Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jun 1948

Vol. 111 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry (Resumed).

Captain Cowan

When progress was reported last evening, I was dealing with the importance of afforestation to the country. As other Deputies have stated and as is admitted, at the moment we have only slightly over 1 per cent. of our area under forests. This percentage is inadequate to maintain the necessary quantities of homegrown timber to maintain equable climatic conditions, the prevention of soil erosion, the creation of essential quantities of humus, wind-breaks, and the most perfect method of controlling extremes of flood and drought. I mentioned also that the general opinion seems to be that only waste land should be utilised for afforestation. That, I think, is a complete misunderstanding of the position. If afforestation is to fulfil the requirements that I mentioned, it will be necessary to acquire substantial tracts of land that would be suitable and very suitable for agriculture. There is, as was pointed out, in the Department of Lands a considerable conflict between the Land Commission and the forestry division. The Land Commission has as its objective the acquisition and division of land into suitable holdings, and that section of the Minister's Department is not anxious to make available any land that can be farmed to the forestry division of his Department. If soil erosion is to be counteracted, we cannot do that simply by growing our forests on waste land. It will be necessary, I think, for the forestry division to prepare a national plan which will make provision for the establishment of forests in the proper places in the country. The activities of the Land Commission and the activities of the forestry division can be co-ordinated by the Minister, provided there is a comprehensive plan prepared.

I do admit that, for the present at any rate, and under the present circumstances, it would be rather difficult to carry out the planning programme that Clann na Poblachta advocated, or the planning programme that Clann na Talmhan advocated. There are practical difficulties in the way. We believe, however, that if the plan is properly made and if there is determination on the part of the Minister to put that plan into operation we can easily double the annual acreage that Fianna Fáil indicated as their objective. One of the difficulties in their way is the insufficiency of trained technical staff. I understand that it will take some time to train this staff technically and, consequently, the plan the Minister must have in mind must be a plan making provision for the training of a technical staff to carry out afforestation successfully. According to my information, the staff that we have at the moment, although it is small, is a very efficient staff, which can hold its own with any afforestation staff anywhere in the world. But, unfortunately, it is too small. Those 26 years have been allowed to pass by two Governments —Cumann na nGaedheal and Fianna Fáil—without the building up, as they should have built up, of a proper technical staff, so that we would have now available the trained personnel to carry out the annual programme of planting that Clann na Poblachta and Clann na Talmhan advocated.

I understand that a mistake was made some time ago when we had as director of the Forestry Division a person who received his training in Germany and that substantial belts were planted with similar timber. I understand that that is a mistake and that, if the full value is to be obtained from afforestation, short-lived trees and long-lived trees must be planted in a uniform manner. The object of that is to make suitable provision for the essential watering of the timber. You require a certain amount of timber with roots that do not go down very deep into the ground and, side by side with that, planted in the way our present director of afforestation would advise, timber with roots which go much deeper into the ground. Three water tables would be more successful than two.

I am informed that Californian red wood is a valuable and beautiful timber and that, outside the red wood belt in North-Western California, this country is the only country in which it can be grown satisfactorily, and that there are magnificent specimens at Summerhill, County Meath; Fort Granite, County Wicklow; Stradbally Hall in Laoighis, and at Ashford, Cong, County Mayo. These are matters on which I do not pretend to have technical knowledge, but they have been brought to my attention by a person who has technical knowledge and experience in timber growing and afforestation all over the world.

It was mentioned here that the forestry division required belts or areas of 300 acreas to make the area under afforestation successful and economic. I am informed that 300 is a slightly low acreage and that the suitable economic acreage is 450. That, again, is a technical matter and I would be quite prepared, from the information I have got as to the efficiency of our present director of the forestry division, to leave that matter in his hands.

Deputies have referred to the problem of private planting where owners of land who have cut timber are compelled to replant. I agree with the general criticism with regard to that. If this private planting is to be successful it should be done, or the owner should be compelled to do it, to the satisfaction of the forestry division. The requirements of the law can be carried out at small expense but, from the point of view of timber-growing or afforestation, the present practices are useless.

I was very pleased with the approach that was made by the Deputies who took part in the debate. I was particularly impressed by Deputy Seán Collins' contribution. If we are all as determined with regard to afforestation as the debate yesterday would indicate, then I think the Minister has behind him the goodwill and support of this House in putting into effect the afforestation programme of his own Party within a short time.

I agree also with what Deputy Seán Dunne and other Deputies said with regard to the wages of forestry workers. These workers should be paid sufficient to enable them to exist under reasonably decent conditions. That should be the measure of whether the wages paid are adequate or not. This thing of gearing the wages of forestry workers to the wages paid to agricultural workers is only part of a general plan that someone seems to have worked out to keep the wages of agricultural workers, forestry workers, road workers and turf workers as low as possible. If one endeavours to get an increase in wage for any one of these classes of workers, he is countered by the argument that it is geared to the other rate of wages and cannot be disturbed. That has been the position here for many years and, unfortunately, people with that outlook still seem to have a substantial say in the running of the country.

Only a few nights ago, with regard to the farm workers in Portrane Mental Hospital, the very same excuse was trotted out, that they cannot be paid a wage higher than that paid to agricultural workers in the area. That must be broken down. I would ask the Minister to discuss this matter of wages with the forestry workers and to give the forestry workers what he considers to be a living wage, a wage on which they can marry and bring up a family in ordinary conditions of comfort. If the Minister will once break through his old idea of gearing all these wages together he will have done a very useful and a very good work.

Deputy Little seemed to think yesterday that it was wrong to advocate an increase in wages for forestry workers, and said that it was dangerous to be developing this class consciousness. I cannot, I must say, understand the mentality of any person who is reasonably well supplied with the world's goods and thinks it a crime or a shame that anyone should advocate that our lowest-paid workers—who are paid below the ordinary standards of decency—should be brought up to a living wage.

Mr. Little

On a point of personal explanation, I was the first in this House to ask for a reasonable increase in the wages of forestry workers, not more than would induce farm labourers to leave farmers when farmers cannot pay them more than they are able to pay.

Captain Cowan

Would the Deputy say when he advocated that?

Mr. Little

I asked a question on it a fortnight ago.

Captain Cowan

I know that if I had been in the Deputy's position for the last 20 years or so, and if I believed that they should get an increase, and if I were a member of Government as long as the Deputy was, I would have made certain that those increases were granted.

Mr. Little

They always got them.

Mr. Allen

You are in the position now.

Captain Cowan

I am not, and Deputy Brady should realise that, as far as I personally am concerned, I cannot decide matters for the members of the Government. I do not think that Deputy Brady when he was in my position as a Government backbencher for a long period of years——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is Deputy Allen.

Captain Cowan

Is it Deputy Allen? I thought it was a Donegal voice.

Mr. Allen

Go ahead and do not worry.

Captain Cowan

I can assure Deputy Allen that my influence in the Government is just as strong as his was in the last Government, with this difference, that while I am prepared to criticise the Government and to make them, if I can, toe the line, Deputy Allen never did that. He was quite prepared to be one of those yes-men who applauded everything the Government did. Thanks be to God, I will never be in that position.

Mr. Allen

The strong man.

Mr. Little

Who talks one way and votes another.

Captain Cowan

Deputy MacEntee, who has not honoured us with his presence in this debate, will, I think, probably discuss some of our contributions. However, I do think that it is the Minister's duty to see that the forestry workers are well paid. That is his duty and if he grants the increases they require he will have the support of Deputy Little, who apparently was concerned about this matter before I was.

Now, the problem of money has been mentioned. The general view is that we are doing this work for posterity and that posterity should pay for it. There probably is a good deal to be said for that view, but I realise, and I want to make it perfectly clear, that the afforestation programme that Clann na Poblachta had in mind, that it advocated and that it still advocates can hardly be carried out by borrowed money. If it is to be carried out, this House will have to take steps to break the financial connection with England, and this House will have to give to its own Central Bank the power and the authority to create the money that we need for afforestation and other purposes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may go no further on that.

Mr. Little

He does not want to.

Captain Cowan

No, he is quite prepared to go further, but I must obey the Chair. I am only mentioning that in an incidential way.

An Ceann Comhairle

With some emphasis.

Captain Cowan

With some emphasis but with essential emphasis so that Deputy Moylan may appreciate the way in which we believe we can carry out our full afforestation policy.

Mr. Moylan

The Deputy could not be more wrong.

Captain Cowan

I do not know. Deputy Moylan will agree that we have not in 25 years made the strides or the advances that we could and should have made. The Deputy did agree yesterday that there must be a stepping up, but he thinks it cannot be stepped up to what we believe.

Mr. Moylan

One million acres in four years! It is madness—lunacy.

Captain Cowan

Five years?

Mr. Moylan

Ten or 50 if you like.

Captain Cowan

I said, too, that I saw difficulties, that we have been left without a trained technical staff.

Mr. Moylan

You have got them.

Captain Cowan

It is entirely and absolutely inadequate. We have been left in that position. We have been left in the position that you have two wings of the Department of Lands in absolute conflict, one with the other. When the forestry division requires land that is suitable and suitably placed for afforestation they cannot get it from the Land Commission. That is the position that has been left to the present Minister by his predecessors. I appreciate and realise that Deputy Moylan did not carry this burden, or responsibility, all the time. I listened yesterday to his contribution to this debate, and I am quite sure that he is just as anxious as I am, and as the Minister is, to see afforestation pushed ahead, but he had to face these troublesome difficulties, one of which is finance. My incidental reference to the method of finding the money was for the purpose of showing Deputy Moylan that, when we take the steps that ought to be taken, we shall dispose of all these difficulties and shall make our afforestation programme a practical and a possible programme.

Mr. Beegan

This matter of afforestation has been worn almost threadbare now. It has been discussed and argued from many points of view for a number of years. Deputy Moylan yesterday said truly that afforestation was viewed from two points of view, one, the urban and the other, the rural. I have listened to a number of the speeches and all of them, from Deputy Moylan's right along to Deputy Cogan's, gave expression to the urban thought on this matter. I was not surprised at that being so until Deputy Cogan spoke. I thought he would try to give us the rural viewpoint. He said that 10,000 acres per year was altogether too small and I think he went so far as to say that we should at least be able to afforest, in normal times, 50,000 acres per year.

Mr. Blowick

How much—15,000 acres?

Mr. Beegan

50,000 acres—five times 10,000 acres.

Mr. Moylan

It was not as good as the Minister's proposal.

Mr. Beegan

I do not mind Deputy Dunne—he speaks the urban mind as well—talking of the great loss which the disappearance of the forests was to this country. I do not hold that point of view at all, and, while I am very anxious that certain types of land should be planted, there is one regret I have, a regret which I think the nation in general should feel, that is, that we had the forests too long in this country. I am glad to say that, where there were forests 50 years ago, and even less, there are happy homesteads to-day with contented families living on a fertile soil which is growing good crops. Deputy Cowan said that the public good should be taken into consideration in this matter and that land should be taken which would be capable of growing timber on a large scale. He advocated blocks of 450 acres. I am thoroughly opposed to that, and if any such thing is attempted there will be more incidents of the type described by Deputy Moylan as having occurred in Gort.

Undoubtedly there is a good deal of waste land which could be planted in the country, but there seems to be a policy over in the forestry division that they will take only land which is capable of growing commercial timber. If that policy is not altered and if the suggestions made by Deputy Moylan and Deputy Collins, to the effect that the Department should undertake uneconomic afforestation, are not adopted, I do not think there is any hope whatever of the Department reaching even this modest figure of 10,000 acres per annum. Land has become very valuable in recent times. At present almost the worst of land, except barren rock, if it is set for grazing, will bring a return of at least £2 per acre. Does anybody imagine that the forestry division will get fairly average land, land which is even superior to the type of land I have mentioned, for £4 an acre, which I understand is the maximum price? The maximum to-day is the same as it was in 1932, 1933 and 1934, and perhaps even previous to that. If you are to get even fair land for afforestation with the goodwill of the owner, the price will have to be stepped up to at least double £4, if not more.

That is one of the big drawbacks. It is all moonshine to talk of getting this, that and the other, if we are not prepared to pay the true value. It is all right to talk about educating people into becoming forest-minded. The farming community of this country may be looked upon as fairly dense and unintelligent, but they are fairly practical and they understand what suits themselves and what is in their own best interests. They understand the value to place on whatever property they have and they are not going to make a present of it for the sake of having forests created, when they can make much more of it by using it in another way. It is not very often I agree with the Minister for Agriculture, but I heard him say here on several occasions on this Vote that land which was capable of rearing sheep or cattle should not be taken from the owners, that it was much more useful to the country by being worked in that way than to have it planted with trees which would not bring in a return for perhaps 50 or 70 years.

There is, as I say, a good deal of waste land in the country, but I know the difficulties which exist. I should like to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that there are considerable areas of cutaway bog in the country, and whether there are any real owners of these areas, I do not know. In many instances, I believe that these large areas of cutaway bog belong to nobody. They were merely taken over by people near them who chanced putting their stock in on them for a week or two each year. The position in most cases, however, is that, at the time the landlords owned the bogs, they gave turbary to their tenants at a yearly rent, and the right they gave them was a right of turbary while the turbary would last, together with a spreading bank. That died when the bog was cut out, and, in a great many cases, when the landlord sold his land to the Estates Commission, the Congested Districts Board or the Land Commission, these areas of cutaway bog were not included in the sale, but a few people, who, in my opinion, have no right to it, insist that they have. I know there is a difficulty there, but these tracts of waste land all over the country are undoubtedly eyesores.

I think the Department should try to get that land voluntarily, have it drained and planted. I believe that is the best type of land for planting. As Deputy Moylan and some other Deputies have pointed out, it will help to dry such land and bring it back into fertility in the course of time. I was interested in a statement also made by Deputy Moylan yesterday evening from the employment point of view. He said that at present one man is employed per 100 acres. He said that with a bit of a drive he believed it should be possible to employ one man per 50 acres and, as time went on, one man per 25 acres. But if we take the relief of unemployment into consideration, even at the rate at which the forestry branch intends to proceed with the planting of 10,000 acres per year, which I believe is a fairly fast pace and one they are not likely to out-step for a very long time, that would only mean, at the rate of one man per 25 acres, 400 men a year.

Mr. Blowick

On what particular work now?

Mr. Beegan

Deputy Moylan said that at the moment there was only one man per 100 acres.

Mr. Blowick

That is as caretakers.

Mr. Beegan

I understood that he was speaking of employment.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Moylan can clear the air for us.

Mr. Beegan

I am subject to correction on that, but I understand that he was speaking in regard to unemployment. One man for 25 acres is certainly not going to give much relief from the employment point of view.

