the future. We cannot reap a reward but the nation as a whole will reap a reward in the years to come. It is for the future that we plan and it is to the future we must look. I ask the Minister to concentrate as much of his attention as possible on this question of reafforestation. By afforestation we can build up agriculture. It is because agriculture has had no competition in the past that it has failed so miserably. We have only ourselves to blame for that.

I know that Corkmen are supposed to be very loyal to their own but, as a Corkman, I have to admit that a Corkman failed as Minister for Lands.

Mr. Moylan

I am not a Corkman.

Mr. Desmond

I am speaking of a Corkman in the past.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Moylan thinks you are referring to him as a failure. I wonder why is that.

Mr. Desmond

There is one favourite Irish air of mine—The West's Awake —The West's Awake—I say to the Minister that I hope he will be awake to the big responsibility he has undertaken in connection with reafforestation.

Would the Deputy say why the ex-Minister for Defence granted permits to cut timber in bivouac areas so marked by the Army?

Mr. Little

I cannot give the Deputy any answer to that. I was not the Minister in charge. I am perfectly certain, however, that he had a very excellent reason for it. I know there were very strict rules about cutting trees along the roadsides during the emergency period.

In conclusion, I should like to ask if a more intensive propaganda campaign can be carried out with reference to shelter belts. I know that the terms of £10 an acre, and so forth are excellent. I feel, however, that the enormous value, from the point of view of the land, of having these shelter belts developed all over the country is not sufficiently brought home.

Mr. McAuliffe

There are only a few matters on which I should like to comment on this Estimate. A question was asked by the ex-Minister for Lands, Deputy Moylan, as to why a certain section of employees who were employed in the Forestry Department in the Newmarket area were recently released. It seems rather strange to think that we should have had a particular type of person in charge of four, five or six men as the case may be in this particular wood for a considerable time past. Now we have come to the point where there are only three persons engaged in this work. I think that this is not a good policy for the present Minister to adopt in view of the fact that every member of this House is, I am sure, interested in placing people in useful and constant employment. I feel sure that if the Minister will go to the trouble of looking up the files in his Department he will find that some of these employees could be placed in useful and constant employment on this particular estate. We have, during the past 12 or 18 months since operations started in this district, a considerable amount of firewood piled in stacks quite convenient to the river bed. I should like to say that in the event of a change of climate in the near future I cannot see anything else happening other than these stacks of firewood being swept away by the local river which happens to run convenient to this wood. There is a considerable amount of work to be done on this estate, as I have already stated. The men could be employed in clearing away the shrubbery in the wood, if the Department is anxious to have this wood replanted.

Mr. Blowick

What is the name of the wood?

Mr. McAuliffe

Newmarket Wood. I think the Minister knows about it already. I am interested in another side of the picture as far as this wood is concerned. We have the game rights. Perhaps I am not in order in discussing this, a Chinn Chomhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is not questioning the Deputy. He is quite in order.

Mr. McAuliffe

I understand that before the Irish Land Commission purchased this wood from the previous owner they got the game rights preserved. We had a considerable amount of game preserved in the locality over a number of years and it became stocked as a result of the game being preserved in the wood. The ex-Minister for Lands, or his Department, have been responsible for renting the game rights of this wood to local people. The position now is that the game in the locality has become, in general, very slack. I hope the Minister will take steps to ensure that the preserves are safeguarded.

Captain Giles

As we are all more or less amateurs in the matter of national forestry I do not think our experts will gain very much knowledge from this debate. My view of forestry is that it is a long-term policy. Side by side with forestry go drainage and land division. The three go hand in hand. We cannot have a rushed forestry scheme. It must be slow and tedious. I consider, from what I have seen while travelling throughout the country, that whatever the Forestry Department has done in the line of forestry has been well done and that it is a credit to those who did it.

