Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 May 1950

Vol. 121 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Forestry (Resumed).

Mr. Dunne

Any perusal of the debates which have taken place upon this Estimate always throws up a sharp conflict of ideas so far as forestry is concerned as between the enthusiasts and the experts. Most Deputies who profess any interest in forestry at all are inclined to come within the class of enthusiasts and, indeed, it is difficult to see why any limit should be put upon the efforts of those anxious to see a progressive reafforestation policy pursued. We were told last year, during the course of the Minister's closing speech, that approximately 150,000 acres had been acquired for reafforestation by the Department of Lands; we were told that of that acreage approximately 30,000 acres were reckoned to be unarable and, not alone unarable but even unfit for the planting of trees. That statement sets a problem to those of us who are enthusiastic about forestry. If we look around us and make inquiries as to the steps taken in other countries in connection with forestry, it is not difficult to find examples of great progress having been made on land which was also reckoned to be unarable. The classic example is the Brémentier Commission in France, where, in the dune areas, tracts of sand were made arable and areas which were formerly known as "the great desolation", since no plant life of any kind existed on them, were successfully planted. By dint of the application and the determination of enthusiasts, as against the pessimism of the experts, that area under the Brémentier Commission was transformed into one of the most arable districts in France. When we read of such progress having been made elsewhere, we find it rather difficult to understand why a statement should be made here that of 150,000 acres acquired by the Land Commission as large a proportion as 30,000 acres is deemed unfit for planting.

When we were discussing this Estimate the week before last, I stated that I thought insufficient attention is given generally to this problem of reafforestation. That may be due to the heavy responsibilities which ordinarily devolve upon the Minister for Lands. But we have, as everybody knows, very considerable areas of waste land; where such land is used at all, it is only used for the grazing of sheep. Various estimates are available as to the economic value of sheep pasturage on the mountainsides. Perhaps the most authentic is an estimation that the highest value that can be placed upon pasturage of that kind is approximately 25/- per acre per annum. That represents an infinitesimal addition to the national income. It also represents a waste of what should be utilised as a national resource. Last year the Minister stated that, even if it were possible to plant the 25,000 acres suggested by some Deputies, it would not be desirable to do so. I cannot see the point in that statement. I cannot understand the statement.

Mr. Blowick

Who said that?

Mr. Dunne

The Minister said it. If he examines the debate last year, he will find he did say it.

Mr. Blowick

I would like to know where. Was it in reply?

Mr. Dunne

Yes. I may not have used the Minister's exact words, but the statement was something to that effect. I think the more we can plant each year, the better it will be. The Minister adverted at considerable length to the difficulty of acquiring land. Some Deputies put forward the view that the only land which could be planted is arable land. I think it would be a great mistake to plant land which is fit for other uses, such as tillage, for instance. In so far as forestry is concerned, I think the proper approach is to tackle the most difficult land, which is of little or no use for any other purpose, and to grow trees upon that particular kind of land.

Deputy Moylan dilated upon the advantages which a serious reafforestation policy must bestow. It is obvious that a country which is well sheltered and well provided with woodland must possess a richer soil than a country which is bare and open to the elements. I think this problem of afforestation should be brought to a far higher level than hitherto has been done. Various statements have been made and challenges have been hurled across the House with regard to the publicity brought to bear upon forestry during the election of 1948. One good thing at least was done in that election. More people heard of forestry and there was more talk of afforestation during that period than ever there had been before, or since, for that matter.

Many will over-estimate the potentialities and the employment possibilities of forestry, but it is undoubtedly true that we have an unusual problem in this country, where we have many thousands of peasant proprietors living on uneconomic holdings and wherein, no matter what land division policy is pursued, there still will remain at the end of it all many thousands of people living on uneconomic holdings. It is essential in circumstances such as these that we should provide in rural areas, particularly in areas where there is a great deal of unworkable land, some alternative form of employment, some kind of industry whereby the people living in these areas will be able to earn a living. Of course in the long run any forestry policy must necessarily be one of which we, in our generation, will not see the full fruits. A forestry policy to be successful must be pushed for at least a century. It has been developed in this country for no longer than 30 or 40 years. I think we owe it to the nation, and particularly to the people in rural areas, to press this matter of afforestation with far more vigour than has been displayed hitherto.