Certain Deputies advocated the rigid enforcement of replanting in all cases where felling permits were given. I suggest to the Minister that he should proceed cautiously there. It is all very well to suggest the enforcement of that regulation if the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture are satisfied that the land on which replanting would take place cannot be brought into a state of fertility to produce crops and grass. Where that is possible I hold that that condition as regards replanting should not be rigidly imposed, provided the owner of the land or the occupier of the land is prepared to pay £6 per acre to the forestry branch. That £6 could be utilised for the purchase of waste land which would be of much greater advantage to the country in the long run than the rigid enforcement of that condition where an occupier is in a position to bring that land into fertility and into production. I pay very little attention to Deputies or others who talk about 50,000 acres, or 60,000 acres a year. In my opinion that is all so much moonshine and people will very soon see through such talk. I think 10,000 acres are the very maximum. If the Minister and his Department insist on acquiring the type of land that has been insisted upon in the past for afforestation purposes and only pay £4 per acre for it, even in normal times the Minister is not going to get half that amount; he is not going to get even 5,000 acres of land in any one year for afforestation.

Mr. O'Grady

I do not propose to intervene at any great length in this debate. I do, however, want to put a question to the Minister concerning a matter of considerable importance in that portion of my constituency adjoining the Galway border where the Department of Lands have been carrying out forestry operations for some time. As I understand it, the scheme was to migrate a large number of people from the Flagmount district of County Clare adjoining the Galway border to estates which were to have been provided for them by the Land Commission. Owing to an adverse decision in the Land Court recently the estates to which these people were to have been migrated are not at present available nor are they likely to be available in the near future. Now, I do not expect the Minister to reply to my question at the close of this debate, but at his convenience I would like to know from him what will become of this particular scheme. Is it going to be continued? Will these people be migrated to other estates? It would be a pity if the good work done by the forestry branch were to be discontinued now. It would be a greater pity to deprive those people of improving their conditions elsewhere.

With regard to forestry, it is somewhat amusing to listen to the various viewpoints. One hears residents of our cities and towns advocating the plantation of trees on a tremendous scale, on an impossible scale, quite forgetful of the fact that even in the waste land to which reference has been made most of this land is situated at an altitude at which timber will not grow. Beyond a certain contour line timber will not grow. I notice the Minister shakes his head. Apparently he is of the opinion that timber will grow anywhere irrespective of height. I would advise him to consult with the expert of his Department on that particular point. I do not want to create obstacles for the Minister. I merely want to point out some of the drawbacks that are not perhaps apparent to the minds of those people who would like to see the country, as we would all like to see it, studded with trees. There is no greater admirer of forestry than I am. Frequently in my journeys over many years I have sat the whole journey watching the changing countryside and the changes in the colour of the trees. There is no man keener on forestry than I am. But there is a limit to our resources and it is as well that we should all realise what the limit is with regard to the amount of land that can be made available. There is a good deal in what Deputy Beegan has said. Before you can have any afforestation scheme you must have the goodwill of the people in the particular district. If you have not that goodwill one evil-minded person may destroy thousands of acres and the results of several years' work overnight with a single match.

Some of our bogs will not carry timber without reclamation. A certain class of timber will not grow in peaty soil, but there are certain types of timber that will grow in such soil provided suitable reclamation is carried out. There is one aspect of this problem that appeals to me. Now that materials for fencing are available again it should be possible to carry out small scale planting on most holdings. On nearly every holding there is a corner of waste land. That corner may only be a quarter of an acre or, as in the case of some of the larger holdings, it may run into a couple of acres. Every encouragement should be given to the owners and occupiers of these lands to plant shelter belts throughout their farms.

The multiplication of these shelter belts would have a tremendous effect on the scenic appearance of the countryside. They would also help to provide shelter for live stock. I very strongly advocate that the Minister should direct his attention to that aspect of the situation. This is particularly true of my own native heath, County Clare, and of the western and south-western counties, where there is a lot of bleak unprotected land. I know that there are difficulties with regard to forestry but I know also that they can be surmounted. In these districts there is the prevailing western wind together with a high annual rainfall. Suitable timber should be provided, or even shrubs, to break the force of the rain and the western gales. I believe a good deal could be done to beautify the country and, at the same time, protect the live stock. In that way the health, not merely of the animal population but of the community as a whole, would be improved. I commend these suggestions to the Minister. I hope that he will have the question I am raising in regard to the plantation in the Flagmount area dealt with without delay or else inform me of the alternative plans of his Department for dealing with the situation.

Mr. Commons

This year, like every other year, we have the usual amount of encouragement on the Forestry Vote in this House. Unfortunately, this year, like every other year, we see very little progress being made with regard to the actual number of trees or forests that are about to be planted. It is encouraging in a slight degree to hear the Minister say that we will be able to plant approximately 1,000 acres this year more than last year but we are still a long way behind even the target of the Fianna Fáil Government which was 10,000 acres a year. Ten thousand acres a year are not a sufficient target for the Forestry Department of this country. However, we cannot go ahead at the present time with the great forestry scheme because of the events of the past seven or eight years, due to the war. If we had sufficient land to plant 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 acres to-morrow and if we had sufficient men to work that land we certainly would have to stand by because we would not have sufficient plants or trees. The amount of seed that we have been able to import would not in any way be sufficient for our needs. We cannot go to the Scandinavian or the Continental countries to purchase seedlings or young trees because those countries have neglected their own nurseries over the past seven or eight years. They have cut to the very utmost their supply of timber. They are not now in a position to supply any outside country with either seedlings or trees in the quantities which those outside countries require because they want them for their own forests and their land. Therefore, we shall have to wait, as we have already waited so long, before we see any great boom in forestry in this country. We all know that this country is much below what it should be with regard to forests. We are told that the safety margin in forestry for any country is to have planted 8 per cent. of the total acreage of land. Be that land good, bad or indifferent, 8 per cent. of the total acreage is necessary to be planted to ensure the good health and the general wealth of a country.

We have less than 1 per cent. of our little country planted, and when we think that this headline of 8 per cent. is essential to countries which are surrounded by the sea, namely, islands, we can understand how far we are off the mark that would bring us safety with regard to forests and health. We are, if you like, only amateurs on this subject, but we must realise that in the Scandinavian countries 200 years ago there were very few forests also. The real boom in forestry in Scandinavia came not for the purpose of improving the wealth or the beauty of the countryside, but to improve the health of the population. In those years almost between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the people were supposed to be affected with tuberculosis. An old scientist found out that the growth of timber would improve the climate and dry up the atmosphere generally, thus bringing better health to the community. That was the real reason why the Scandinavian countries set out on the giant plantation schemes they did. In later years the result of their wise thoughts proved beneficial to the countries. Their most valuable industry to-day is timber, just as our most valuable industry would be timber in the years to come. We must admit that the forestry scheme we would plan this year will be of no value whatsoever to any man in this House or even to the youngest child born in this country to-day. We know perfectly well that there are people who think that trees will grow to maturity in ten to 20 years. That is not so.

Such trees may be useful for certain things like pit props or firewood and would add a little to the wealth of the country, but their real commercial value can never be achieved until trees have at least 50 years of growth. That should not, however, deter us because the amount of employment that can be given at the present time in a proper forestry scheme is something we do not visualise here in this House. We are told that the acquisition of land for forestry is one of the big stumbling blocks. The provision of money by way of State finances does not seem to present any difficulty at all. There are various opinions here with regard to what authority the section of the Irish Land Commission which deals with forestry should obtain with regard to the provision of land for the planting of forests. Some Deputies advocate that it should not be given great powers; others state that it should. I am opposed to having timber planted on land that could be used for agricultural production of any kind. It is more valuable to us at present to have agricultural production. Therefore, we should plant our forests in the secondary class land of which there is plenty in this country. Hitherto, for some peculiar reason, the forestry pointer has been entirely away from the province of Connaught. I am speaking in this debate, not because I think there is any great hope of a vast forestry scheme within the next two or three years, but because I want to bring the Minister's attention— although I do not think I need do so— to the hundreds of thousands of acres of waste land that are in the province of Connaught and that are admirably suitable for forestry timber.

Deputy Beegan hit the nail on the head when he talked about cutaway bogs. We all know the immensity of these cutaway bogs along the western seaboard. They would grow first-class timber. They will not, however, grow timber if trees are planted haphazardly by the Forestry Department. If the scheme is properly prepared there is no doubt that we can have first-class timber grown on the derelict and waste bogs. The goodwill of the local people is also taken into consideration. We are not savages and we know perfectly well that if there is any industry brought into a locality which will give employment and let money go around, the people will not go out to sabotage it. There may be forest fires which will, if they get under way, destroy in one night or day the efforts of ten or 20 years. But this island is not so big and is not such a wilderness that we cannot find a forest fighting section to look after such fires. Anyone who puts up that obstacle to the progress of forestry knows little of his subject.

I believe that the forestry section of the Land Commission should have more powers to acquire land. The price which will be paid may or may not be enough. In my part of the country, where we have so much congestion and where people are looking for an industry which will provide employment instead of having their sons and daughters forced to emigrate, I believe that even at £2 per acre the Minister would get plenty of land for tree-planting purposes. It would be land very suitable for trees and as good as any to be found elsewhere through the the country. The same would apply to other parts of our State.

We are told that if trees are planted at a certain height they will not reach maturity and most of them will fail. In my opinion even the highest point in this country is not too high for growing trees. Along by the seaside, if there are protecting belts of a more hardened type of timber, fit to stand exposure to the elements—a timber which, I am sure, the scientists of to-day could produce—I am sure we would be able to get trees which will be beneficial to the country from the point of view of industry and as a means of absorbing our unemployed.

If we were faced with the problem that the Italians were faced with, when they dredged the Mediterranean, brought up mud from the bottom of that sea, plastered it along the mountain sides, planted young trees and got those trees to grow, then we might have more respect for our land and we could say to ourselves: "This is land which can be worked easily and without half the slavery that other people have experienced".

We are not approaching this matter in the right way. There is plenty of co-operation in this House. No man has said a word against forestry. There is, however, a hold-up somewhere. The Department does not seem to be inclined to tackle this matter in the enthusiastic manner in which it should be tackled. I know the Minister has the best intentions in the world, but in the matter of forestry, above all things, he cannot expect to perform miracles in a few years. The 10,000 acre target indicated by the last Government is not sufficient. With that 10,000 acre target it would take 100 years to plant 1,000,000 acres. Everyone knows that we have more than 1,000,000 acres of forest land available. If we read some of the books about forestry we will be told we have between 3,500,000 and 4,000,000 acres available. Even if we confine ourselves to 1,000,000 acres, we would have to have that planted within 100 years or otherwise we would not be doing our duty.

The real wealth of timber comes in what is called the rotating forest. The 10,000 acres that will be cut one year will give way to 10,000 acres that will be planted and that system of rotation will continue through the years. That is the sound way of making timber wealth producing. It is the type of wealth for which we cannot make plans. Our duty is to tackle it immediately and hand on the work to posterity. If in 1922 or 1923, when it was very easy to go to the outside world to get forest plants and every other requirement at a very cheap rate, we planted 10,000 acres, I have no doubt that the industry would have got such a hold on the people that at the present time we would be able to lay down plans for the planting of 50,000 or 60,000 acres.

During the election there was plenty of talk about forestry schemes to the extent of 50,000 and 60,000 acres. The rotating scheme of forestry is the only one that will ultimately be successful. That is the secret of success in the Scandinavian countries, and it can be made successful here. We will be getting somewhere if we tackle it that way. If we do not adopt that policy, we will be wasting time and merely fooling the country.

The planting of trees on higher ground is a problem. We are blessed with one thing that very few countries have. We have no erosion. We can safely say that the mountain-side which had its green patch 50 years ago can have the same to-day. In many parts of the world the wind will this year sweep the side off a mountain. In this country that rarely happens. We have a moist climate, very suitable for trees. We now have a native Government in control, we have plenty of resources, ample man-power and sufficient land and it is up to us to make the best of our opportunities or else admit complete failure.

There are many by-products from timber. The use to which timber can be put is really amazing. We are told that 300 different articles can be produced as by-products of timber. I read an article four months ago about what they are doing in Sweden. It amazed me to learn that sawdust in the Swedish mills is now being ground and mashed up by some process, and the result is the hardwood that we are using here and that the world is being supplied with from Sweden. That hardwood is now being made from sawdust that heretofore was allowed to go waste in timber mills all over the world. That is only one of the many industries that can be brought about through forestry.

In this country we are almost at a standstill in regard to forestry. The war years have drained the forests and timber nurseries of the world. Even with our best efforts we cannot go ahead very rapidly. The different statements that were made here should give every encouragement to the Minister. There is no doubt that if a proper reclamation scheme were put in force here we would have at least 100,000 acres of land that could be devoted to useful agricultural production. We know that the highest mountains here will grow grass, because there is no erosion and the earth will stick there. We have evidence of that from what the Cistercian monks have done in Mount Melleray, where they cleared away the rocks and made fertile land on the top of the mountain. In Sweden and Norway at present the timber industry is so valuable that it is now more profitable for them to plant their agricultural land in forests than to produce food or the other things they want. If to-day those countries could be guaranteed food from the outside world, they would plant almost their entire acreage in timber. That shows the value of the timber industry. Even at the 15-years' growth stage, the value as firewood and pit props is great.

Forestry is an industry which would give employment to youth and keep people working, and these are the main things we want. A good forestry scheme would also improve the health of the people. What was done in other countries can be done here. We have plenty of workers and there seems to be no shortage of money, as we are never told that finance is the big drawback. We also have men in the different Departments who understand forestry perfectly. While I have very little use for many of the officials who constitute the powers-that-be in the Land Commission, I fully believe that the men in charge of the forestry section know their job, and if they are given enough encouragement by the Minister and by this House they will go ahead with their work. The difficulties in the provision of land should not stop them. The Minister should have more powers to acquire land. People will not give up anything voluntarily. It is amazing how the value of an acre of cutaway bog increases when a Department inspector is seen with a mark in his hand and is trying to acquire it for any Government project. It has been derelict and waste for 50 years, but let anyone appear and it suddenly becomes a goldmine for the people concerned. That must stop, and the Minister can only stop it and go ahead with forestry if he introduces legislation and takes more power into his own hands regarding acquisition and regarding the different types of trees that should be planted. He must also see that no effort is spared to bring the acreage —which this year is only something like 6,000 acres—up within the next three years to 10,000, and within five years after that to at least 15,000 or 20,000 acres a year. If that is not done, we will not have the forestry scheme we envisage and would like to see; but if it is done, there will be a vast improvement in the general forestry outlook.

With regard to forestry workers, we know that Cong in County Mayo is the only place from which a complaint has come. There is no forestry or State plantation within 50 miles' radius around me, although there is plenty of land. We are told these men are dissatisfied with the wages. Forestry workers have to work hard at manual toil. Timber must be put down by the hands of men. There are no machines which will plant trees or knock them down. It is by the sweat of their brows that the forestry labourers grow the timber. We all know how they have to work on wet days going through the forests, wet to the skin, and then we are told their wage is not a living one. The Minister must look into that complaint, if it is genuine— and it must be genuine. If he brings satisfaction to them, there will be an increased output and those workers will do their best to improve the forestry situation of the country.