As far as Meath is concerned, we have very little forestry estates there so far. There are some, however, and they are making good headway. We have often heard of the plains of Meath. What forestry is there is flat-plained. Although Cromwell did drive men to "Hell or to Connaught," the planters whom he settled on our lands had an eye to beauty. I suppose that beauty was brought about by slave labour, but whether it was or not the forestry plains in Meath were very picturesque, beautiful and good. Their commercial value was great. Since we got our native Government about 25 years ago and land division began to take place, those vast wooded belts and those big estates are gradually being broken up. The woods are being denuded. The Minister should concentrate on drainage and forestry in Meath. Vast areas of poor quality land are there which could be taken over and earmarked for forestry. Near where I live there are at least 300 acres of land, including bog land, which could be taken over without any trouble—in fact, they would be handed over. I have been pressing the Land Commission for the past five or six years to make an effort in this connection, but the Minister has said that there is not enough land there. I say that there are 300 acres there to be taken over and I would ask the Minister to take them over. That is the Langford estate at County Meath.

Mr. Blowick

I will take you at your word.

Captain Giles

There are about 300 acres there and there are fine nursery plantations. There are nurserymen whose families have carried on the nursery business for a couple of hundred years, made a success out of it and got a good living out of it. These men would be of immense value in getting forestry under way there. Also in County Meath there are vast areas of decaying forest land, trees hundreds of years old decaying and new timber coming out. The decaying timber was left there because the gentry of the day did not worry about it and they would not let any man take a sprig out of it. Those big trees have been lying there since the big wind of 1903 and not one was removed. Thousands of them were left to rot. The Land Commission should not allow that type of thing to take place. They should cut down the old forest belts and restock the land, if those in charge will not do so. It would be good national work.

There should be a better effort made to impress on our farmers to have a little shelter belt on every farm. There are few shelter belts on farms in the Midlands. Parts of the country are a wilderness for want of shelter belts. If we could establish them all over the country they would be very useful. If farmers could be encouraged to plant a rood or a half acre, putting in good timber, it would be of decided advantage to the country.

I am satisfied that there is plenty of work ahead of the Minister in connection with drainage, forestry and land division. The three go hand in hand. I would like the Minister to pay particular attention to County Meath and especially the area I spoke of where there are 300 acres waiting to be taken over.

Mr. Lynch

Like Deputy Giles, I am not qualified to speak exhaustively on this subject, but I would like to make two points, one in particular and one in general. The point in particular refers to the growing of ash. My particular concern about the growing of ash is for the making of hurleys. The Minister might say that that is a matter for the Gaelic Athletic Association, but that in itself would not be a sufficient reply. The Gaelic Athletic Association, being one of our greatest national organisations, should merit the particular attention of this House. We must regard it also from the point of view that its outlook is so broad, it deals with every part of the country, north and south of the Border, and it goes into every parish. For some years past hurleys have become increasingly scarce. There are two reasons for that. We had the shortage of fuel during the war to contend with and we had also to meet the growing popularity of the game. Within recent years hurleys have become scarce and expensive and the quality of what was available was not so good. It is a serious problem to remedy the ash shortage that exists for the making of hurleys.

This matter is worthy of mention from another point of view. The making of hurleys is an industry of some commercial importance. In most parts of the country, though possibly not so much in the Minister's area, but more especially in Munster, Leinster and Galway, quite a number of people find employment in the manufacture of hurleys. Recently there has been a dearth of hurleys and of good hurley makers. It constitutes a serious problem for the Gaelic Athletic Association throughout the country. I feel I would be failing in my duty if I did not impress on the Minister the desirability of paying more attention to the growing of ash.

My second point is more general. The policy of afforestation is a policy for the future. Its fruits will not be seen next year or the year after. It is a policy which will benefit generations to come. It cannot go hand in hand with the policy of the present Government which is a policy of retrenchment. I would impress on the members of Clann na Poblachta, who feel so keenly about afforestation and who made such lavish promises to the electorate, promises which purported to give us between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 acres of land under timber, to use all their influence with the Government to encourage afforestation and forgo their policy of retrenchment; otherwise it will be futile for them to tell the people that afforestation figures largely in their programme while at the same time the policy of retrenchment predominates among the members of the Government. If their election promises go for anything, they now have a say in the Government and it is up to them to make good those promises.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

To my mind afforestation, being a long-term enterprise, should be financed by posterity. We cannot expect any return for the work involved in afforestation for quite a long period. I suggest the Minister should ask for a considerable loan, the repayment of which should not be begun for 25 or 30 years. By that time there would be a prospect of some return from the work involved in the planting.