Very few Deputies take any interest at all in this Estimate. That seems to be a pity because bound up with the question of reafforestation is part of the solution of the great problem that faces any Government in this country —the problem of how to keep people who are living poorly on bad land in the rural areas. It does offer one way by which we can stem the tide of emigration and prevent the rush to the cities and I think, from that point of view, it is deserving of far more serious consideration than it has been getting in this House.

In the course of my remarks last week, I referred to the fact that the main instruments in our forestry policy, the men who go out and plant the trees, were not in my view being treated in the manner in which they should be treated. Even since the occasion of my last remarks, I have had representations from various parts of the country where men are employed at this work regarding their working conditions and their wages. I am told, for instance, that in one forest in Wicklow the men are required to be on the top of a mountainside, two miles from the nearest road, at 8 o'clock in the morning. If they are a few minutes late they cannot start work until 1 o'clock. That surely is an injustice and something that should be looked into and attended to by the Minister. As I have stated before also, this is simply a reflection of the fact, so far as I can judge it at any rate, that the operation of the forestry policy is left, inevitably perhaps, in the hands, not particularly of the Minister, but of his officials. The officials who are doing the work in Government offices very often have little appreciation of the difficulties and the hardships that men undergo out on the mountainsides and the hillsides.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, the Deputy understands that the Minister is responsible for the administration of the entire Department.

Mr. Dunne

Yes, that is the reason I am raising the matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

His remarks should be directed towards the Minister.

Mr. Dunne

I expect the Minister is not aware of every small aspect of administration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He is responsible.

Mr. Dunne

That is the reason I am bringing the matter forward here so that he will be made aware of the conditions and take steps to remedy them. We have now arrived at the stage when forestry workers all over the country are being paid the princely wage of 64/- per week. I think that the Minister, who is a man who knows himself what hard work is, should apply to this problem of the wages of the forestry workers the ordinary tests which every individual must apply to the problem of living. Difficult enough, indeed, it is for these men to carry out the kind of work which is provided by the Forestry Department. The hardships which they have to undergo during inclement weather are better imagined than described—up to their knees in water with no protective clothing, rubber boots or anything of that kind. Over and above that there is the problem which they have to face of trying to raise families on a wage of 64/- a week, the average wage now paid. As I indicated, if we are to tackle the question of reafforestation in a serious manner and if our policy in this connection is to be something more than just an excuse, we shall have to approach it, not alone from the viewpoint of the present policy so as to ensure that a far greater acreage is planted each year, but we shall have to tackle it from the very essential human point of view, that is, the needs of the man who must carry out the forestry policy. We, on our part, must have consideration for the need that exists for bringing into being large-scale afforestation, but the primary consideration for the man who has to do the work, that is, planting the trees, is how he is going to live in the way that he should live and he has not yet got that opportunity. He did not get an opportunity while the last Government was in office of living fully as he should live, because the wages were inadequate and he is not getting it now.

No person who knows anything about the problem of the cost of living will suggest that a worker can live as he should live on 64/- a week, much less rear a family. It has often puzzled me, moving around as I do amongst these men and seeing many of them with large families, how they exist. The only conclusion I can come to is that someone is suffering, and in such cases where there is want the children are always the last to suffer. The parents, naturally, provide for the children first. Many of these men have to go long distances to their work, in some cases seven and eight miles. They have to climb up the bare sides of mountains in the worst of weather, with little to eat for their breakfast, perhaps a cup of tea and a couple of slices of bread, with the same for their luncheon, and then return home at 7 or 7.30 at night after their day's work. If that sort of existence is deemed to be good enough for the rural workers of this country, then I say it is a disgraceful thing for anybody to accept that as being correct.