Mr. Allen

I am sure the Minister, after his short sojourn in the forestry section, appreciates much better than he did a year or so ago many of the difficulties of carrying through the programme of his group. One would have thought that, in introducing the Estimate, the Minister would have given it something of the new look and that he might have asked for double the Estimate of last year. Of course, he may come along later with a Supplementary Estimate, after getting the new design for forestry from Deputy Cowan. I have no doubt he will do so, if he accepts Deputy Cowan's design.

Mr. Blowick

It might happen.

Mr. Allen

He cannot need money. If he consults Deputy Cowan as to how the money is to be provided, he will have no difficulty there. It is obvious that there is no settled mind on the matter of forestry policy in this House, amongst the different Deputies who have expressed their opinions. We have city Deputies with city minds who believe they need only wave a wand and have all parts of this country planted as they desire. There is a very great difference of opinion as to the land that should be planted, and there always will be. That is one of the main difficulties in forestry policy. It has been so in the past and will be so in the future. The Minister has, in his own hands in the Department, all the powers for compulsory acquisition that he could desire. As he is a careful man, I am sure he will use those powers very sparingly and will not proceed to acquire compulsorily very much land for forestry purposes. It is far better to get it voluntarily, from people who desire to part with it voluntarily, rather than acquire it compulsorily. As Deputy Beegan said, most people who own land and are putting it to any use can reap more advantage from it than they could by selling it to the forestry section. I would like to say to the Minister that if he and his Department hope to acquire much more land in the future for forestry, they will want to mend their hand in the matter of price. They cannot hope, if the price of land and the price of agricultural produce remain anything like what they are at the present time, to acquire in the next dozen years anything like the amount of land that they have acquired in the last dozen or 20 years unless they take very inferior land. I believe that the maximum price is £5 an acre with annuities redeemed. You might offer a man £5 an acre but by the time the annuity was redeemed he would not get half that. I have heard of an offer of £1 per acre and that would not even be £1 when the annuity was redeemed. The Minister cannot hope to get land unless he can persuade his Department or whoever controls the finance to make more money available or the type of land which he will get in future years will be very inferior.

Whatever the views of his Party in the past in the matter of forestry, I hope that the Minister will not embark on any wildcat schemes such as that advocated by Deputy Cowan, to have 1,000,000 acres in five years. No sensible person, no person at large outside Bedlam would continue to suggest that there were 1,000,000 acres of land suitable for forestry in this country that could be planted in five years. It could not be done. The sooner Deputy Cowan and his friends get away from that and get down to something sensible the better.

On this Estimate last year I suggested to the then Minister that something should be done by the Forestry Department to get the patches of good forestry land here and there throughout the country on which timber was felled during the recent emergency replanted. They are not owned by the Department of Lands but by private farmers and others throughout the country. I would again suggest the replanting of the immense number of small patches of land which are available throughout the country, on which good timber was felled during the war and which proved themselves as good forestry land. You cannot grow good timber, heavy timber, except on good land. That is a well-known fact. The land which grows the best crops, the best land in the country, grows the best timber, and poor land will never grow good timber. An immense amount of matured timber was cut throughout the emergency in the valleys and dells throughout the country, and it has not been replanted. There is no doubt about that. This was due to the scarcity of plants up to now. I am sure, even if some farmers were compelled to plant, it would not succeed owing to the difficulty of cleaning. There is great difficulty in cleaning, in uprooting roots and getting ready for replanting. If the Department were to undertake the replanting and, if you like, charge it on the farmers as an annuity, thus recouping themselves, it would pay dividends over the years. These patches are spread all over the country where timber has been cut, and I suggest to the Minister that it must be replanted. I suggested that last year to his predecessor and he made some move in trying to get the local authorities to plant that land. Personally, I do not think that is feasible, because the local authorities have no machinery for protecting that land. They are ill-equipped and they would not be the proper authority at all to undertake any planting, even in a small way. The local authority, however much they might be inclined to do it, would be the wrong people altogether to undertake this job.

The question of the wages paid to forestry workers compared with the wages paid to farm workers is a big problem. Take a county like the county I come from, County Wexford, where there are some forests. I had complaints at different times from farmers that the Forestry Department were competing with them for the pool of labour available. I would say, however, to give the Forestry Department their due, that they are most careful about that, but at times they do compete with the farmers for the pool of labour available. Every farm worker in the country would get into forestry work if he could in preference to working on a farm. Men will work on public work, whether road work or forestry work, in preference to working for a private individual—that is, in the main. In fairness to them I would say that they have to work much harder for the Forestry Department than for any farmer and they would, in my opinion, be entitled to somewhat preferential treatment in the rate of compensation because they are kept out in bad weather under difficult conditions very often. These men work under difficult conditions when men working on a farm can go in and get shelter. There is that difference in the type of employment and that only.

I am glad that Deputy Cowan has come back to the House. He is available now again and we are most interested to hear his scheme which Clann na Poblachta outlined but which they are putting in abeyance and which they are going to put in operation some time in the very distant future. It will not be in this century.

Captain Cowan

Indeed it will. Things as strange as that have happened.

Mr. Allen

I do not believe that anything as strange as that could happen. In 1948 that Party will not be known and in 1949 it will not be remembered.

Captain Cowan

Nor the Deputy's comic interludes, either.

Mr. Sheehan

We all know that during the emergency many woodlands in this country were cut for commercial and fuel purposes. This timber served a very useful purpose but now the job is to plant that land again. We have the land; we have the men; we have the money but to get the trees is the problem, as far as I can see. I have been speaking to nurserymen in Cork and they tell me that it will take 20 years to plant the lands of Cork and Kerry. The Minister has a big task therefore, but I am sure that he will have the co-operation of the House and of the country in the schemes which he envisages. The timber in this country served a very useful purpose during the emergency and maybe in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time we might have a similar emergency and we must look forward to it. In order to grow timber you must encourage the farmers. Every farmer has some waste which he would plant if he were encouraged, but to encourage the farmer you must pay him. I suggest that the Department should give him trees. If every farmer planted some trees during the next ten or 20 years in conjunction with the Government schemes you would get the waste land planted. The second last Deputy said that all land in this country was forestry land. The monks in Mount Melleray came to a mountain and had to make the land fertile. A lot of the land is not suitable for anything but trees, but you need good land to grow trees. In Norway and other countries where they have good timber and trees 80 or 90 feet high they are grown on good land. Bad land will not grow timber. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider giving trees free to every farmer.

Mr. Moylan

That is not forestry.

Mr. Sheehan

You will get a chance of making your point.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy is a newcomer to the House and we shall give him a chance.

Mr. Sheehan

Trees are essential in a very damp climate like this. If we had a lot of trees, they would absorb the moisture and make the climate better. They would also make the country beautiful. As I say, we should spare no effort to plant as many trees as we can year after year.

Mr. Davern

I was criticising the other Department, the twin brother of the Forestry Department, a few days ago. I am sorry I cannot say very nice things about the Forestry Department either. If they continue as they are going on, it is obvious that we will be importing ash-plants very soon into this country. I am not accepting as excuses the danger of fires and many other things which have been put to us in the past and I am sure will be put up to us by the present Minister. If we are here this day 12 months, we will hear the same old excuses trotted out. As to the excuse about goodwill. I wonder was much goodwill obtained 100 years ago when certain elements in this country did take in certain lands and planted them; I am not saying very much against them for planting. That is the only thing they left to us which has been very much use.

I am not accepting the excuse that you must have all this goodwill. I am not at all satisfied that the people of the country are so mischievous that they will burn down every place where a forest is planted. I do not think they would. If necessary, the Minister for Justice could make it a very serious crime for any mischievous person to burn down any of our forests. Any person who did that should be kept in jail until the trees have so matured that paraffin oil and a few matches will not burn them down. I agree that the Minister will have to do something very strong about these people. Until recently we had not very much in the way of fire-fighting appliances. For the past five or seven years, however, there is not a town but has some fire-fighting appliances, and they were able to cope with most of the fires that occurred, whether accidental or otherwise.

I am an advocate not only of a bigger wage for forestry workers but of a greater number of workers being employed. It does not require much technical knowledge to be an ordinary forest worker. A man becomes a very efficient worker after a very short time. I have been associated with very many of them over 40 years and I know they are first-class men who do their job very well. I am pleased to hear of the development in Dundrum in recent years and I hope the Minister will, if at all possible, undertake further development of the sawmill there. If, as Deputy Commons stated, boards have been manufactured from sawdust and if they are able to do that in some other countries, there is no reason why the Irish people should not be able to do the same thing.

Deputy Cowan put forward a lot of excuses. I am not accepting all his excuses. We were led to believe that the members of Clann na Poblachta are forestry minded. If they are, and if the Minister is not going fast enough, they are the people to tell him, and they can make certain that he will go fast enough by cutting another ash-plant, in addition to the one they have. I am not suggesting that they should use the ash-plant on the Minister.

Mr. Blowick

I thought you were advocating violence.

Mr. Davern

Deputy Sheehan suggested that the farmers should be helped to plant shelter belts, that they should be given every encouragement to do that. It would be a very good method of helping in a small way the reafforestation of the country. For instance, most of the committees of agriculture give a certain number of trees to farmers, but I believe the main trouble for the farmers is the fencing. I agree that wire and stakes are costly. I think committees of agriculture should be given greater grants with a view to enabling farmers to fence off portion of their lands. I would even go a little further and say that farmers should be given a certain amount of money each year for maintenance of the shelter belts.

Mr. Blowick

That is not forestry. The county committee schemes are for shelter belts.

Mr. Davern

In its own small way, it is helping. I say that every tree that is planted is helping reafforestation.

Mr. Blowick

The timber that the Deputy is referring to will never be commercial timber.

Mr. Davern

It is timber anyway.

Mr. Blowick

So is a whitethorn bush.

Mr. Davern

Yes, but we will not have these very soon if we continue to go on in the way we are going. It is a method of helping in some small way. There is certainly a great deal of red tape attached to all Departments connected with forestry. I know of land that appears to the ordinary layman quite suitable for forestry purposes and which would be given voluntarily, but it is said that it is too high up.

Mr. Blowick

Will the Deputy tell me of any such land?

Mr. Davern

At Hollywood.

Mr. Blowick

I would be grateful if the Deputy would submit a list to me of any such lands.

A Deputy

It is over 500 feet high.

Mr. Davern

The farmer who owns that land told me that some inspectors stated that it was so many inches too high. I do not know whether that is true or not. I am not so sure that we would not get sufficient land for planting if we wanted it. If at any time you propose to take four or five farmers out of some mountainy place and plant them on fertile lands, I am quite sure that they will be only too delighted to go out and that you will not alone have their goodwill but their blessing as well.

Mr. Keyes

The remarkable thing about this discussion is the unanimity of opinion as to the desirability of forestry development. I think the debate has been on a par with the type of debate which takes place on this Estimate year after year. While Deputies are unanimous about the objective, every alternate Deputy who gets up expresses a different point of view. The result is that when it comes to digesting the conflicting advice offered to him the Minister finds himself in the same position as he was before. There are so many conflicting views as to how forestry should be developed that the powers that be carry on in the same old way. Whether that is wise or not, I do not know but I am afraid they do not get any alternative direction from the discussions that take place in the House year after year. None of us knows much about timber.

I have heard Deputy Commons stating that you can grow the best commercial timber on bog lands. I have heard Deputy Allen stating that you can grow the best solid commercial timber only on the best agricultural land. I am not an expert but I would be inclined to contradict both of them. First, I say you cannot grow good, commercial, resinous woods on bog lands. You would have to resort to what they call mound planting. That is not considered economic or capable of producing good, commercial, resinous wood. On the other hand, I have seen the best woods that this country ever grew, and that is saying a lot, grown on the slopes of the hills of Lough Derg, which is not agricultural land by any means, having a rocky surface.

In purchasing timber on behalf of the railways of this country, I had to visit various parts of Munster and the finest timber I have ever handled, not excluding foreign timber, was Manitoba pine grown on the slopes of Lough Derg. That forest was denuded at that time and has not been replanted since. Whoever was responsible for planting the original belt did a good job but their successors have not done a good job. The altitude did not seem to matter, and a couple of feet or a couple of yards above Lough Derg did not seem to interfere with the production of magnificent timber capable of being converted into furniture or of being put to any other use. You do not get that timber in all places but it is not necessary, in my opinion, to get the best agricultural land for afforestation. There are plenty of types of land available that are not suitable for growing the best quality timber but that could grow good timber. As far as the bogs are concerned, they could be utilised only for small coniferous trees that would be used within a short period for pulp and things of that kind of good commercial value.

The net point is that we ought to get on with the job and the question is whether we are doing sufficient. Deputy Commons expressed the view that we ought to get so much done in a certain period of time. Everybody seems to think afforestation is desirable but, as I have said, I am afraid we will get back into the old groove when we have finished the discussions here and the old order will continue.

Following the experience of the recent emergency, when we were up against it, we must realise that it was a good thing that we had some timber in the country. We were amazed to find the quantity of commercial timber that we had. The millers were able to go to the various parts of the country and cut timber which, up to that, had not been regarded as commercial timber. By using drying kilns, they produced magnificent timber, not perhaps comparable with timber from the Black Forest or the American continent, but which could be regarded as good commercial timber with proper seasoning. After three months' seasoning it was as good, in most cases, as the best wood we had to import. We are using to-day white deal from Sweden, Finland and other places that is inferior and incapable of producing any kind of decent joinery but there are no complaints about it because it comes from outside. The joiners and carpenters one meets, the men who supervise the housing schemes, find it impossible to get decent joinery done because of the inferior nature of this wood. It did not grow in Ireland and so there are no bones made about it.

I have discussed this matter with saw millers and people in a big way in the commercial world. Their one fear is that we would revert to the apathetic forestry methods of the past. They feel we ought to have been aroused from our slumber by our experience. There is definitely a big advantage to be gained if we embark on a bold policy of forestry. We may not be able to produce the 1,000,000 acres that somebody was talking about in a given number of months but I would suggest that the Minister should establish a commission composed not only of forestry experts but of people engaged in the commercial life of the country and agriculturists, to plan the best method of advancing forestry in the minimum of time. We cannot take agricultural land from agricultural purposes but we could easily get a survey of the amount of land that is capable of producing good timber of the various types. There is plenty of labour available and it could be engaged in very good, national and reproductive work. We are told that there would not be any shortage of money for this project. If there is no lack of goodwill, what is lacking? There is a lack of directive.

In my early years as a Deputy I had a tangle with the forestry people from time to time. They were inclined to be helpful but each man had a different point of view. One inspector would accept a couple of hundred acres for planting and that would be reported on by another inspector as being unsuitable. At that time we were told that areas of at least 300 acres were required for planting. I went to the trouble of getting the consent of farmers to give 15 to 30 acres to build up a belt of 300 acres only to find that my work was in vain because some expert said trees could not be grown there. But the tree stumps were already there showing that trees had grown there before the Forestry Department was ever heard of.