When we come to consider afforestation we should endeavour to make up our minds for what purpose we propose to produce timber, whether it be timber for house construction, firewood or for other purposes. In this connection I suggest that the Minister should employ the best expert advice as to what type of timber is best suited to our soil and climate. I do not pretend to be an expert on timber, but at the same time, although a farmer, I have some knowledge of the qualities of timber for construction work and, furthermore, the types that will succeed, particularly in elevated positions here and there throughout the country. Deputy Lynch suggested we should concentrate on the growing of ash and I agree with him. It seems to be very suited to our soil and climate, and, of course, its uses are very many. But along with ash we could also grow splendid oak. We can grow elm, larch, beech and so on, but the type we set out to grow must be influenced by the purpose for which it will be used. If we seek poles and so on, larch makes a very good tree for that purpose; it grows rather rapidly and will give a return in a comparatively small number of years. It is very well suited to the elevated position.

As far as the districts that are to be planted are concerned, I think that my constituency of Cavan has a considerable area that would lend itself admirably to afforestation. There is a considerable area in the western portion of it, the congested area, which is given over largely to sheep farming. While that, of course, when it is carried out in an extensive way, gives a comparatively good yield to the people who are engaged in it, it is a more or less precarious livelihood. In the storm of a year ago people there suffered very considerable loss and many of them were practically put out of business through the losses of sheep in the snow. But if that area were developed for afforestation it would give considerable employment to the people who live there, it would be continuous during the years to come and it would help to maintain them at home. Coupled with that, if cottage industries were developed in the home, it would maintain the people in this rather elevated position.

As I have said earlier, expert advice should be obtained for there is no use in going headlong at any enterprise without a purpose. If we do not, we are looking for trouble and courting failure and I would suggest that the Minister should proceed cautiously but at the same time progressively. It should be the aim of any country as far as possible to produce its own requirements of timber and not to be dependent on outside sources, but if we produce a type of timber which is not suitable for housing we would be wasting the energy and the finance of the country. With those few remarks I would wish the Minister success in his enterprise of afforestation.

Sir John Esmonde

I have during the past two years had some slight dealings with the Forestry Department and apart from those dealings I have a certain personal knowledge of their activities in my constituency. Labouring under the difficulties that they have laboured under in recent years, I believe that the Forestry Department have been doing and are doing a good job of work, but there are one or two suggestions which I have to make.

Some speakers here this evening have suggested that posterity should pay for reafforestation and I quite agree with that. I think that we are only fiddling with the job at the moment and the reason is that with all the other demands on the national purse sufficient money is not forthcoming for reafforestation. I think that the way we should approach that matter is this. We in our generation and in the next generation, too, are not going to receive any benefit from the reafforestation which is going on at the present time, but we are building up by reafforestation a growing asset and a permanent asset to the country, an asset increasing in value year by year. I would recommend some scheme of finance under which what might seem to be an unreasonable sum perhaps with regard to other services would be forthcoming in such a way that the burden of the money would rest on the generation which would reap the harvest.

The next matter to which I would like to refer is the question of reafforestation by private individuals. It should be obvious, and I think everyone would agree, that the Forestry Department in its own activities is suffering under a certain amount of difficulties. The lot of the private owner of land which, whether he likes it or not, involves reafforestation, is very much harder, and I would like to see a development brought about, and I do not care how it is brought about, for the Department to evolve a scheme under which the private owner would be facilities in his reafforestation without damaging in any way the resources of the country. One instance is the question of young trees and plants for replanting. The Forestry Department, as such, grow their own trees. They have them ready at a selected centre and they transport them to an already prepared planting ground, but the private owner is in the position of having to go round from nurseryman to nurseryman in order to obtain these trees. I understand that the reason for that is that the Department, as such, does not wish to compete with the nurseryman in his own business. But I think in the case of a man who cuts trees and who is obliged to replant a certain number laid down by the Department, the Department should be in a position not only to tender advice but to supply at a reasonable price trees in place of those which were cut down.