These forestry workers have always been overlooked. Sufficient attention has never been given to them or to their problems because of the fact that they operate in remote rural areas far from the public eye. They have become the forgotten workers of this country. There are approximately 5,000 or 6,000 such men. I want to try to get the Minister to develop a a keener appreciation of the problems which these men have so that we may get a greater degree of satisfaction amongst them. There is dissatisfaction, so far as the wages and working conditions of these men are concerned, in every forest and in every nursery in the country. Some Deputies, in the course of discussions in this House, would seem to create the impression that dissatisfaction amongst workers is something that is created by people who go around the country for the purpose of raising their minds. I wonder have those Deputies any appreciation at all of the position which exists? Far from that being the case, the position is that you will find amongst forestry workers, whether they belong to a trade union or not, or whether they have ever been influenced by a trade union or not, the most complete and absolute dissatisfaction with their lot. That is not a healthy condition of affairs. It is not a condition of affairs which is going to bring fruitful results from any point of view.

It may be argued that these workers' wages have been almost doubled since before the war. What they were paid before the war was a coolie's wage— nothing more—just sufficient for them to keep the spark of life in their bodies. What they are being paid now, when you take into consideration how living costs have increased during the war years, is not much better. In view of the fact that workers in cities and towns engaged in occupations of relatively far less importance than this particular job of reafforestation are earning 50, 60 and 70 per cent. more than these men, the time surely has come when their wages should be brought into conformity with their needs.

I think it is very much more important that men on a job such as this should be adequately paid than that we should be endeavouring to establish with other countries, some of which we do not even trade with, diplomatic connections. We are expending moneys on every form of human activity and, in some cases, we are expending them without very much regard to economy. Not alone has this Government done that, but the previous Government did it also. When, however, it comes to a question of these men getting a few shillings a week more we are always told—we were told it by Fianna Fáil and would appear to be told the same now—that the money is not there to pay them. It is a question of finance. Surely, there are greater considerations than finance. We have got to have some recognition of the needs of the ordinary human beings whom we employ, or have we just got to accept the position that while, on the one hand, we have State employees enjoying excellent conditions—relatively good wages and working a far shorter working day and in very much more congenial surroundings—there must be one law for that section of the community, and another law for the unfortunate forestry worker? How can that be justified? What standards are we applying when we accept that condition of affairs tacity? Does it not seem to follow that such a condition of affairs arises purely from the fact that the forestry workers have been so helpless that they have been unable to bargain effectively as other workers have been by virtue of the fact that they are scattered through the country and are in remote rural areas, and that advantage is being taken of that?

I want again to try to get the Minister to see that pious expressions of sympathy for the forestry workers are not sufficient. There should be, and there must be, steps taken to make forestry work attractive from the point of view of the economic good that will accrue to those engaged on it. I asked the Minister during the course of the year for details as to the wages and working conditions of forestry workers and for a copy of the regulations which govern these wages and conditions. I was given to understand that it is a confidential document. What is the reason for that kind of attitude on the part of the Department of Lands? Surely, a member of the House is entitled to know under what conditions his constituents are working, and entitled to get all the details that are available to the Minister in an issue of this kind. I should like the Minister to indicate the reason for that particular attitude. Is it just one more example of the attitude of mind of the officials of the Forestry Department? If it is, it is something which should not be tolerated for a moment, and I want to protest against it. I want to ask the Minister also whether Deputies are entitled to visit State forests or nurseries in their constituencies, to see what is being done in them, to see the conditions under which the men are working, or must they be beholden to any of the officials of the Department for permission to do so?

Mr. Blowick

As a matter of fact, I regret that Deputies do not go to see the State forests and nurseries often enough.

Mr. Dunne

It will be of interest to the Minister to know that I have been informed that I can only visit the State forests in my constituency with the permission of the officials of his Department and under no other circumstances. That, I think, is an abrogation of the ordinary rights of Deputies. So far as my constituency is concerned, there are about 14 forestry workers employed in it. There are many more, of course, in different parts of the country.

One of the problems which arise from time to time in County Dublin at any rate, is that of forest fires. It is not an uncommon thing to see pretty extensive fires occurring on the Dublin Mountains. In that connection, I think that inadequate precautions are taken against the activities of the holiday-makers and trippers who visit the Pine Forest. I think that insufficient precautions are taken to protect the forests in that area. It would be a good thing if additional men were employed in the warm summer days for fire-watching and if more notices were displayed warning of the dangers attendant upon carelessness by campers and so on. Undoubtedly, when forest fires occur, very great damage is done and the work of years can be reduced to nothing by carelessness in these cases.