We are all agreed that we ought to get on with forestry. It could be used to build up a national reserve against future emergency. Even when there is no emergency, it is a good thing to have it. If it is so desirable, we ought to have some further advice, if necessary, called in to assist the Minister. The commission that I have suggested should be composed not only of forestry experts but of commercial people engaged in building and furniture making and financial business in this country to collaborate with agriculturists and the forestry people, to advise the Minister how to get on with the job of employing more men at a reasonable rate of pay. That has been covered by everybody and I will not stress it again. Forestry workers are entitled to something more than the pay of the ordinary agricultural worker. I think the Minister will agree with that. There are sections of them engaged in dangerous work and in work calling for skill and there is constant risk. Even the humblest forestry worker is entitled to a small differential above the wages of the agricultural worker because of the arduous nature of the work and the weather conditions he has to endure. The men are prepared to work. There are plenty of them available. With the goodwill of all Parties in the House, who admit the desirability of making advance in a speedy way, I would suggest that the Minister should call in a commission, with a time limit within which to report and to recommend the best methods of speeding up the work and getting maximum results in the minimum time for this very laudable industry.

Mr. J. Flynn

Eight or nine years ago I had occasion to speak on this Estimate. At that time the Forestry Department sent inspectors to Kerry and rejected proposals that were put forward. Deputy Cowan mentioned one of the inspectors in this debate, Mr. Reinhardt, who was in charge at that time. Strange as it may appear, the very areas in connection with which schemes were proposed and rejected by his predecessors were reported on favourably by him, after inspection, and he recommended to the Department to sanction afforestation schemes in those districts. I quote that to show that even at that time forestry experts were no unanimous in their opinions. They had no settled programme, as far as I can understand it, at any time within the past ten or 5 years.

I again ask the Minister to review that position in so far as the general scheme is concerned and also in regard to the area that I represent. I am glad that Deputy Keyes referred to the fact that, in certain parts of the country in the past, schemes were not approved of for laying down plantations. That applied to certain parts of South Kerry. It was held that commercial timber could not be grown there, but the fact is that some of the finest larch and pine in this country has been produced in those areas. They were planted there within the past 100 years by landlords and other people who beautified that part of the country with these plantations. They left, if you like, an asset to the country in these wooded glens and mountains. I am unable to understand why our native Government could not at least do as well as those people did in their time.

I again suggest to the Minister, as I did on former occasions, that, where there is a drainage scheme and an afforestation scheme to be carried out, the Department should co-ordinate its policy so that the men employed on the drainage scheme during the summer period could be employed on the afforestation scheme in the winter period. If a policy of co-ordination of that sort were carried out, it would provide continuous employment for the men located in those districts.

I want to take advantage of this Estimate to protest against the system that is being employed in the Killarney district at the moment. I referred to it here recently by way of Question. The point is that the forestry workers on the Bourn-Vincent estate at Killarney are classed as agricultural workers. That should not have been done in my opinion. I have had occasion to visit the Board of Works and the Land Commission about it, and all that I could gather from them was that they found it easier, from their point of view, to so classify these workers. They admitted quite frankly that these workers were not, in the main, agricultural workers, only a small percentage of them, and yet they classified the greater number of them as agricultural workers, thereby depriving them of the right, first of all——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Minister has any function in that matter. It is another Department of State that has to do with it.

Mr. Flynn

Forestry is forestry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is another Department that has to do with the classification of workers. What I imagine the Deputy has in mind is the stamping of cards.

Mr. Flynn

Can I raise it on any special Vote?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Departments of Social Welfare and of Industry and Commerce are responsible for particular regulations governing the stamping of cards and other things in regard to the classification of workers.

Mr. Flynn

Very well. I thought that I could deal with it in detail on this Estimate. There is another matter that was referred to by the Minister in his opening statement, namely, the question of timber. On the estate near Killarney, which I have already mentioned, timber was made available during the emergency. There is a huge quantity of unsold timber on the estate at present. I would like to know what is going to be done about it. Will it be sold by public auction, or will it be sold to one or two local people? It was originally intended for sale to Fuel Importers. I understand there are about 100 tons of this timber available at the moment. I would ask the forestry section to devise some scheme whereby it can be sold to local people at reasonable rates rather than that one or two people should be allowed to come in and take the whole lot at their own price.

I was amazed to hear the Minister more or less ridicule the idea put forward by Deputy Sheehan who suggested that farmers be asked to co-operate in afforestation schemes. The Minister seemed to think that the idea was fantastic, and that that would really not be afforestation work. I suggest to the Minister that if we are to have a real forestry drive in this country, and if we are to get all the people interested in afforestation, then farmers and everybody else in the rural districts should be asked to co-operate. Apart altogether from the shelter belt schemes carried out by the county committees of agriculture, the Forestry Department should devise some scheme for each rural district together with the major schemes that this Estimate is intended to deal with. We found difficulty in certain areas in Kerry in providing 300-acre belts as insisted on by the forestry section. That can be well understood when one examines the terrain and the surrounding areas in the mountainous districts and valleys adjacent. Three-hundred-acre belts may be all right in other districts, but in these places it is pretty difficult to have an economic scheme of 300 acres in each valley or area. We suggested the grouping of areas, so as to make the scheme economical, and that a forestry supervisor would supervise the grouping. The area might cover ten or 15 miles. Such a scheme as that would fit in with conditions that are peculiar to the areas that I have in mind.

I have referred to the question of afforestation in districts in County Kerry. We are not at all satisfied that it was ever taken seriously so far as we are concerned. Take these areas which were recommended and approved. Nothing has been done about them. I admit that at one time the local people did not want to dispose of their lands and did not want to co-operate with the forestry division in disposing of certain areas at a certain price, but the price offered, £4 an acre, even for mountain or marsh land, land in a congested district, was not a very good price and was nothing like what should have been offered. If the Minister directs a review of the whole position, he will find that some of the recommendations which have been there for years were never carried out.

I should like to know what explanation can be given for that. The forestry division were anxious, I know, to do everything possible, but they are working within a system which precludes them from doing effective work and doing it quickly. With the best intentions in the world, they cannot face up to the requirements of the country in afforestation. The Land Commission, as pointed out by Deputy Commons, who gave a very exhaustive explanation of these matters, cannot, under their unwieldy system, make land available to the forestry division, and, if there is not a clear understanding between the Land Commission and the forestry division, nothing will be done, and we will stand up here in a year's time to make the same type of statements and will have to go back to our people and tell them that nothing has been done for them.

Mr. Kissane

A good many Deputies have taken part in this debate and I suppose that fact goes to show that they all take a very keen interest in this matter of forestry. It is only natural, however, that there should be a conflict of opinion as to the best way in which to advance forestry. Many Deputies have referred to the question of getting co-operation from the farmers. The last Deputy who spoke referred to it and was surprised when the Minister shook his head and doubted the practicability of his suggestion. One thing I notice in this House is that we are all sometimes very generous when talking about our neighbour's property, but, if we ourselves were the owners of land down the country and an inspector from the Land Commission or the forestry division came down and told us that he wanted our land for a certain purpose and offered £3 or £4 an acre for it, would we be the great co-operators that we expect other people to be? The fact of the matter is that people who own land are not very willing to give it at the price offered by the forestry division. One would think from the way people sometimes speak here that there is an inexhaustible pool of land to be acquired. Deputy Cowan has referred to a possible competition in the matter of the acquisition of land between the Land Commission and the forestry division. Of course, there is, and there must be, that competition when the amount of land available is limited. I would say that, if land is to be acquired, the people who live in the congested districts have first claim upon it.

It is only when these families living in congested parts of the country have been satisfied, when their uneconomic holdings have been made economic and when they have been given a livelihood, even by migration, that we can turn our attention to the grandiose scheme of afforestation referred to by certain Deputies. That does not mean that I am not as anxious to see afforestation going ahead as any other Deputy.

Reference has been made to statements made by certain political Parties during the general election about the amount of land they would acquire, if they were returned to power, and the amount of afforestation they would be responsible for. We now find that they are wiser and more chastened people, who admit that their promises were greatly exaggerated and could never be carried out.

Mr. Blowick

By the way, who has admitted that?

Mr. Kissane

Did the Minister listen to Deputy Cowan?

Mr. Blowick

I did, very carefully.

Mr. Kissane

He said he realised the difficulty of carrying out the programme which he and his colleagues advocated during the general election.

Mr. Blowick

He said the very same during the election.

Mr. Kissane

He did not. In any case, everybody knows it is impossible.

Mr. S. Collins

Within the present system.

Mr. Kissane

Everybody knows, and nobody knows it better than the Minister, if he has consulted his expert advisers, that it is fantastic to suggest that it is possible to plant 1,000,000 acres in five years. Will the Minister tell me where the land is to be got to plant 1,000,000 acres in five years? Could he answer that question honestly? It is a grand thing to talk about the land that can be acquired from people down the country, but these people who have to carry on their ordinary methods of husbandry do not want to part with their land, if it is any good.

Reference has been made to bog land, to what is called cutaway bog, and there appears to be a conflict of opinion as to whether it is possible to grow trees in those areas in which there is this cutaway bog land. Deputy Flynn has already referred to this question. He pointed out that certain suggestions were put before the forestry people seven years ago. I remember that occasion and I remember that those suggestions were turned down on the grounds that trees would not grow in the place suggested. Surely, this is a matter that could be settled once and for all. I ask the Minister, when he is replying, to tell us exactly whether commercial timber can or cannot be profitably grown in cutaway bog lands.

Mr. T. Brennan

Or on high mountain—that was the point I made.

Mr. Kissane

Deputy Keyes suggested the setting up of a commission to examine into the possibilities of afforestation in this country. If there is one more effective method than any other for arresting the progress of afforestation in this country it is the setting up of a commission to examine the problem. Everybody knows that when a commission is set up to examine into any problem it means the subject matter of its inquiry is being shelved. We have had too much experience of the delay that the setting up of commissions involves.

Mr. Crotty

Put a time limit on it.

Conchubhar Ua Liatháin

Ba mhaith liomsa a chur in iúl don Dáil nách é lán-pholasaí Chlann na Poblachta atá á chur i bhfeidhm ag an Rialtas maidir le ceist seo an Ath-Chrannadh. Tuigfimíd nách n-éireoidh linn polasaí an Pháirtí seo 'gainne a chur i bhfeidhm go dtí go mbeidh Rialtas Chlann na Poblachta i réim. Is é an polasaí atá againn ná scéim mhór náisiúnta ath-chrannadh a leagadh amach chun obair a sholáthar dár ndaoine féin agus iad a choimeád sa bhaile ar obair a raghaidh chun tairbhe an náisiúin.

We of the Clann na Poblachta Party have been made the subject of some rather cheap jibes and sneers on the debate on this Estimate for afforestation. Clann na Poblachta as a Party believes in the pursuance of an intensive policy of reafforestation. We believe that to succeed that policy must be carried out as part of a major economic plan. We believe that it must form an integral part of such a plan. I cannot conceive of any real progress being made towards substantial reafforestation unless there is a comprehensive national scheme drawn up and developed on progressive lines. I believe that the whole subject of afforestation has the goodwill of the present Minister. I believe that for a very long time it had the goodwill of his predecessor. I think it is rather a pity that the present Minister's predecessor in the heat of a by-election and in the heat of a general election campaign sought to drag this question down from the high national plane it did occupy to the level of mere political Party propaganda. I think that in a matter as important as the one we are discussing now it should be possible to approach it, not from the point of view of securing cheap debating points and not from the point of view of showing that somebody said something six months ago, or six years ago, or 16 years ago over which he cannot now stand, but that it should be approached in a helpful and constructive way.

I believe that this question can be approached in that manner by all Parties in this House. Perhaps I have not yet got that degree of cynicism which apparently comes after prolonged periods in this House, but I am still sanguine enough to believe that the Minister will get co-operation if he looks for it. I hope he will look for it. I believe he will get it.

We approach this question of afforestation, first of all, as a scheme of national importance capable of increasing the wealth of the nation and as a means of putting to work here at home numbers of young men who might otherwise be compelled to seek a living elsewhere. I have no authority to pose as an expert on afforestation. I believe that the truth lies somewhere between the uncritical fervour of those who regard it as a panacea for all our economic ills, on the one hand, and the cynical attitude of the man who would suggest that talk about afforestation is so much rainbow chasing on the other hand. Probably the truth does lie somewhere between those two extremes. In order to assess the position accurately it will be necessary for us to have a more exact idea than we have at the moment of the amount of land in this country suitable for the planting of commercial timber. I have heard the figure put as high as 3,000,000 acres. I have heard the figure reduced down to 500,000 acres. The experts of the Minister's Department can enlighten us on this. I would not like to be taken as endorsing Deputy Keyes' suggestion that a commission be set up. I agree with Deputy Kissane that very often the setting up of a commission is the surest way of putting things on the long finger and impeding progress. But I do think it would be helpful if we could have an authoritative statement as to the area in this country suitable for the planting of commercial timber.

Deputy Allen referred to the criticism directed by some members of the farming community against the activities of the Minister's Department as tending to reduce the amount of labour available for the labour pool. I would appeal to the Minister not to let considerations of that nature weigh with him. To my mind it may, perhaps, be only in ways like this that the general level of agricultural wages and the general standard of living of agricultural workers can be raised. If the activities of the Minister's Department tend to do that in any area then, far from finding that a ground of criticism, I would consider it an adequate reason for endorsing such activities. Comment was made and a statement was attributed to my colleague, Deputy Cowan, to the effect that we were not in a position to put our policy on afforestation into practice. That is so. We are certainly urging and we intend to continue urging on the Minister and on the inter-Party Government to give the fullest possible effect to that policy and to put as much of our afforestation policy as possible into practice. We are satisfied, however, that under the present Minister and under the present Government greater progress will be made in afforestation than would be made if their predecessors were in office. I would appeal to the Minister to urge on the Government that from whatever assistance, whether by way of grant or otherwise, that accrues to us from the Marshall Aid Plan or the European Recovery Programme a portion will be earmarked for an intensive drive for reafforestation.