A third matter which I should like to refer to is that I would like to see attached to the Forestry Department —I do not know if that would be the Department proper to have it attached to, it might more properly be attached to some other Department—a scientific section applying its energies to the question of the chemical treatment of woods. I understand that in countries like Sweden, Norway and other countries in northern latitudes where timber is good and plentiful, as a result of scientific research a considerable amount of synthetic materials have come into being from the chemical treatment of timber, not necessarily high-grade timber but even from low-grade timber. We are only at the outset of this research, but as a result of the war and since the war, it has made enormous strides. I have seen specimens of timber treated with chemical injections which had almost the appearance, the durability and the hardness of metal. Deputy Desmond referred to the number of people who are employed in factories in Sweden manufacturing articles, the basic material for which is timber, either sawdust or timber treated in its raw state with chemicals. I think we would be well advised to devote a certain amount of research to that subject. It is all very well to say that we should call in experts from other countries to advise us on the matter but that is not a correct approach as our climate is different and even the trees of the same kind that will grow here vary in quality from the trees that grow in these countries. We should set up some sort of inquiry to find out how we can apply these chemical and scientific discoveries in connection with turning what might be otherwise timber of very little use into very solid materials for the purpose of building and so forth. Such an inquiry, first of all, should be in the direction of ascertaining how we could, according to the way timber is being treated abroad, treat the timber that we actually can grow here successfully.

We might, as a result of this inquiry, discover that this soil could produce something that belongs to the category of timber—it might be a shrub or a large-size tree—which is being grown very much abroad at present and which might be a basic substance for the production of the material which is generally known under the head of plastics. I urge the Minister to look into that suggestion. We might find that we have ready at hand here a source of wealth which would provide us with employment and with use for our soil and, in addition to that, might provide us with very valuable raw materials for our building programme.

Mr. Briscoe

I have been listening to debates in this House for 21 years on the question of forestry and to all kinds of suggestions with a view to seeing if we could get reafforestation going at some pace that would be satisfactory. I remember shortly after the 1914-18 war the comments that were made by the people as to the extent to which timber had been taken out of this country during that period. I remember seeing small mountains completely denuded of timber. Since native Government was established here, I believe approach has been made with a view to seeing how this job can best be done. A realistic approach has to be made in the matter. First of all, we have to decide what type of timber is most suitable to our soil and the type of timber which, in addition to being suitable for the soil, will be suitable for the use of the people.

Several Deputies spoke of subsidiary industries. I have a distinct recollection that at the last election the discussion on reafforestation reached its crescendo when it was adopted as one of the main planks of the Clann na Poblachta Party. I heard numbers of their speakers dealing with the matter and I read an immense amount of literature about it. I actually saw a film by which this matter was brought to the notice of the people with the greatest insistence. From the attitude of Clann na Poblachta then, I was expecting that on this Vote in this House there would be a full muster of the Party and that they would tell us what was said by some of their spokesmen both here and abroad, that not alone were they going to have a sufficiency of timber in this country to meet all requirements, but that they were going to produce petrol from the additional amount of timber that would be available as a result of their policy. Now we find on this Estimate, dealing with one of the most important planks of their platform, that the House is denuded of Clann na Poblachta spokesmen.

Mr. Timoney

Look at your own benches.

Mr. Briscoe

Clann na Poblachta was one of those Parties who drew the attention of the public outside to the fact that these benches were not always filled. The spokesmen of Clann na Poblachta who made these statements did not know then that Deputies have an immense amount of work to do in the Library, in the writing rooms, and in interviewing people outside the House. Now they find themselves in the same boat as we are—that we cannot attend to our duties as Deputies if we devote all our time to sitting here listening to or taking part in debates, whether we know something about the subject matter or not.