I have said practically all that can be said, particularly in regard to the question which I consider to be the most important of all, namely, the treatment of the forestry workers. I should like the Minister to say what is going to be done for them, whether or not they can expect any improvement in or amelioration of their conditions, because upon his intimation of what is going to be done will depend a great deal. Many workers employed by the Forestry Department are feeling that there is no future for them here and that they would be better off if they emigrated. I do not want to see that happen, I am sure the Minister does not want to see it happen, and I suppose no Deputy does. But men will not be content to accept bad wages and bad conditions ad infinitum. Steps will have to be taken to put them in a better position to battle with lite. These steps have not yet been taken. The Minister has an opportunity to do what has never been done before, that is to give the forestry workers a fair deal. I trust that he will grasp that opportunity with both hands and that we will not be disappointed with the steps he will take in regard to this matter. I hope that the coming year will show some progress in this matter and that some progress will be achieved, not in 12 or six months, but in a very short time.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have listened to Deputy Dunne talking about the forestry workers. I thought that, as a result of the Government being now controlled by Labour, something worth while would have been done for these workers. I agree with every point which the Deputy has made regarding these workers, while I disagree with him in a lot of other things. I believe that the State should be a model employer. Notwithstanding all the statements made against us when we were the Government, the only improvement in the conditions that the forestry workers and the agricultural workers got was under that very much despised Act, the Agricultural Wages Act of 1936, which first gave them the right to demand a minimum wage. One point of view has been very prevalent in recent years, and that is that the wages of forestry workers should be based on the wages of agricultural workers in the different areas. The inter-Party Government and the Labour representatives have failed to improve on that condition even under more favourable conditions than we had.

Mr. Dunne

You should not say things like that which you know to be untrue.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The position has not been improved. We laid down the groundwork and we were expecting that, step by step, that position would be improved year by year as economic circumstances permitted. As I said, the State should be a model employer and should not allow these things to be governed by local conditions. That, of course, is a personal view. It could possibly be argued that the State is competing with ordinary local employers, but forestry workers definitely have a harder job than the ordinary worker. They have to leave their homes at an early hour in the morning, and work in exposed positions on the mountainside. Now that we have an inter-Party Government, supported by the archangels of the workers, something definite should be done in regard to these forestry workers. No matter how you reason it out, I do not think it can be said that the work of forestry workers in any area can be compared with men working in the lowlands. If allowance were made for the length of time it takes them to get to the top of the mountain from the roadside, or if they could be supplied with protective clothing or some such extra consideration, it would encourage these men and they would feel that they are State servants. This is a Christian State, and we ought to set a headline in our treatment of these men. I need hardly say that in bettering their conditions we would be doing something worth while. We on this side of the House did our best in that respect during our term of office, and we had a very long road to travel.

Mr. O'Leary

And a long time.

Mr. P.J. Burke

In spite of the better economic conditions which exist at present compared with those which existed over a great many of the years during which Fianna Fáil were in office, the present Government has not brought about the improvement which it should have brought about since it came into office. I hope the Minister and his Department will agree that it is about time something reasonable was done for those workers, and that the hardships they have to undergo demand immediate attention. As a member of the Party which is concerned with the welfare of every section of the community, I appeal to the Minister on behalf of that section of the people in County Dublin whom I have the honour to represent.

Mr. Dunne

All things to all men.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have received some complaints in regard to wet-time and various other matters of that kind but I do not propose to dwell on these aspects now. I have made a general plea for better conditions. Our Party has always been conscious of the needs of these people, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will not neglect them. There has been much talk about increasing the acreage of forestry in this country. I would point out that, even in three years, the Government is a long way behind in its programme of trying to trot in the same field as Deputy McQuillan's Party was anxious to trot in.