In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to bring to this question of the planting of commercial timber—of an intensive drive for afforestation—all the energy, enthusiasm and vigour that he and his Department can command. By doing that we will ensure that thousands of young Irishmen who would otherwise be compelled to leave the country will be able to find employment at home.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I have been wondering where the land is to be procured for this colossal scheme of reafforestation. I do not know what the Minister's view is but on many occasions in this House I have heard that if we continue dividing land at the rate we are dividing it and if we continue giving the same amount to each allottee we will have something like 60,000 or 70,000 uneconomic holders left over. It would appear to be rather puzzling, therefore, to discover where all this land is to be got for afforestation. I have also heard statements in this House in regard to tree-planting by private individuals. I think that though tree-planting does not come under this Vote it is, nevertheless, a very excellent idea. In fact, all the timber we had here during the emergency came under that heading. What we now term afforestation did not exist in the old days. These trees were planted by individuals and, fortunately for us, they were there and we got the benefit of them. The Minister for Lands is going to try to procure something like 500,000 acres for division in the next five years. In addition, we want to get 1,000,000 acres for reafforestation. That makes the matter more difficult and more puzzling still. I fail to see why this House should be asked—if ever it happened to borrow money from the United States or if it is even necessary to borrow it—to spend borrowed money on such a scheme as this. One would imagine from the speeches that have been made in this House that the Cumann na nGaedheal Government did not make a reasonable attempt to reafforestate this country. One would be certain anyway that the Fianna Fáil Government did not make any attempt to do so. Both those Governments made attempts and they both found the question difficult. I do not believe that there is any commonsense in making such a plea as to allow any money we may be able to borrow for this purpose. It is simply saving the face of a very wild-cat scheme. I am sure the Minister knows perfectly well that, even if the price of land were to fall, he will not be able to do much better than we did.

In this country it is really a question of the price and the value of land. If people can feed sheep on land, produce a certain amount of food on land, and so forth, I am quite certain that it is going to give a far better return than the planting of trees and waiting 30 years for their maturity. That is generally the period required to bring soft timber, for pulping purposes, to maturity. The other types of timber will take a longer period—40, 50, 60 and even 70 years. I think we are not going to increase the speed—and it would not be sensible to ask any Government in this country to do so— at which we are working at the present time. It stands to reason that, if we are going to have increased reafforestation and if we spend money on it, there must be a greater degree of prosperity in the country. If that is the case there will be more people, more land wanted, and more food wanted. It is quite true, if we were to get back to the conditions which existed when the Cumann na nGaedheal Party was in office—when we imported everything and did not want any food produced at all; when we simply produced cattle, sheep and a few pigs and fowl—that the price of land would then fall to a very low level, and that the landholders would offer the land for £3, £4 or £5 an acre. However, that is not going to happen again. The prosperity is there and land will get its price. Food is a much more valuable commodity than timber and I think the farmers will stick to the land.

Mr. O'Gorman

One thing that struck me about this discussion this afternoon is the complete unanimity that seems to exist on all sides of the House on the point that this problem should be tackled forthwith. Afforestation to me, at any rate, is one of our major problems and one which has been too long delayed. I must certainly say, as an admirer of nature, that nothing leaves a more pleasant impression on my mind than, when travelling through the country, to see thickly-wooded areas. I trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to the various viewpoints that have been expressed in this House on this problem over the past two or three days. I consider that the growing of timber enhances the appearance of the countryside to a considerable extent and that it will be, in addition, a great source of revenue to this country in the years to come—let us say 30 or 40 or 50 years. Well, now is the time to look ahead.

I regret to say that in many parts of the country, particularly in my own locality, where woods were cut during the 1914-18 war, never yet has there been an attempt made to replant them. I know that along by the valley of the Blackwater up as far as Cappoquin and on to Lismore there were many woods cut in those days. They were a great source of revenue to the people who owned them. Nothing has been done in the interim period to replant those, if I may say so, waste places. I think that is a pity and I hope the Minister will use his best endeavours to put those areas into use again. All over the country there is a considerable amount of waste land which is only suitable for growing timber. It is not rich enough for agricultural produce.

I have heard it said that you want good land to grow good timber. As regards timber such as red pine and other high-class timbers, I do not think there is any chance of growing them in this country, but timbers such as we have seen for the past 25 or 30 years we should certainly be able to produce. It is a pity that land not capable of producing anything else but timber should be allowed to remain unused.

I trust the Minister will tackle this problem, which has been discussed from many angles. I would like to see farmers with waste patches of land encouraged to plant trees and those should be given to them free. This matter has been discussed at great length and there is not really much that any one of us can say after 20 or 30 speakers have addressed the House. The Minister, as we look down upon him where he sits below us, is a big man in every respect. I feel that he will tackle this problem in a big way. As was said by Deputy Keyes during his very admirable contribution to the debate, it is time for us to stop talking where afforestation is concerned and get on with the job.

Mr. Breslin

I have no wish to detain the House unduly on this Vote. It has been so well discussed from all parts of the House, there is really nothing new that one can say on the subject. The Minister will perceive that he has got the signal from all sections of the House to go ahead with afforestation and in any steps he may take to speed it up he will have the co-operation and blessing of all Parties.

The reason I intervene in the debate is to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that we have in County Donegal thousands of acres of mountain, moorland and cut-out bogs which, in the opinion of many people interested in forestry and with a sound knowledge of afforestation, are ideally suited for the planting of trees. There are thousands of acres of that type of land in the congested areas. The Minister is no doubt aware that since the cessation of our main industry in the congested areas—the turf industry—the ranks of the unemployed have been considerably swollen. For weeks past we have had an enormous trek of young men and women who cannot obtain work at home and who are heading for the potato fields of Scotland and the grimy cities and towns of Great Britain in which to eke out a hard existence. The important work of planting trees would, in our opinion, in the congested areas absorb a good proportion of our unemployed. The important thing is to give them work within easy distance of their homes. It would also enrich our barren hillsides and eventually would be a source of wealth to the country.

We have been told by some speakers that it would be only a waste of time to try out the planting of trees in the areas I have mentioned. I would point out that in the congested areas at one time we had dense forests and plenty of trees. It is our opinion that it would be better if the Department moved itself sufficiently to go on with this work and carried out experiments, instead of moralising and theorising here as to whether trees would grow or not. If we proceeded on the assumption that they would grow we could give more work to the unemployed, put them working beside their own doors, and in the course of time this would be a great source of wealth.

I ask the Minister to consider seriously what I have said. A start could be made in the congested areas in all counties. If the Minister proceeds with that work he will have the help and blessing of all Parties. Even if he does make mistakes in the beginning, we will forgive him; he will have every co-operation if he goes ahead with this important work.

Mr. Keane

For some time in this House I have been listening to suggestions as to the best approach to the forestry position. My idea as far as native timber is concerned is that you may relate it only as a means of obviating floods, establishing shelterbelts for arable land, and to be used in its immature state as timber for propping or such other purpose as it might be useful for. To consider it from a commercial point of view, I believe trees replanted would never be used to any advantage for such things as the building of houses or for other buildings that may be required. We may not be looking far enough ahead as regards the progress of those buildings. I would be very much in favour of replanting land where the timber has been cut and that is available at the moment. Some people may be genuine regarding the Fianna Fáil acreage, but that is no reason why they should be critical regarding the genuine opinions of other Parties. Many are of the opinion that by replanting this country we will give a fillip to the recruitment of labour and give the labourer better wages than he is getting at the moment from the forestry section.

It is very fine to talk about inanimate bodies, civic beauty and commercial value, but after all the hewer of wood is not to be relegated to any secondary position whilst we are trying to improve the other amenities of our land. A hewer of wood is drawing a meagre wage of £2 15s. a week and there are certain disadvantages and anomalies attached to his labour and very little reliefs. He is working in an area of solitude and under adverse conditions. People who profess to be solicitous—I hope it is not synthetic solicitude—should have mentioned more frequently in this debate that the conditions of life and of work of those labourers should be improved. If in our wisdom we carry on the schemes mentioned here, we should give priority in our thoughts to the people who will be doing the work and see that they are paid a fair day's wages for a very fair day's work.

There is an area from Ballydesmond in County Cork to Youghal which was mentioned, I think, in The Rape of Ireland. Last year, some people voiced their opinion that the floods are doing very serious damage to towns in the valley of the Blackwater and that if the land were replanted it would obviate the floods and prevent the damage. If we have the land, why should we not do it? What is all the talk about acquisition? This land belongs to us, apparently. We have men working on it. Why not speed up the work, increase the momentum, as was suggested to the Land Commission?

There is also a great scarcity of skilled forestry technicans. It is surprising that people never suggested that there should be a forestry college, just as there is an agricultural college. This industry may be of a secondary consideration to agriculture, but it should have been contemplated long ago—and should have been implemented by now—that a forestry college be set up where we could train our own young Irishmen. They could get their degrees and could be sent out and from them would radiate a certain system that would speed the replanting of this country.

If there is any arable land, I tell the Minister to steer clear of it. What we want is "Ireland for the Irish and the land for the people," a great slogan of long ago. We cannot allow the land for the people to grow inanimate bodies, no matter what the commercial value of the timber may be. Let us plant firmly on the soil of the country the people of the country, and after that we can take what has not been utilised and use it for forestry purposes.

I appeal to the Minister to realise the hardships under which forestry workers are carrying on and I hope that, in the very near future, they will get a substantial increase and that that increase will be given also to those who are in charge, those with 15 or 20 years' experience, who are highly qualified men and who are in charge of reafforestation and have a very responsible job on their shoulders. I hope the Minister will give us the satisfaction that we expect from him within 12 months and that the policy he has spoken of in this House will be put into operation, so that when we come back again to this Estimate we will be able to look on the position with pride and judge by results.

Mr. Rooney

This Estimate is directed towards the creation of national wealth. On this occasion, we are not being asked to spend money on a project from which we cannot reasonably expect a tenfold return. On that note, I desire to direct a few words in favour of the moneys asked for by the Minister. Afforestation is a great task and something very much needed at the present time. During the 26 years of our native Government, this problem has not been tackled as ably as it might have been. We find now that, during that period, we could have created a certain amount of wealth and that we could be deriving benefit now from those things that could have been done in the 26 years gone by. Instead of looking back, we must look forward to see what we can attain. During the recent emergency, our native timber stocks were lower, I suppose, than ever in our history. However, we have passed through the emergency and the necessity for wood fuel is not as great; but the necessity for timber in the form of building material is greater than we can hope to meet at the present time.

During the war years many parts of the country were denuded of trees, because we could not import coal. But we can import coal and now we have an opportunity of building up our forests again. We have in this country State lands which are neither bogs nor forests nor producing food and where it is found that they can be utilised to the best advantage by planting trees and I would ask the Minister to act immediately and carry out whatever steps are necessary to make the land suitable for the planting of trees there.

If we were lucky enough to have timber at the present time, our housing would not be curtailed and we would not have to look to the future having regard to the available supplies of timber that we can obtain from other countries. The timber from these trees would be capable of supplying Electricity Supply Board standards, railroad sleepers, furniture, telegraph poles and fencing posts, but we find that our supplies of timber are not capable of making these things available, with the result that many of our national projects are held up by lack of timber supplies.

I would like to point out to the House that we are importing timber from Scandinavia, Russia, Latvia and several other places which are not trading with us. We are purchasing that timber from these countries by drawing on our national wealth, but we are not exporting anything to these countries, and the balance, as far as I can see, is very one-sided. Before we can plant forests, we must have nursery stocks and suitable land on which we can plant those young saplings. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to have the available land surveyed and examined so that he could be sure that if he puts these young trees into that land the planting will not be a failure. There are types of soil which are not suitable for the planting of trees, but we have in this country bare mountain slopes which cannot feed live stock or produce crops but which could very well be used to grow certain classes of trees. There are trees which need more moisture than others but the Department could choose the suitable type of tree. A longer period of maturing is needed for hardwood trees than for softwood trees, and therefore, in taking the long view, it would seem desirable that the Department should plant a certain proportion of softwood timber and a certain proportion of hardwood timber.

Trees in any country are responsible to a small degree for the climate obtaining in that country and in winter time if we had a great number of trees we could be sure that the climate would be more moderate and that the degree of cold would not be so great. On the other hand, during the summer period, they create a certain amount of humidity besides reducing a great proportion of the oxygen in districts where they exist. They also encourage vegetation in those districts by reason of the humidity that exists in their vicinity.

Farmers have been required in recent years to plant trees in place of those for which they got permits to fell. They have been required in some instances to plant as many as three trees in place of each one they felled. In the case of farmers who felled perhaps 1,000 trees and who were required to plant 3,000 in place of them, a certain hardship would be caused, because the area required for planting 3,000 trees would encroach upon the arable land on their farms. In that case I would ask the Minister to have the farms concerned surveyed by experts in forestry so as to ensure that farmers would not be required to plant trees on arable land because of the necessity for them to plant three trees in place of every tree which they felled.

The afforestation grants of £10 per acre of which farmers can avail are not attractive to individuals if they can at all produce food or feed animals on the land concerned. As well as that, an individual is not able to do without money for as long a period as the State. No doubt the planting of trees, even for a farmer, is an investment, but he will never reap the reward. In the case of hardwood trees it takes anything from 50 to 100 years before its produce can be obtained. Softwood trees, no doubt, will produce commercial timber at an earlier period. In that case it seems that the State must take the initiative in planting trees for timber, because they can afford to do without the money for a longer time.

I hope that the Minister will see his way to have the matter of forestry as carried on in Scandinavia thoroughly examined with a view to bringing methods to this country which will produce the greatest possible resources. In Sweden timber exports represent something like 17 per cent. of the national income and this shows the value of this produce in any country and it encourages us here in the belief that afforestation should be pursued more actively than it has been in the past.

Self-sufficiency in Ireland is not impossible as far as the production of timber is concerned. It is calculated that the timber from some 10,000 acres per annum would supply all the needs of this country including commercial timber and firewood timber. Pre-war we imported something like 60,000 Electricity Supply Board or telegraph standards per annum and it is only right to believe and to expect that in the years ahead we will not be required to import this class of timber when it could be supplied from our own native forests. Money has been poured out in unemployment benefits during the past 15 or 20 years when it could very well have been invested in the work of afforestation. We could have financed large schemes in that period. I know that we were handicapped during the emergency and that we were unable to import certain classes of suitable seed. The rate of planting, however, up to the present has proved to be too slow and I am glad to know from the Minister's speech that this process will be doubled, if it is possible, during the coming year.

The possibility that plastics would replace timber has been suggested in the past, but I believe that there is no possibility that that can occur. I believe that timber in Ireland, as elsewhere, will always serve a useful purpose and that it cannot effectively be replaced by plastics.

There is a large acreage here in Ireland which produces neither food nor timber and it is only right to expect that the State will take steps to ensure what these areas of land which are capable of producing good-class timber should be utilised.

The Minister said that there is a pool of 30,000 acres available for development. I understand from what he stated that the soil concerned has been examined and found suitable for the growing of trees. I also assume from his statement that this area has been drained and made ready for planting. Next winter's programme is to be something in the region of 4,000 acres. That is coming near the original aim of 10,000 acres per annum, which would ensure that at the end of 50 years we would have 500,000 acres under forests. No doubt there are 500,000 acres of land in this country capable of producing good commercial timber. The Minister has around him an able technical staff and it remains for us in this House to assist him in every possible way and to ask in what way we can offer our help in the development of this project.