I have given a great deal of thought to this matter of reafforestation. At one time in our Party we had a Deputy who is now dead—the late Deputy Dowdall—who devoted practically all his spare time to this problem and actually was instrumental in having a book published on this matter about which he felt so keenly. I also know that the Department of Forestry did employ an expert from the Continent with a view to seeing what assistance could be got from that particular officer who was on loan to us from another Government, and who was one of the leading experts in Europe on afforestation. He was here for many years and did a great deal of valuable work. I also know, like other Deputies who speak quite fairly on this subject no matter what Party they belong to, that if we travel through the country we shall find here and there distinct evidence of the attempts made to deal with this problem. One can see in parts of Wicklow young forests growing up, not to a great extent, I agree. Reafforestation, as I understand the problem, having listened to debates on it here for 21 years, involves a very serious problem. On the one hand, we have land hunger. We have a great many people whose needs have to be met by allocating to them a sufficiency of land to give them an economic holding out of which they can make a livelihood. These people will not tolerate land suitable for farming being put aside for the growing of trees. We have to limit the areas that we put under trees to land not suitable for other purposes.

I heard some Deputies talking about putting the cost on posterity. I think it was Deputy O'Leary who suggested that the Minister should try to get the Minister for Finance to agree to borrow money for this purpose which would be repayable 25 years from now. We have a duty to posterity. That reminds me of the gentleman travelling in the East who saw an old native planting a date tree and said to him: "Why are you planting this date tree?" The old man replied: "Why should I not plant it?" The gentleman said: "You will not get dates from it for 40 years and you will not be alive then." To this the old man replied: "I ate dates off trees my father planted when he was an old man." In the same way, we have been handed down a country which past generations suffered to preserve and we have a responsibility to posterity. In our generation we must, even at a cost to ourselves, make provision for the future welfare of the people. We spend large sums of money on education; we make provision for old people. Yet we seem to think that in this matter we should separate the present generation from future generations and say: "We will do it properly but, if we do it properly, we must put the charge on the backs of the people in the future."

The Minister will find that the Forestry Department is doing the best it can, taking into account all the circumstances. I think the Clann na Poblachta afforestation policy will have to be changed considerably, because if we are to take their idea of planting with a view to having such a sufficiency of trees that we will have raw material for paper and the production of industrial alcohol, then I think the Minister for Agriculture will have to consider changing his policy to make room for that. We have to do it within the possibilities. The Department of Agriculture must consider this matter in line with what Deputy Sir John Esmonde has said. You cannot go at this work like a bull in a china shop and leave the mistakes of to-day to be discovered in 40 years time.

I agree with Deputy Sir John Esmonde that this question must be considered from a variety of aspects, and I commend to the Minister the aspect he has put before the House, namely that there must be a highly scientific approach. People who have been considering this matter will probably agree with that point of view. The Department of Forestry must find suitable land in various districts. It has to consider planting from a variety of aspects, including the provision of shelter belts. Nobody would welcome an accelerated pace in reafforestation more than the members on this side of the House but, as time goes on, we are forced to recognise that there is a limit to the acreage that can be planted each year and that there must be a very careful investigation each year of the plantations of previous years so as to profit in each succeeding year from the mistakes made, with the best intentions, in the earliest years.

I recognise that certain types of industries can be developed from afforestation, but not the magnificent schemes we heard about during the election. In the thinning-out process timber should not be wasted. Use should be found for it which would give local employment. On the Continent, particularly in Germany, in pre-war days, where there were a considerable amount of forestry operations, there were subsidiary industries adjacent to forest stations. I saw them making rustic furniture, using wood which was not otherwise suitable because it was not mature, for that purpose. They found a use for it in making garden furniture.

Every side of this House, as far as I understand it, will welcome any advance that can be made but let us not pretend for one moment that miracles can be performed. They cannot be performed. On this particular subject whole libraries have been written but we have to come down to solid earth and, as Deputy O'Reilly said, we must consider the type of timber that is suitable to our soil and the type of timber that can be applied to some use and, as Deputy Sir John Esmonde said, we must approach the question, not so much on the advice of outside experts who have to learn the conditions here, but from the point of view of profiting from highly advanced scientific methods of dealing with the particular subject.

Mr. B. Maguire

The question of forestry has intrigued the Dáil for many years and still intrigues us. In my opinion the question is not seriously tackled. I do not wish to say anything harsh against the people responsible for the forestry section of the Department of Lands. I am sure they are imbued with the highest ideals and are anxious to make a success of their job. Not through their fault, but because of the absence of a machine in the form of legislation that would enable them to get ahead with their job, they belong at the present time, in my opinion, to the most inadequate section of a Department in this country. They have plans but their plans, to my knowledge and experience, are antiquated and out of date and their these are not correct.