Mr. McQuillan

You could not trot at all.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I wonder if this is another of their fairy tales. The fairy tales were so many and so varied that it is no harm to accuse the inter-Party Government and to say that this is another of their big fairy tales. Time has proved that they knew nothing about reafforestation when they pledged themselves, before the election, to take thousands and thousands of acres of the land of this country and to plant them overnight. They neglected to take into consideration the question of the acquisition of land apart altogether from the suitability of the land and the problem of procuring young trees. They were just the usual wild statements made from the platform in order to buy the votes of the people at any price. That is the type of thing the people of Ireland listened to, and the trouble is that there was nothing whatsoever constructive about it. I have seen some of the young trees or plants which were sown on the mountainsides as a result of the mad rush by the inter-Party Government to try to beat our programme — little tree plants that were not more than one or two inches long.

Mr. Blowick

Where were the trees planted?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I would ask the Minister not to interrupt me now. I shall give him all the information he desires later.

Mr. Blowick

I am afraid the Deputy is up on the mountainside still. He did not come down.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. O'Reilly)

Deputy Burke.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I was often on the mountainside.

Mr. Blowick

The trouble is that the Deputy is still on the mountainside.

Mr. P.J. Burke

According to that Party over there with the magic wand — the Clann na Poblachta Party — the land was to be acquired and the people driven off it overnight, the seedlings were to be planted the following morning and they were to be up and growing trees a week after. That is the type of promise which that Party gave before the general election.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy should make inquiries about the fairy tales which issued from the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The trouble now is that the Clann na Poblachta Party have discovered, in the light of experience and hard facts, that they are unable to make good their promises. They realise now that our policy in regard to reafforestation was a sound, practical policy.

Mr. McQuillan

What was it?

Mr. Blowick

3,000 acres a year.

Mr. de Valera

Nonsense.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Minister is a genius at misrepresentation. He is almost as good as the others over there on the benches opposite.

Acting-Chairman

The Deputy will please address the Chair.

Mr. P.J. Burke

If the Minister would stop interrupting me I should not have to answer him.

Acting-Chairman

If the Deputy would address the Chair the Minister would not interrupt him.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Now let us see what the position is in regard to the Clann na Talmhan Party. They bid very high but I must say that I do not think they bid as high in regard to reafforestation as the Clann na Poblachta Party.

Mr. Blowick

Well, well.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I suppose it is very fair to say that they were second best in that respect. I would point out, however, to the members of the House that the Minister has not improved one iota on the sound policy in regard to reafforestation that was carried out by our Party under our able and honourable Minister for Lands, Deputy Moylan. When the Minister was on the Opposition Benches he was very critical of the progress made in regard to reafforestation but, like a lot more, when he found himself in charge of the administration of that Department he discovered that our policy was sound and practical and that we had taken every aspect of the matter into consideration. We took the long national viewpoint and we did not make any idle promises just for the sake of political expediency. We took the long view in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Blowick

It was a very long one.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We did not, for the sake of political expediency, give a return for imaginary acres that were planted. Our aim was to ensure that the good, sound, practical plans we devised would be put into effect. If, by any chance, there was a question of taking over some of the mountain rights of small farmers which, in hundreds of thousands of cases, represented their means of livelihood, we did so in a democratic way and with due consideration for the rights of the individual as enshrined in our Constitution. It is generally realised now that the only advance that can or will be made in regard to reafforestation will be on the basis of the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. The Minister seems to derive much amusement from my remarks but I am telling him nothing but the truth.

On the general question of reafforestation I should like to say that, as a man who was born and reared on the land, I am and always have been a strong advocate of shelter belts. I am convinced that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Lands could do a great deal to encourage small farmers and large farmers alike to devote a small portion of their land to shelter belts. I feel that a good deal could be done through the schools to encourage a civic spirit amongst the children, especially in the rural areas. There should be, for instance, a tree-planting day for the children. The children of one school might plant 20 trees in a particular plot, even once a year. That, I feel, would encourage children to become civic minded and to like trees and grow trees and take an interest in nature as a whole. That was an aspect of reafforestation that I had in mind for quite a long time. As a youngster I used to like planting trees and shrubs. I feel that type of thing could be developed through the country to a greater extent.

Captain Cowan

That is not afforestation.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It would encourage the growing of trees, anyway. The Deputy is very kind in putting me on the right track. We found ourselves, during the emergency, cutting down a number of our plantations. That work was really very essential. It suited our purposes very well at the time, when fuel and other things were scarce. I know that the Department is encouraging landowners and others, in every area where trees were cut down, to replant. The Forestry Department carried out its job during the emergency in a judicious manner. The Department tried to be reasonable both to the State and to the people who wanted the fuel.