I know that we must take a long-term view. After seeds are planted, it takes them three years before the saplings are capable of being transplanted. The Minister has stated that during the past year over 7,300 acres of land were purchased for the growing of timber and it is reassuring to know that he is having other areas surveyed with a view to acquisition. There are holdings purchased by the Land Commission which are not altogether suitable for the allotment of arable land, and in such cases I am glad to know that the forestry section is prepared to acquire that land from the Land Commission in order that trees may be planted on it. In the course of the debate it was stated that 300 acres in any one place should be made available in order that development of the area could be effected at the least possible expense. I know, however, that there are smaller areas and patches on farms which could be developed effectively for the benefit of farmers, although as a State project they could not be regarded as practicable.

In the course of his statement, the Minister mentioned that, as a result of forestry development in the past, the State has been enabled to establish three sawmills, one at Dundrum, County Tipperary, another at Cong, and another at Avondale which I believe is working in some form at present. No doubt these sawmills, besides treating timber in the way required, give considerable employment. The object of forestry is to create employment in addition to making this valuable commodity available. There is a steady demand for rough boards at the Dundrum and Cong sawmills. In addition to boards, they are producing spokes and felloes and other things which are used in the making of farm equipment. It is proposed also to establish a timber drying kiln at Dundrum. I understand that this is the first of its kind to be established in Ireland. With the extension of forestry, however, it will become necessary to establish more kiln drying plants throughout the country and the treatment of timber at these plants will make it equal in quality to imported timber, about which people boast at present when comparing it with our native product. As I say, our native timber will be equal in quality to imported timber when the method of handling is improved. I am with the Minister in his efforts to create national wealth by means of afforestation. Although the creation of this wealth will not show results in our time, we have a duty to the nation and I believe we are fulfilling that duty by pursuing this matter of afforestation effectively.

Mr. Childers

I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions in regard to afforestation. First of all, as I understand it, some ten years ago experiments were conducted in the western areas where the amount of wind and rain is very high and where the soil is shallow and it was found impossible to plant in those areas, irrespective of whether the land was available or not and farmers would have to give up their grazing rights. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied, in the light of any experiments which have taken place in other countries since that date, that this general statement still holds—that there are very large areas where wind velocity, great rainfall and soil depth make it permanently impossible to carry out the planting of commercial timber.

I should also like to ask him whether he now considers that it might be advisable in certain of these areas to plant non-commercial timber either for scenic or protective purposes, particularly in areas such as parts of Galway where he will be informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance it is hard to find road work for men undertaking minor employment schemes in the winter. There are areas where there is no great turbary and where, as any visitor will find, most of the roads have been put into excellent repair, even the smallest boreens. I should like to ask whether he still considers, under present conditions, that it would not pay to plant non-commercial timber in such areas both as a method of giving employment and as having some value to the country from the standpoint of preventing erosion.

I should like to ask the Minister if he can give some more facts to the House in regard to the areas which can be regarded as dead for afforestation purposes. Could he give us an approximate figure of the number of acres of land suitable for planting which are unlikely to be taken for planting if the Minister and the Government consider that sheep grazing should continue there or, alternatively, that it is not possible from the standpoint of public opinion in the locality compulsorily to acquire land for afforestation? What is the total area of land potentially available for afforestation which is, so to speak, dead from that standpoint? I should also like to ask what is the total area of non-arable land which is unsuitable for planting under any circumstances. I ask these questions because during the election we heard the most fantastic nonsense about this matter from people who obviously never bothered to read any of the debates upon it or to learn the facts in regard to the total area available.

Next, I should like to ask the Minister whether, under normal conditions, he considers that publicity in regard to shelter belts is adequate to the purpose it is supposed to serve. Any person who visits the extreme West and who goes to areas in Clare and Galway, where the wind velocity is high and practically continuous, will note the number of small farmhouses completely denuded of shelter of any kind although such grants are available. Such visitor will notice that perhaps one farm in 50 will have a shelter belt and will immediately note how much more pleasant domestic conditions are in that farm.

If one makes inquiries one ascertains there is no particular reason why the people in the other farmhouses have not secured shelter-belt grants. It either has not occurred to them or perhaps they thought there would be difficulties or that the trees would not stand up to the wind. I notice that particularly to be the case in County Clare in the peninsula that ends in Loop Head. There were only a handful of houses there where there was any protective belt and the people there disagreed among themselves as to whether any known type of small bush or tree would stand up to the wind, and yet you would see certain houses where the bushes, apparently, had been able to resist the wind and where the people had far more comfort than in other houses.

During the war the materials necessary for shelter belts were not available and the Minister knows as well as I do that very frequently publicity has to be used to get people to take up Government grants, particularly where it involves technical knowledge, the help of an inspector, knowledge of trees. I would like to ask him whether he thinks the time is now opportune for advertising the shelter-belt scheme on a more extensive basis.

I would like further to ask the Minister a question, not in criticism but simply by way of information. I have been informed that if someone, in addition to taking the kind of training available in the forestry schools of the Department, takes a diploma or degree in forestry in the National University —I forget whether it is called a diploma or a degree—he secures no advantage in the matter of employment or status or pay should he apply for a position with the Department of Forestry and that, from that standpoint, the only advantage in taking such degrees is in the knowledge he will acquire that may result in more rapid promotion but that he receives no automatic advantage even if he takes the whole of such practical courses as are available after being through the National University. Two cases occurred during the lifetime of the last Government and were brought to my notice. In each case I was not entirely satisfied with the reply.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he could give us some information on those lines because it would seem to me to be entirely wrong for a degree or diploma to be available which merely encourages the emigration of the person concerned. I quite realise that there may be certain administrative difficulties in giving such advantages and I would like to know if they exist.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Department has recently considered the advisability of planting wind breaks in areas where there are practically no trees whatever. Wind breaks of comparatively narrow width planted between two walls would do much to improve production of crops and to save crops from the effects of continuous wind. I realise that there are great difficulties there because permission would have to be secured for a small amount of land bordering on a great many farms, but I have knowledge that where individual farmers have planted such wind breaks it has been to their great advantage, but that there are great stretches of the country where there is a complete absence of any kind of protection from wind, where trees have been cut or there are simply very low bushes. I would ask the Minister whether he has ever considered that as a desirable policy.

Seán Ó Tiománuidhe

Cé go bhfuilim cinnte go bhfuil an tAire tuirsech den diospoireacht seo anois, ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. I think it is notorious that State Departments are not as efficient with regard to business methods as private individuals are and it occurred to me during the course of this debate—it was in fact conveyed to me by the several speeches which I heard—that there must be gross inefficiency in the section dealing with forestry in this country. Take, for instance, the contribution to the debate made by Deputy Ben Maguire. It is not necessary for me to repeat the stories which he told. Those of us who are sufficiently interested can read the report. Both stories will show an extraordinary degree of difference of opinion among the people in the forestry section who are supposed to work as a unit and to follow a definite policy. I assume that the Minister regards this House, under the Constitution, as the supreme authority in this country and that he is satisfied to take his direction from this House. In his appearance on this Estimate for the first time as Minister, he has got a very clear direction as to what Dáil Éireann wants in the matter of afforestation. People have expressed criticisms, and helpful criticisms. Just a few speakers made some silly contributions. The great majority of the speakers, however, have made it clear that they are keen on afforestation to the maximum degree. It is merely on the question of the degree that they differ. I feel that if I were shouldered with the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, I would take my cue from the trend of the debate in the House and I would say to the forestry section: "Go ahead and plant the trees. That is your business. The Dáil obviously wants that and the country wants it."

Before I leave the point I am making as to inefficiency, I am convinced of it, I am sorry to say. I feel it is clearly established from the book to which reference has been made already, The Rape of Ireland. I was once present at a meeting of Muintir na Tíre at which the author of that book showed very clearly that there was inefficiency in the Minister's Department. Deputy Childers mentioned a matter which is of very considerable interest and that is the amount of importance placed upon the degrees in forestry which are conferred in the National University. I have in mind the case of a man who was trained at State expense, who now holds degrees which no other person in the country has, and yet he has been unable to find employment in the Forestry Department. I intend to bring this matter to the Minister's attention. I would not have referred to it but for the fact that Deputy Childers referred to it, because I thought it would not be quite appropriate to do so. I want to give the Minister warning that I intend to pursue it.

On the question as to the actual amount of land which is available for forestry, the experts, apparently, in the Department contradict each other. One of the first things which, I think, the Minister ought to direct is the initiation of an intensive propaganda campaign so as to create a public opinion about forestry and to make the people tree-minded. The Minister will get information from every member of the House as to the amount of land which appears to be suitable for forestry in his constituency, and he will also get co-operation if he takes steps to create a public opinion on the question. I was in part of the Gaeltacht in the County Kerry last summer. The area was very treeless indeed. I discussed the lack of trees with several farmers in the locality. They appeared to know nothing about the schemes which the Department has for making trees available to farmers at a very low cost, and they knew nothing about State schemes for the planting of trees.

Deputy Sheehan referred to the desirability of encouraging farmers to plant trees on even small patches of land. Deputy Moylan very caustically told him that that was not forestry. A short time afterwards, when Deputy Davern advocated the same thing, the Minister told him as caustically that, in his opinion, that was not forestry. These two Deputies were speaking with the best intentions and whether what they were advocating is forestry or not in the technical sense, it would, at any rate, if adopted, mean a multiplication of the number of trees in the country. That is the desirable end at which we should aim.

I do not consider that concentration on the production of commercial timber alone is of paramount importance. Even if you have only what we regard as non-commercial timber, you will have more trees and you will be going some part of the way to make our people tree-minded. I am glad to be able to say that in my constituency in South Tipperary we have a very fine sawmills there under the forestry division. A considerable amount of planting has been done in that area, but yet there are big tracts of land around that locality which are treeless. The Minister would have very little difficulty indeed in getting full information, as to the amount of land which is there available and which is valueless to the people who own it, by a simple inquiry from those in charge of the sawmills and from the forestry officials in Dundrum.

I do not agree at all that the question of pounds, shillings and pence, and a quick return, should be the sole factor in directing our policy with regard to afforestation. From the social point of view, afforestation on a large scale would have a very beneficial effect on the country. Apart altogether from the effect from the economic or financial point of view, afforestation has very wide ramifications on climatic conditions and so on with, of course, a multitude of by-products from timber. I understand from what I read in newspapers and periodicals that there is hardly anything now which one cannot make from wood pulp. I am satisfied, of course, that the progress cannot be as fast as we would like it to be, but I believe that if those in that section of the Department which deals with forestry are made aware that the Minister means business, there will be a considerable speeding up in the afforestation programme by the time he comes before the House next year with his Estimate

Mr. P.J. Burke

On this question of forestry, I would like to see a strong national campaign started for the growing of commercial timber and of timber for other purposes. We have heard Deputies speak of the possibility of planting 1,000,000 acres of land. There are trained experts in the Department to give advice on the possibility of growing timber under certain climatic conditions and on land which is definitely useless for any other purpose. Then we have the other point of view: why not grow it on agricultural land? Any Minister who attempts to grow timber on agricultural land will have the people of the particular area up against him, because these people want the land for the production of food, and, if he goes into a district where a number of people have the right to graze, for instance, a particular mountain, he must consult them and it is all a rather slow process.

I suggest that we should adopt the policy adopted in other countries where farmers are encouraged to grow two, three and four trees for every tree cut. During the recent emergency, large numbers of trees were cut down —this was particularly the case in my constituency—and the people were delighted to get them for fuel at the time. I was possibly one of the biggest culprits in that matter, but it was necessary to have firing. Small and large farmers do not go in for the growing of timber, with the exception of hedgerows, and I suggest that there should be more encouragement to the farmer to grow timber and more co-operation between the Forestry Department and the county committees of agriculture for the encouragement of the planting of shelter belts. The Minister may say that these will not be of much use to him, but I feel that these shelter belts would not alone be an asset to the farmer but to the country, because, if an emergency arises, the timber can be used. Anybody who has land suitable for growing timber should be encouraged to grow timber.

We have heard a good deal about the various methods which should be adopted and I urge the Minister to see to it that the people on whose lands large areas of timber were cut down during the past few years will replant. There are a number of examples of that in my own area. The timber was cut and sold, but I see no replanting done there yet. I know that there were many difficulties with regard to supplies of rabbit netting and such equipment, but I suggest that the Minister, in the national interest, should see that this work is carried out. I have been down through Wicklow and other areas where there are plantations and I know that the Forestry Department are doing fine work. Now that the turf scheme has been shelved, I suggest that the Land Commission should carry out experiments in certain areas, and in South County Dublin especially, on the bogland used by the Dublin County Council for turf production, and see if these areas are suitable for growing timber.

With regard to the pay of forestry workers, I hold that these men have to do very heavy work and the men who work at timber continually—I am not referring to the man who plants—the man who cuts trees down and attends at the saw-mill is doing a specialised job. These men should get a reasonable wage. The Minister will possibly say that it is not his bailiwick, but the fact remains that they have to do very skilled work and they should be compensated in a proper way.

Mr. O'Leary

We have heard a lot about the great industry of the Forestry Department in the beautifying of the country. I have met the workers on the scheme of planting which is being carried out outside Enniscorthy and anything at all will satisfy these men, instead of the conditions under which they had to work under a Fianna Fáil Government for the past 16 years. These men ought to be treated as industrial workers and should receive more than the agricultural rate of wages, and, if the Minister wants to have contented workmen, if he wants to see forestry work going ahead, he should give these men 60/- a week and see to it that their half-day will commence at 12 o'clock on Saturday.

Deputies have spoken about shelter belts. Who wants shelter more than the workers on the hills of Wicklow, Wexford and other counties, who have to travel miles on bicycles and who get no allowance? These men do not benefit by the Unemployment Insurance Acts. People employed at other work must be insured in respect of unemployment and national health insurance, but here we have State workers who are not getting a living wage and who are not getting the benefits enjoyed by workers in other employment. These men have to work under hard conditions, with no shelter, and it is a matter which the Minister should look into.

It is all very fine to talk about scenery and about the lovely trees we will have in 50 years' time, but the people who are reaping the benefits to-day of earlier plantations in this country are not our own people. I know of one millionaire who came over here and bought a mansion and demesne. He got permission to cut down all the trees and to-day those trees are lining the village park cut up in firewood. If they are the people for whom we are going to plant in this generation I think it would be better to cut out afforestation altogether and divert the money which might have been spent on it into some more useful and beneficial industry for our own people. The men who are engaged in this afforestation should get a living wage. There should be a decent wage for forestry workers.

Deputy Burke spoke about turf. That, of course, is a different industry altogether. The men engaged on turf made good wages, particularly those who were engaged on piece-work. Since I came into this House in 1943 there has been a lot of talk on afforestation. If, for every word that was spoken in this House on that particular subject, a tree had been planted we would now be in the happy position of looking for some new scheme because we would have more than enough reafforestation done. Talk is no good to those people who are looking for employment. If there is delay in this matter it is up to the Minister to speed things up. He is responsible. Everybody looks to him to see that the work is done and to see that his officials do their part. If that is not done, then our talk is in vain. County council men are supplied with oilskins. Corporation workers are supplied with boots. Here we want to put men on the important work of reafforestation at agricultural rates of wages. If we cannot do better than turn our people into salves upon the hillside there is very little use in beautifying our country.