Deputy Briscoe referred to the efforts made by past Governments in bringing experts to this country from countries wise in forestry. I have had experience of an expert who came here to advise the Forestry Department and, while I do not wish to be harsh or to say anything unkind about the individual or the Forestry Section of the Department of Lands, I will cite this instance as an example of my experience. I am not citing this for the first time. I have not previously cited it in the Dáil but I gave my experience to responsible Ministers of the Government that were responsible for bringing in the expert. We had in my constituency an area of approximately 1,000 acres. Repeated application by the committee of agriculture to have the area planted was turned down by the Forestry Section of the Department of Lands. The local horticulturist tried experiments in the way of shelter belts and other belts in the area and he was satisfied beyond doubt that trees could be grown successfully on over 1,000 acres of land. Despite that effort, year after year the proposal was rejected by the Forestry Section on the grounds that the area was not suitable. An expert was brought in from outside and the then Taoiseach, with whom I discussed the matter, told me to get him down and get his advice. Down came the expert and with him were the older officials of the Forestry Section and with me was the local horticulturist who had actually grown timber around the area for years, experimenting with shelter belts. We arrived at the mountain side and, having made a survey, under bad weather conditions I admit, the officials returned to where I stood on the road and said: "There is no hope of growing timber up here; the altitude is too high on a bog basis." I said: "That is not bog." I knew by the foliage growing on it that it was not.

Mr. Blowick

What district was this?

Mr. B. Maguire

This occurred about 12 or 14 years ago. At that stage two men came down through the fog and I said: "Can you find us a spade?" They found a spade for us and they commenced to dig, and upturned a strong alluvial soil of any depth you like. The tables were turned and the expert then said: "With that knowledge we can grow timber on this altitude because the basis is not peat." It was alluvial soil with boulders in it. They said: "We can grow the timber all right, but we will have to get a foundation a few hundred feet lower down to begin our shelter protection."

What has been done by the Department since to acquire that area? Not a single thing. That area of 1,000 acres is still derelict. Is that efficiency? We talk about forestry and Deputy Briscoe twits Clann na Poblachta for being absent from the House, but what are we to say about such a condition of affairs as I have outlined—a position in which there are 1,000 acres of waste land and the Forestry Branch have not reached the stage of planting one tree, although horticulturists in County Leitrim have grown splendid little shelter belts, the trees in which are now growing into maturity. If the Minister looks up the records, he will find that, as far back as 15 if not 20 years ago, representations were made by the Leitrim County Committee of Agriculture for the planting of that and other areas. Many of the men who started the agitation, local county councillors, have since died.

I will give the House another story on somewhat the same lines and I will give all the particulars to the Minister if he wishes. In doing so, I am not blaming the responsible officials, whom I have always found efficient and helpful, but I knew from my own experience that they were helpless because they were unable to deal with problems as they arose. Last year, I submitted a proposal with regard to another area of about 1,000 acres. I asked to have it investigated and said that the owners of the land were very anxious to sell at a reasonable price. After considerable delay for which the Forestry Branch was not responsible— the Department of Lands was responsible—I learnt that the Forestry Section had written again and again to the Department of Lands for a map of the area, but the Department of Lands had withheld that map for almost 12 months—the map was sent over, but the value of land had increased in the meantime. The forestry people went down there and offered £4 per acre for the land—an entirely inadequate price at a time when the value of everything had appreciated. There was no regard paid to the devaluation of money or the increase in the value of land.

The former Minister will remember my having a discussion with him on this matter. The land in question was semi-useful agricultural land which had been a waste from which the people had fled, but, when it got out that these people were to get £4 or £8 an acre, some local people saw the possibility of investing at that rate and bought the greater part of it. What is the use of "codding" ourselves? There is the case of a Department which offers people £4 an acre for land at a time when such a price was absurd. I tell the Department that they are an antiquated, antediluvian collection of people. Let the Clann na Poblachta Deputies, if they are sincere, as I believe they are, in this matter, examine this problem and let them say to the Government: "Between the Land Commission and the forestry people let there be some modernisation of plans and give power to the forestry people to acquire land for forestry purposes." If that is not done, what is the use of talking of afforestation?