Replanting on a wide scale should be encouraged, because we do not know when we may have another emergency. In conjunction with all the work that is being carried out from a national point of view by the Forestry Department, if all our farmers could devote a bit of their land to the growing of some kind of trees, these would become, in the years ahead, an important national asset.

Mr. Pattison

So much has been said on this matter, one finds it difficult to avoid repetition. I want to put briefly before the House my view of the reactionary policy that is still being pursued by the Department with respect to proper conditions of employment. Early in January of this year, I, in my capacity as a trade union representative, participated in a conference lasting several hours. It was an inter-departmental committee conference on wages and conditions of employment. Except for an improvement which has been made in the rate of wages of forestry workers, I am not aware that any improvement of a social character has yet been effected. Slavish conditions have been far too long in operation in this country, even since we secured the right to regulate our own affairs.

It seems to me that the old traditions, that so much sacrifice was made here to get rid of, still remain in the Minister's Department in regard to the day-to-day life of the ordinary workers employed by that Department. I cannot understand why, in this country, which is almost 100 per cent. Catholic, the workers employed in the Forestry Department are denied the right to attend Mass. If they do attend Mass, there is a penalty imposed upon them, and this appears in the form of a deduction from their wages. I know that the trade union with which I happen to be associated referred, in a recent communication, to this matter. In a way, it is a small matter, but in another sense it is a very big one.

I quite agree with Deputy Burke that the State ought to show that it is a model employer. I regret that Deputy Burke did not stress that more since he came into the House. Perhaps if he and others did, a lot could have been achieved in that connection long before this afternoon. My attitude in this House always has been to give credit where credit is due. When I was sitting on the opposite side of the House, I heard no speech from this side except one of thanks to, and praise of, the particular Minister of the day for all he had done. From the Opposition Benches, I on occasion, have complimented Ministers when they deserved it. Now, though I am on the Government Benches, I cannot fully compliment the Minister. Perhaps in the matter of wages he has made one move, but I am not prepared to give him all the praise I would like to until a good many or all of certain long-overdue improvements are effected.

I might say, in passing, that in regard to trade unions — I hope I am wrong — judging from the nature of the correspondence that has taken place between a particular trade union and the Minister's Department, it would seem that there is not a warm spot in the heart of the Minister's Department for the trade union outlook, as one might call it. The workers in this country are as well entitled to protection as anybody else; indeed, they are more entitled, because it is enshrined in the Constitution, and by law they are protected. I hope the Minister will not allow himself and his Department to be led into the trap into which some private employers have fallen, of interfering with the constitutional rights of employees, particularly those of the lower grade.

There is another matter that has come to my notice in relation to forestry employment. The men are sometimes asked in the afternoon, at about three or four o'clock, to move to another part of the works. It may be two or three miles away, and these men are expected to use their own bicycles to carry tools and other equipment. It is hardship enough for workers to have to provide themselves with bicycles to get to their work and to their homes, without having to use the bicycles for the conveyance of tool boxes and other equipment. There ought to be some other way of transporting these implements.

I do not think it is out of order for every Deputy to emphasise that a further effort ought to be made to improve the wages and the conditions of forestry workers, in the light of present-day money values. I am glad that the Minister has broken away from the rather unfortunate policy which was pursued over a number of years of comparing one class of worker with another, or taking the worker employed by the private employer at agricultural work and pinning the wages of State employees down to the miserable minimum rate he receives. I am glad that has been abandoned, and I hope that a greater sense of justice will continue to prevail in regard to rates of wages. I quite agree that a substantial improvement has been brought about since the beginning of this financial year, but, apart from money, there is a good deal of improvement to be brought about in the social life of the forestry worker, without the imposition of any great cost on the taxpayers.

We hear a lot about give and take and we in the trade union movement are very anxious to see co-operation and a spirit of give and take. I have, personally, been a life-long advocate of it, but what we very often find is that so far as the employer is concerned it is a matter of take all and of expecting the worker to give every time the employer feels he ought to give. I feel also that those in charge of forestry workers might well in many cases adopt a more humane and friendly attitude towards the men. Anything in the nature of military-sounding orders will not "wash". These men have an interest in the work, and a good deal more could be secured in the way of results if those in charge of them would adopt a kinder attitude.