Mr. Blowick

I have had a vast amount of advice from both sides of the House. Some of that advice was to go ahead and plant as large an acreage as possible with timber. Some of it was of a gloomy and pessimistic nature. When we sift the wheat from the chaff I am afraid that we shall find there was a good deal of chaff and very little wheat. A good deal of play was made by the Opposition upon the Clann na Poblachta programme during the last general election. It is alleged that Clann na Poblachta had a programme which aimed at 1,000,000 acres under trees in five years. Clann na Poblachta have not retracted one word of that. I listened carefully to their speeches. Perhaps, for the sake of argument, their programme was exaggerated but we must admit that it was put forward in the best of faith. Something has got to be done about afforestation. New Parties like Clann na Poblachta are definitely required from time to time in this House. They have a definite function to fulfil. They are sent in here by the people of the country with a definite end in view. Their aim is to get things going and to ginger up some of those people who have got into very rusty grooves through having enjoyed too much confidence from the people in the years gone by. Perhaps we, in Clann na Talmhan, said the same things. I do not want to go into that now. But I think in the years gone by other Parties put forward just as ambitious programmes and much more extravagant aims than those of which the Clann na Poblachta Party are guilty.

Mr. Davin

Bringing the emigrants back.

Mr. Blowick

When the Clann na Talmhan Party was first formed they had ambitious aims. Newcomers into the field, who have neither the technical knowledge nor experience at their disposal, always think that things can be accomplished in a very short time. In my opinion that is one of the advantages of democracy. It is said democracy has its faults but that is one of its good points. New Deputies come in here. They may make exaggerated statements in the House but they make them in the best of faith. Time and knowledge of the working of Government Departments temper their statements as the years go by. That is not to their discredit. I have not the slightest doubt that if I were to go back on my speeches of four or five years ago I am sure I said things then that, under the microscope to-day, I should not care to try to live up to and I am sure much more extravagant statements were made in the past than those of which the Clann na Poblachta Party has been guilty. It is a bad thing to attack a new Party or a new Deputy. It is a bad thing to jump on a new Deputy's neck the moment he makes some statement that appears exaggerated to some of us of the older school. If we are to get the best out of this House and out of the new blood transfused into it we must give our new Deputies the benefit of our experience. The people sent those Deputies here with a specific object. It is up to us to give them a patient hearing and not to jeer when they make even exaggerated statements in all sincerity. I propose to give those Deputies and this House the benefit of my experience here and now. There is no perfect human being and I hope that in time we shall get away from that system of attack. We all make mistakes.

Some Deputies have suggested to me that we should plant an enormous acreage with trees. It is my duty to tell them exactly where the truth lies. It is my duty to tell them exactly why we cannot plant an enormous acreage. It is my duty to tell them why it would be unwise to do that. Many Deputies on both sides of the House say that the delay in reafforestation is due to lack of money and that that dreadful man, the Minister for Finance, will not open his purse wide enough. Some Deputies say it is due to shortage of land. Deputy O'Reilly, and some other Fianna Fáil Deputies, did not seem to like the idea of afforestation at all.

I think the 10,000-acre programme aimed at by the Fianna Fáil Party is much too small. I am saying that in the full knowledge of my experience as Minister for Lands in charge of the forestry branch. We are not short of suitable land for planting. We are not short of money. The present inter-Party Government and the Minister for Finance are keenly anxious to go ahead with afforestation and to have as large an acreage under timber as is economically possible without disturbing land owners and agricultural production which a too rapid expansion in afforestation might entail. We must learn by the experience of other countries. A short time ago in New Zealand some private individuals put something like 500,000 acres under timber. In ten or 12 years when that timber fell due for thinning the available labour was not there without seriously upsetting agricultural production. The result is that these forests have grown into attenuated ghosts because they could not be attended to at the right time. We must take things as we find them.

It would not do to rush madly into forestry. We must fix on an acreage which will not overtax the resources of the country, which will not affect the small landholders and which will not cause labour to rush away from the production of food into the production of timber. It would be all very well if we had rushed into timber and tree-planting on a tremendous scale. We might then very easily have the situation arising in which we would have plenty of timber but no food to eat in the evening. That would not do.

Seed is the great difficulty with us at the present time. When I examined things I found that we have now on hands something in the region of 34,000 acres of plantable land. I found also that the Minister for Finance was not anxious to close down on me as far as cash was concerned. However, neither finance nor suitable plantable land is the difficulty—it is seed.

Mr. Davin

What about rabbit wire?

Mr. Blowick

Up to this, protection for the forests was scarce. We have plenty of it at the present time. If we want to aim, say, at a programme of 25,000 acres per year we will want at least 700 acres of very good arable land under nurseries in order to provide the necessary tree plants. Roughly, about 1,700 plants per acre is usual. That means that even for 1,000 acres you want, in round figures, 1,750,000 plants. A good deal has been said about how much land is available for planting and how much land is not available. Some have argued that only arable land will grow first-class commercial timber. Some have argued against that. The truth is, of course, that arable land will grow excellent timber but it does not take arable land alone to do so.

A great deal of what I would describe as non-agricultural land, which is at the present time being used as a sheep run, will grow excellent timber. The experience of the experts in the Forestry Department is that we cannot expect too good a return from the first crop. In other words, we will not by any means attain to the pitch of perfection or get the quality in the timber from the first crop that we will get from the second and succeeding crops. Deputies have asked what areas are plantable. It is roughly estimated that there are about 7,000,000 acres of waste land in this country—I have heard that figure given. I should, however, like to say that no survey has ever been taken, on the accuracy of which we can rely. There are about 1,500,000 acres suitable for planting, but there is a huge acreage that is not suitable for planting and that will never grow anything other than moss or some such other low form of vegetation. We have, however, 1,500,000 acres of land which is excellent for planting without encroaching on arable land. I do not propose to put one perch of arable land under timber if I can help it. Food for the human population should come before timber. Every perch of arable land should be devoted to food production. Besides, I know that we will have enough non-agricultural land to put under timber. I do not agree with the gloomy outlook expressed by some Deputies who as much as said: "What is all this nonsense about afforestation? What is the need for it?" There is a need for it.

Captain Cowan

And Fianna Fáil is supposed to be the progressive Party.

Mr. Blowick

There was not a single gloomy speech from this side of the House but there were a few from Fianna Fáil—why, I do not know. After all, if anybody has travelled throughout the country—throughout the counties Wicklow, Tipperary or Waterford, where we have fairly large areas under forests—he would realise that, if it was for nothing but the beauty of it alone—great barren mountainsides have been absolutely transformed and it is very pleasing to the eye even if it is perfectly useless—the work would be justified. Apart from that, it is giving employment and the employment up to date is nothing to the employment that will accrue from it when this timber matures and is brought down to the saw-mill. Some Deputies put the question that we should plant alternate rows of hard wood and soft wood.

Captain Cowan

Not alternate rows. The suggestion was that there should be a proportion of hard woods and a proportion of soft woods.

Mr. Blowick

The truth of that, Deputy, is that some land is suitable for growing hardwood and will give better results in the long run than if it were under softwood. Some land will give better results under softwood than others. From a business point of view we will not be able to intermix them like that. We have to figure out what ground is suitable for hardwood and what ground is suitable for softwood. In other words, we must plant in order to get the best results. We are using money which belongs to the people— taxation. We are using land obtained from the people and it is up to us to make the very best use of it and to give the best results. One Deputy in his speech, thoughtfully I must say, mentioned that if we go ahead on a big scale we are bound to make mistakes. He took it upon himself to say that he would absolve us from any mistakes that we might make. That is a most encouraging note. If we go all out on a policy of expansion I must say, human nature being what it is, we are bound to make some mistakes. We will make it our policy not to make any mistakes, but if we do go in for an expansionist programme we definitely will make some mistakes. It is very nice to have in the records of Dáil Éireann that at least one Deputy in the year 1948 in the Forestry debate was asking some future House to look kindly, at least on the mistakes that I will have made when the debate on Forestry comes up in the years to come.

Deputy Moylan mentioned there was opposition to forestry in Cong. There was no opposition to forestry in Cong. He is referring to the opposition that Deputy Commons and I put up a few years ago when arable land was being planted. The small-holders around about Cong demanded that the arable land be given to them as additional land. I am sure if the ex-Minister had gone down there he would agree that it was not opposition to forestry. Some people were applying for the land. Deputy Moylan must be well aware that our Party always favoured forestry, but on suitable land without encroaching on the arable acreage of the country. Time enough when we have all non-agricultural land planted—we can then consider going into arable land, but that will be many years to come.

Mr. Moylan

There was opposition there.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, deadly opposition against planting the arable land and there would be again to-day.

Mr. Commons

Certainly there was.

Mr. Moylan

No matter what they got, there was always opposition.

Mr. C. Lehane

There was not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputies assume that the Minister is able to deal with the matter? The Minister is quite competent.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Moylan wants to know what percentage of forestry would be put under hardwoods and so forth. I think I have referred to it. The percentage will depend on the nature of the ground, on the particular quality of ground as we come up to plant it. We will have to rely on our experts who, after all, have some experience in the matter. We will have to rely on their judgment to decide what ground is suitable for hardwoods and what ground is suitable for softwoods, when they say do not cross them, do not mix them.

Captain Cowan

Will the Minister leave the problem of combining deep-rooted and surface-rooted trees to the experts if we want to provide two or even three water-tables? If the experts think that this would help to combat erosion will the Minister, in view of their experience and knowledge, be prepared to accept their recommendations?

Mr. Blowick

Certainly. Deputy Commons, in referring to other European countries, said that there was no erosion here. It is on the hillsides and it is pretty noticeable. In other words, the soil of our hills is slipping down with the rains year by year, perhaps slowly, but nevertheless I am told that in some cases the hillsides are being stripped bare of soil that would be quite capable of growing timber to a height of 40 feet or 50 feet in a comparatively small number of years. There is a certain amount of erosion. Perhaps it is not serious but it would be desirable to arrest what is going on. Deputy Cowan spoke on that point.

Some Deputies asked why we do not take over a great deal of land and get some work done. Let any Deputy who thinks that exchange places with a small farmer in a mountainous district, a poor district, a farmer who happens to be the possessor of some non-agricultural land, yet land that would be suitable for planting. How does that man live? He probably has a cow. He is fortunate if he has two. He might have a few dry cattle and some sheep running on the hills. If we take his commonage we are seriously upsetting the economy of his little holding and we must bear that in mind.

Captain Cowan

If you do not give him employment in the afforestation scheme.

Mr. Blowick

We must be careful not to upset his economy. It might be a fine thing to put a huge acreage under timber, but it would be too bad if we reduced to poverty or semi-starvation some of the farmers from whom we are taking commonage on the mountain or their non-agricultural land. We must make sure we are giving them something equal in return. Let it be that we migrate them to better land. If we could reach that stage, it would be very desirable. We cannot blunder in blindly and foolishly and grab land because we have great forestry ideas at the backs of our heads. We must be careful to discommode people as little as possible. We must see that they do not suffer loss. It is my desire and intention that where we take over land, even where tenants surrender plantable land for forestry purposes, we must give these people first preference in employment on the land. That is what I intend to do.

Our experience in Wicklow, Tipperary, Waterford and other places is that it may be hard to get a foothold, to get the necessary land in a district or county to start a forestry scheme. We might find it difficult to get 200, 300 or 400 acres with which to make a start. Our experience is that once forestry gets a foothold, actually more land is offered to us than we can conveniently take. I am sure many Deputies will be glad to hear that. Such was our experience in Wicklow. Even in my own native county, where we have only very small areas, notably in Cong, I have been offered land which I hope to be able to acquire and get planted for the purpose of making a start there.

There are many western counties that have non-agricultural land, which is nevertheless suitable for timber growing, and I intend to go ahead as much as possible in those areas. My difficulty is to get plants and seeds. I do not propose to go foreign for the plants. I propose to have the whole industry centred within the country and I do not propose to go foreign unless as a last resort. I propose to get enough land to be used as nursery grounds to start off with. The very earliest that we can hope to take any transplants out of the nurseries and plant them in the forest grounds will be three years. Seed will be sown next spring and it will be three years before we can do any planting. That is as soon as any advance can be made.

Deputy Ben Maguire mentioned some huge area of 1,100 acres in his county and conveyed the impression that there was nothing done about it. I do not want to whitewash my predecessor, or blackwash him either. The truth is that that land was examined four times between 1932 and 1938 by four different inspectors and finally by the Director of Forestry. The ground is not suitable, and that is that. Any Deputy who tells us to plant a piece of ground may in all sincerity think it is excellent ground to plant. Do not forget that the officials are handling public money and it is up to them to see that the money is spent to the very best advantage.

A Deputy comes here with the very best intentions and tells us he does not see why a certain stretch of country is not planted. The experts go there on his representations and examine the land. If they know from past experience that that ground is not suitable for planting, they are perfectly justified, and I clap them on the back, for not wasting money in order to please the Deputy. The experiment might run into many thousands of pounds. The forestry experts have been accused of slowness and other things. We will give them a chance from now on. We will judge them at the end of a number of years and it is time enough to condemn them if we find they are lacking in their duty.

Deputy Little mentioned trees in relation to defence of the country. That has nothing to do with us. It is a matter for the Department of Defence. If they want to plant trees or protect existing trees for the purposes of defence in case of invasion in years to come, it is their duty to look after that. We will not hinder them. We will assist them in every possible way. I think that meets Deputy Little's case.

There was some mention made of forest fires. They are our biggest enemy. Forest fires are deadly. It has been said it is necessary to get the goodwill of the people when taking over land, that it is absolutely essential that the land will be purchased by agreement between the Forestry Department and the people who surrender it for the purpose of getting goodwill. I believe we have reached the stage where it would be very hard to find a scoundrel bad minded enough deliberately to drop a match into a forest in the Spring time of the year when the February-March drying is there and when it would be deadly to drop a match. I believe we have reached the stage when people are more civic minded, have a better sense of citizenship. I know accounts from counties where forestry is fairly well established show that the people working and earning there, and even those who never earned a penny from our Forestry Department, are most anxious that none of the forest would be destroyed. They love the forests and care for them just as a man would care for his stock.