The Forestry Branch is out of date for the past 20 years and there never yet was a serious effort, during the lifetime of any of our Governments, to deal with forestry. It must be remembered that we have no vast areas which can, with ease, be turned over to plantation. The most valueless land in the country is occupied, as the Minister ought to know, as he comes from a county as poor as my own. What about the areas of land in Mayo, Galway, Sligo and Leitrim which is not really land, but which has been used by generations of people to assist them in making a living—areas of mountain on which they graze sheep and other animals during the summer months? These are the only areas which can conceivably be made available in a large way for afforestation.

These areas were utilised by our forefathers because they could find foothold nowhere else, and, as a result, we have congested areas and all the poverty that goes with them. That problem is solving itself, and, to a large extent, has solved itself. The people have left these areas but we still have a few people remaining there—comparatively few compared with 35 years ago. Can the Government in planning Land Commission schemes for the future not have examined the whole question of these areas and see if it is economic to continue the expense of keeping people living on these mountain sides, people who, with their families, must ultimately go on the dole, and find out the proportion which have to be maintained on the dole? Would it not be better business to compensate these people who may have acquired a right to graze sheep and other animals for a few months, to migrate them to the Midlands and acquire and plant these areas? That is all they can possibly be useful for. We talk about migration and about creating economic holdings. In the name of goodness, what is an economic holding if the idea is, as it is and has been, that we give some additional acres of land to a small farmer to bring him up from 15 acres to 25 or 30 acres or from £1 valuation up to £5 or £10?

That is not tackling the problem. The idea should be to utilise the land of this country in the most economical way that it can be used for the benefit of the people. What is the use of giving a few additional acres of waste land to a man? The idea should be to take him out of the wastes and put him on land from which he can get some return for his labour. The waste land could be used for forestry purposes. The Minister is new to his office and I am sure he means well. He should know the conditions in the poorer parts of the country. I suggest to him that he should analyse and examine thoroughly this whole question of land division in conjunction with the question of afforestation. I have no proposal to make to him that will solve the problem. What the Minister is prepared to undertake now will be disclosed in this country in the next 40 or 60 years. It cannot be done without scientific planning or with the present machinery of the Land Commission. The forestry section is being jolted by the Department of Lands, and may I say that both are antiquated, helpless and without hope. Both need to be reformed on new lines. The Minister should begin at the beginning and have an examination of fundamentals.

That is all I wish to say on afforestation. I first spoke in this House on the subject 20 odd years ago, but I might as well have kept my mouth shut. I have no grand scheme to put forward now any more than I had then. I am speaking of the situation as I see it. Speaking from experience, I do want to say that nothing will be achieved unless the Minister is prepared to reform the whole system of land division in conjunction with afforestation work.

Captain Cowan

As one of the representatives of Clann na Poblachta, I ought to feel very happy that so much attention was paid in this debate to-day to Clann na Poblachta and to its policy with regard to afforestation. The former Minister, Deputy Moylan, in his usual courteous manner referred to the programme of 1,000,000 acres that Clann na Poblachta had advocated during the general election. He said that was an aim and an objective that could not be achieved or realised in five years. Deputy Moylan spoke on somewhat the same lines during the general election campaign. Not only did he prophesy that our plan was incapable of fulfilment, but he also prophesied that the Fianna Fáil Government would be the Government after the general election. I think that Deputy Moylan is as wrong in one prophecy as he was wrong in the other.

While Deputy Moylan wishes this inter-Party Government well, he did say that it could be kept on the rails because there was a strong Opposition in this House. I ask you, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, to look at the strong Opposition. That Party did talk about the absence of some Clann na Poblachta Deputies. I want to say that one of the matters that I have noticed since I came to this House is the considerable numbers of Deputies absent for considerable periods. I think if the records are examined that the attendance of this small Clann na Poblachta group, since we came into the House, has been as good as that of any other Party, and certainly much better than that of the strong Opposition that we have heard of. Not only did Deputy Moylan refer to that in a courteous way, but Deputy Little came into the House to make the same observation. Deputy Briscoe also honoured the Chamber with his presence for a few moments to make a similar observation. I think this House will find, as time goes on and when the records can be examined, that this small Clann na Poblachta Party will do its duty to itself and to the country in this House. I would have preferred that that line of criticism had not been followed here to-day. I take it that one of the reasons for this form of criticism is the fact——.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy ought to come to the Forestry Vote now.