Perhaps once in a while you may get a man who will deliberately burn a piece of forest; that very rarely occurs. Most of the fires are accidental. Any person outside a lunatic asylum must know that if he deliberately sets fire to a forest he is burning thousands of pounds' worth of property that does not belong to him or to his neighbours and that he is taking away the future living of children perhaps yet unborn who will find employment on that timber when it reaches maturity. While we must take every precaution, let me say that it would be impossible to establish a fire-fighting station of any kind. Deputies know what the undergrowth in a forest is like in February, March or April. It is like tinder. If you drop a lighted match near it on a breezy night or a windy day you are likely to destroy the whole place. There is nothing to stop it. It goes as fast as the wind. It is ridiculous to talk about a fire-fighting system ready to put out all fires. It is not unknown where the canopy of a forest has taken fire. The fire develops and it burns out the whole area. We must be careful, just as each person is careful about a fire in his haggard, and we must encourage a sense of responsibility amongst the people. When the hay and corn are going into the haggard the farmer is naturally careful and smoking is prevented. We must adopt some such attitude in regard to our forests. There is no other way out of it. A few Fianna Fáil Deputies referred to forestry as a madcap scheme. I wonder what kind of mentality that is, or where they were born or reared.

Captain Cowan

It is reactionary, anyway.

Mr. Blowick

I wonder what attitude those people took up when it was a question of planting aerodromes, particularly those that were not needed.

There has been some talk about shelter belts. I think it was Deputy Timoney who mentioned that Deputy Moylan and myself crossed swords on that. I am not opposed to shelter belts and I like them, as a matter of fact, though they are usually of a kind of timber which is not of commercial quality. I like to see a house protected by a shelter belt. It is nice and, as Deputy Childers said, such houses generally are cleaner and neater. Certainly, a shelter belt has a brightening effect and if a person is go-ahead enough to have one and beautify around the house, the house inside is probably as neat and nice as it is outside.

I wish to bring to the notice of Deputies that there is a system whereby we come to the assistance of private persons and public bodies anxious to plant their own land. There are 383,000 farmsteads in this country—big, middling and small—and if they each planted one acre next spring it would mean 383,000 acres of forestry. I am more than anxious that farmers, big, middling and small, would plant whatever acreage of land they can spare. It would not be easy for us to do it—we will not do it—as we could not plant an acre here and a rood there, since that would be dissipating our energy and scattering our foresters. No one can meet that problem but the farmers themselves. If the farmers plant ash, beech or oak in any waste, non-agricultural ground, in the years to come that will benefit the future generation. Turf as the fuel in the country is running very scarce in many counties. To meet that situation and encourage plantation, I am prepared to consider applications for grants in accordance with the following regulations:—

"The minimum width of the plantation must not be less than two chains, except in exceptional circumstances to be approved by the Minister.

The maximum amount of any grant will be £10 per statute acre payable as follows:—

£5 per acre within six months of the proper establishment, to the satisfaction of the Minister, of the plantation, and £5 per acre five years after the first payment.

Application for a grant must be made on a form obtainable from the Secretary, Department of Lands, Forestry Division, 88 Merrion Square, Dublin, and must be posted to reach the above address not later than the 1st January during the season in which the planting will be completed. It is desirable that applications should be made as long as possible before 1st January. Applications received after the 1st January in any one planting season will be treated as if they referred to planting to be carried out during the following planting season.

Each application must be accompanied by a six-inch ordnance survey map, or a tracing therefrom, showing the boundaries of the area for which the grant is required.

The area to be planted shall not be less than one statute acre in extent. Subject to this minimum, no area of less than half an acre will be considered in calculating the amount of ground.

The trees planted shall consist of an adequate number of one or more species of forest trees as may be approved by the Minister as suitable for timber production in Éire.

The area planted shall be properly protected, where necessary, against injury from fire, domestic animals, livestock, etc., and shall be adequately fenced and protected, where necessary, against damage by rabbits, hares, vermin, etc.

The trees shall be planted at not more than five feet apart each way except in special circumstances to be approved by the Minister. Planting at wider spacing unless specifically approved beforehand may render the area ineligible for a grant.

Grants will not be payable in respect of any area for which a grant is being paid under any other State scheme or for the planting of which trees are provided at the public expense either free or at reduced rates.

The Minister reserves the right in all cases to refuse a grant or to withhold the second instalment thereof in the event of the trees planted being unsuitable in respect of species or condition or unlikely to lead to successful results or if the planter has neglected to protect or manage the plantation in a satisfactory manner from the date of planting.

This scheme shall not apply to plantations laid down prior to the 1944-45 planting season. No application will be entertained unless made within five years of the date of planting. In any matter of dispute relating to this scheme the decision of the Minister for Lands shall be final."

That runs to any number of acres. Ten pound per acre is not a bad grant. Deputy Sheehan suggested that we should give free trees to those who wished to plant their own land. We will not do so, but will give them money instead, as it is more enticing and we get better results.

Mr. J. Flynn

Where farmers would be anxious to plant larch or pine, would the Department give them any assistance by providing the plants at moderate cost? Could they provide the plants at the average market price, as farmers seem to find difficulty in getting larch and pine in some areas?

Mr. Blowick

We have our own nurseries for our own timber. If we did what the Deputy suggests, we would be entering into competition with private nurseries, and I would not like to do that. The average person who wishes to plant will get plants at a reasonable price from the nurseries. The price of three or four year old plants is never unreasonable at the nurseries. We are giving £10 per acre as a grant—£5 when planted to the satisfaction of the officials and £5 at a later period. Then there is no limit to the number of acres that one person may plant.

Captain Cowan

It is roughly 20 per cent. of the cost to the farmers.

Mr. Blowick

It is higher.

Captain Cowan

It takes £45 to £60 to plant properly an acre to the satisfaction of the forestry division, to clear it and plant it.

Mr. Blowick

I am afraid I could not agree with the Deputy.

Captain Cowan

I am so informed by a person who knows it. It was £15 pre-war and it is £45 to £60 now.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Childers asked if those with university degrees in forestry would get preferential employment in the Department. We will not give preferential employment to anyone no matter what attainments he has, from a university or elsewhere. He will have to await his turn in the queue and go through the usual Civil Service examination. Then he can make use of his education and brains, and merit will come to the top in the usual way.

Deputies have asked me what I intend to do. I do not like to say I am forest mad, but at the very least I will admit that I am very enthusiastic about forestry and I will definitely try to expand it as much as I can economically. What that will mean at the moment I cannot say. I mean to ask the Land Commission to acquire land. The Land Commission has been accused of not working in harmony with the forestry section. That is not the case. All the land that is not suitable as additions, or for holdings under the Land Commission, is handed over to the forestry section without delay. That is taking place every week.

Captain Cowan

But they are really only belts.

Mr. Blowick

That is all, in some places; but any time the forestry section has asked the Land Commission to acquire a big area, where it would be available, the Land Commission has got to work and acquired it. I am informed that there is no delay and no friction and that there is the greatest harmony and good working. In getting the forestry section working into full swing, you cannot, even if you had a whole county at your disposal, plant until you have the plants and before you can get the plants you must have the seeds and before you can get the seeds you must have proper nurseries; and in order to have 25,000 acres a year you will need to have 750 acres of nurseries. These must be got going, and that is no small job in itself. Once you have a decent acreage of nurseries giving good plants, you can go ahead with the land.

I intend to discommode land owners as little as possible, as the type of person from whom we would be taking land are the very least that can afford any kind of shuffling or inconvenience in the process. We must try to make good to them, either by means of an alternative holding, if possible, or by a guarantee or next to a guarantee employment on the forestry schemes while the work is in progress.

Last but not by any means least, we have a question which was raised by several Deputies, the question of the wages paid to forestry workers.

Mr. Madden

Might I ask the Minister if the securing of grants from the Department is conditional upon farmers growing certain species of trees? Deputy Flynn mentioned a very useful tree to farmers, the larch.

Mr. Blowick

No, I do not think so. I think that they can plant any of the ordinary hard wood trees or soft wood trees, but I will drop the Deputy a note on the subject because I am not quite conversant with it at the moment.

With regard to wages, the inter-Party Government is the friend of the workers and has not the least thought of chiselling them or dealing harshly with them in any shape or form. The forestry workers have my sympathy and I think that the Labour Deputies and the Clann na Poblachta Deputies know that. I will do my best for them and I will fight with Finance in order to get them the best possible terms. More than that I cannot say.

Finally there is the question of small farmers who have to cut down trees, who got a permit to cut them with a replanting condition on the permit. In the case of farmers who have no non-arable land, I will not ask them to comply with the replanting condition as it would not be fair. I know several small farmers in my own locality, and in other districts besides County Mayo, who got holdings from the old Congested Districts Board or from the Irish Land Commission in the past. These holdings were part of estates and occasionally it happened that there was a corner of woodland or timber on them. They applied for a permit to cut the timber in order to sell it or to use it for firewood and there was a condition for replanting. I know one man who got a small holding from the Land Commission some 13 or 14 years ago. He took up the roots of the trees by his own labour although he was a man of 60 years of age in order to provide arable land for his holding, and it would be nothing short of tyranny to ask that man to plant over 1,000 trees in place of the 500 or so which he cut down. Each case will be considered on merit and where the replanting condition is tyrannical or a hardship, I will not prosecute it to the bitter end and I will absolve the person concerned from the condition. But that is not to apply in all cases. If I meet a case where a farmer has non-arable or nonagricultural land on which he can fulfil the replanting condition without any hardship, I am afraid that he will have to do it. I hope that that meets the situation.

I wish to thank Deputies on all sides of the House who wished me God speed in my forestry campaign, and I would like to say to those more despondent members who do not see eye to eye with forestry that forestry is a very necessary thing and that as a matter of fact we are starting rather late with forestry. Without any doubt it would help to improve the climate; it would help to provide very useful employment and would help to provide money. Forestry is here with us and here to stay, if I can see to it.

Mr. Moylan

May I ask the Minister a question?

Mr. Blowick

By all means, if the Chair does not mind.

Mr. Moylan

I do not want to pin down the Minister embarrassingly, but I would like to ask him what is the acreage to be planted this year?

Mr. Blowick

That is a fair question and it demands a fair explanation. The acreage will be as much as we have plants to put in, which is small. I understand that we are in a position to put down between 7,000 and 8,000 acres, with the plants which we will have next spring, or rather next planting season, at 1,700 plants per acre. By thinning that down from 1,700 to 1,200 plants to the acre we can increase our acreage but my experts advise me that that course is not advisable as it would leave the forest too thin and it would take a long time for the forest to thicken again. We will put down as much as we have plants to meet and that is the answer to the question the Deputy put.

Mr. Moylan

I do not want to pin the Minister down. We have had arguments here—this is not an election argument—Clann na Poblachta say 1,000,000 acres, you say 60,000 per year; I have said that I considered the Fianna Fáil idea of 10,000 acres too little; but what does the Minister think? Could he give us any idea of what he proposes to do? I do not want to pin him down in any fashion.

Mr. Blowick

Nor do I want to evade the question but I will say this. We have just emerged out of a period of emergency and there is the whole question of seeds to be considered. Deputies must know that that is a deciding factor. Any statement which I make will have absolutely no effect because I cannot tell what the seed position is until this time next year, but this time next year I will know what seeds we have and what steps can be taken for acquiring suitable land and then I can say what the general programme is going to be. I could say 50,000 acres or I could take the Clann na Poblachta programme and say 200,000 acres, but the Deputy himself must know quite well that any answer to the question now would not be more than the vaguest guess.

Mr. Moylan

Just one more point. Goodwill is needed if we are to have forestry.

Mr. Blowick

Agreed.

Mr. Moylan

The general public must have some desire that forestry should go forward. I would make a suggestion to the Minister and I think he should adopt it or else adopt some scheme of his own. With regard to publicity some propagandist effort should be made to turn the country's mind towards agreement with forestry.

Captain Cowan

Including some of the Deputies.

Mr. Blowick

If I might interrupt the Deputy, in rural areas my experience has been that the people are extremely desirous of forestry on a big scale.

Mr. Moylan

That is not my experience.

Mr. Blowick

Well it is mine.

Mr. Moylan

Under the present system I think that you will never get even the very meagre Fianna Fáil estimate for an eventual forest cover of 600,000 acres because the Land Commission or the Forestry Department are looking for land which on a first crop will produce commercial timber. I think that there is no hope in the world of getting 600,000 acres of land which would produce commercial timber on the first crop and that you would need a more modest proposal to get land which would produce it on the second crop. You could plant not so good land which would produce a good second crop.

Mr. Blowick

I pointed that out in my reply. On a good deal of the land that we planted, while the first crop will be profitable, it will not be nearly as profitable as the second or succeeding crops.

Mr. Moylan

Then why not accept less good land than you are looking for, because you cannot get, as is Deputy Cowan's idea, good arable land?

Mr. Blowick

One important point is the question which was raised on many sides of the House, the price which I pay for forestry land. It was pegged down at £4 an acre up to this and I propose to get authority to pay a higher price for the land at the request of the Deputies.

Mr. C. Lehane

Arising out of the Minister's reply to Deputy Moylan, would the Minister, in the circumstances existing this year, consider making an effort to import plants in order to increase the acreage?

Mr. Blowick

I have an objection to importing plants.

Mr. C. Lehane

In these special circumstances?

Mr. Blowick

If we import plants they will not be a success here. It may seem a strange thing, but if we import plants from Scandinavia, where the climate is much colder than ours, the plants will not be a success when sown here, for this reason, that although their winter is very severe, we have much later frosts here than they have and I am afraid it would be a dangerous experiment. I understand it has been tried on a small scale in the past but purely as an experiment and it has been a complete failure. For that reason, until I go into the matter more fully, I would be afraid to expend any large sum of money on foreign plants. We can put down from 10,000 to 12,000 acres, although it will mean a lot of thinning out. The forests will not canopy after thinning for a long time and it will have a very damaging effect on the timber ultimately.

Mr. C. Lehane

Will the Minister consider experimenting by importing a small number of plants?

Mr. Blowick

Certainly.

Mr. Briscoe

Did I understand the Minister to say that, with the best will in the world on his part to get forestry going as fast as possible, taking into account all the difficulties with regard to seeds and plants and the fact that the nurseries are inadequate to deal with large-scale afforestation, his aim would be in about three years' time to reach a position when he would get roughly 25,000 acres per year? I think the Minister mentioned that figure. I do not want to get a wrong impression and I should like if the Minister would say whether that is roughly what he has in mind. The Minister did suggest that he would require a certain acreage of nurseries to do a certain amount of plantation. He also stated that owing to the emergency——

Mr. Blowick

I answered that question already, in reply to Deputy Moylan.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister, in answer to Deputy Moylan, did not say what his hopes were, taking into account all the circumstances such as acquisition of land, the nurseries available and the plants, etc. He made it quite clear that the House could not expect that any sudden rapid development could take place this year or next year, which the House accepts. But, from the point of view of policy later, I should like if the Minister would say if I am correct that he said he hoped to do about 25,000 acres per year, as against 10,000 acres which Fianna Fáil envisaged.

Mr. Blowick

I answered Deputy Moylan on that point. If the Deputy looks up the debates when they are published he will find that I answered the question fully.

Mr. Briscoe

Has the Minister any objection to saying what the acreage will be?

Mr. Blowick

I told Deputy Moylan that next year we will know how the seed and plant position is. All I could give at present is a guess and, instead of guesses in this House, we should have solid information.

Vote put and agreed to.