Captain Cowan

I am just coming to it—that one of the reasons for this form of criticism was the active part that Clann na Poblachta took in advocating afforestation from the day it was founded. When we examined conditions as they were in this country we found vast numbers of people unemployed; we found the emigrant ship carting away or shipping away tens of thousands of our young people, and we felt that was a loss that this nation could not sustain. We looked around for some means whereby that unemployment could be ended and that emigration could be stopped, and, having examined many problems, we came to the conclusion that afforestation offered the greatest possible means of ending unemployment, of abolishing forced emigration and of bringing prosperity to the country. We took this problem of afforestation seriously, believing that it would end these evils I have mentioned and, at the same time, enrich the nation. All over the country we advocated a new approach to this problem and if our target was fixed high at 1,000,000 acres in five years it was to draw public attention to the desirability and the necessity for an active policy and programme of afforestation.

This State is over 26 years in existence and, as Deputy Maguire has said, during those 26 years there have been innumerable debates in this Chamber and there has been much talk about the programme of afforestation in this House and elsewhere, but the concrete practical steps that should have been taken to establish afforestation on a proper basis were never taken. I understand that, if 26 years ago a large area had been planted with soft-wood trees, we would now have forests capable of being converted into wood pulp, paper, cardboard and similar materials. Those forests would have employed a substantial number of people looking after them, preparing them in the first instance, and then caring for them. Then there would have been, in the period of a little over 20 years, the building of mills and factories to convert the trees into wood pulp and other materials. The result would have been that new communities would have sprung up in the vicinity of the forest areas—new communities in which the wage earner would be in receipt of a decent wage, where there would be an opening for the sons of the workers to find employment, opportunities for those sons to get married and to start rearing families themselves. That is how we in Clann na Poblachta approached this problem and for those purposes and those reasons. We still believe in that policy and believe it is an absolutely vital policy if we are to get a proper grip on unemployment and emigration and do the things that ought to be done to enrich this country. I make no apology to anyone for having advocated that policy and that programme in many places.

I understand that we are fortunate here in our director of forestry. I am told by people who are in a position to judge that we are particularly fortunate in having available a man of his expert knowledge. I must say I was particularly glad to know that. If we have a person with the expert knowledge that our director of forestry has, and if we have a Minister who is determined to give that expert a chance, then we are well on the way towards the implementation of Clann na Poblachta policy. However, I am also informed by people who are acquainted with the difficulties that face the Forestry Section, that much good work that could be done by that section is held up because of the delay in acquiring land through the Land Commission section of the Department of Lands. Deputy Maguire has mentioned some instances, and every Deputy is aware of the delay in acquiring land compulsorily. Those delays, by running into a period of years, must inevitably restrict the work that the Forestry Section can do and would like to do. I am quite sure the Minister has done it already, but I would suggest to him again, that he should discuss this problem with the director of forestry; and, anxious as I know he is to get on with the job, I would ask him to smooth out and crease out any difficulties that may be put in the way of afforestation by the Land Commission section of this Department.

In these discussions, the general viewpoint seems to be that only waste land should be utilised. I understand that that is a mistake and that, while a considerable quantity of land that now appears to be waste can be utilised, if afforestation is to be a success, good arable land and extensive tracts of good land will have to be acquired by the Forestry Section. Some Deputies have expressed surprise that such a thing should happen and have suggested that it would be an encroachment on the province of the Department of Agriculture if such a thing were done. However, if afforestation is so important, if it is going to provide employment for thousands of people who cannot otherwise find employment, if it is going to guarantee employment to the sons of those persons, if it is going to enrich the land, if it is going to help in the drainage of the land, if it is going to make the rest of our arable or agricultural land rich, then it is necessary that a certain amount of arable land be acquired and be used for afforestation purposes. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 8 Jun 1948

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jun 1948