I hope the Minister will continue to give attention to the representations of the trade union catering for these men. The Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, to my own personal knowledge, have been engaged in quite a lot of correspondence with regard to them and we are anxious to see peace in a very important work. We realise the many values which this work has. There are, of course, mixed views with regard to it from the expert angle, but there is no doubt that it has great value apart from its commercial value, and many people believe that this island country of ours should be restored at least to the position it occupied some years ago in the matter of afforestation. There was a great clearing out of timber during the emergency, and, in order to get this timber replaced and to get everybody enthusiastic in the matter, it is absolutely essential that there should be a happy atmosphere on the job. I conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will continue his efforts to make the life of the forestry worker worth living.

Mr. O'Grady

The Minister should feel very happy inasmuch as every Deputy who has spoken seems anxious to help him in his work by every means in his power. The Minister can rest assured of the co-operation of practically all Deputies in the very important national work he has in hands at the moment. It is a good thing that we should have a discussion on forestry not merely once a year but more frequently because there has been, in my opinion, a good deal of, perhaps, foolish thinking on the part of certain people who, while very enthusiastic, do not seem to possess the necessary knowledge to give sound advice to those responsible. We are living, as is well known, in a country which is the most treeless in Europe, with the possible exception of Iceland, and everybody who loves trees will naturally be anxious to see forestry developed to the utmost possible extent and as speedily as possible.

It is a good thing that the Minister is enthusiastic in that regard. I dare say it is better to be optimistic than pessimistic, but in order to achieve success the Minister will need to satisfy himself, in the first instance, that he will have the goodwill of the people living in any locality in which it is proposed to establish a forestry centre, because we all know how very easy it is for any evilly-disposed person to undo the very valuable work done by the Department over a long number of years. The first essential, where he is establishing a new forestry centre, is to secure the goodwill of the people and particularly the smallholders who have grazing rights. These rights may perhaps not be of much value in the eyes of people living outside the area, but to those living on small cramped holdings, these freedoms which are available to them for summer grazing are of vital importance to their economy and it is essential that, where these rights are being upset by the Department in connection with forestry operations, they should be compensated adequately, either by the provision of additional land, where possible, or otherwise.

There is another section with whom the Minister is more directly concerned and whose goodwill and co-operation he will have to ensure also. In addition to those for whom Deputies have already spoken, there is a section of employees, forestry foremen and foresters, employed mainly in a temporary capacity. As these men have taken up this occupation and made it their means of livelihood and as forestry is likely to go on long after most of us are in the clay, the Minister would do well to examine the position of these temporary employees with a view to having them established, because, as he knows well, unless there is satisfaction amongst all the employees, from the ordinary labourers doing the actual spadework to those in charge, he will not get the results he hopes to achieve.

There is a large area of what might be described as non-arable land, particularly along the western seaboard, and the Minister would do well to have some of these areas examined, with a view to having experimental plantations, even on a small scale, established there to show whether it is possible to grow timber on certain lands. There are advocates for and against. Some people think that timber can be grown anywhere, even on mountain tops. Others think that timber will grow only on arable land. I would like the Minister to carry out experimental plantations in certain selected areas where, in the opinion of the experts, there would be reasonable hope of success and, after a few years, he and the Department would be in a position to expand the experiments if it were found that they afforded reasonable prospects of success.

I would also like, if possible, to have all plantations, whether of forests or shelter belts, under the control of one Department. If the Minister could secure the co-operation of the farming community and each farmer could be induced to plant the waste portions of his land, if he could get 10,000 or 20,000 farmers planting even half an acre each, that would add considerably to the total area under timber.

Other Deputies have made reference to the clearances that have taken place during the two wars. I hope that the Minister will see to it that everybody who was given a permit to cut timber will, in due course, replace that timber and will plant a considerably larger number of trees than were cut down. I heard one Deputy state that the benefits of afforestation may not be apparent during our lifetime. I do not believe that we will have to wait a lifetime to achieve the benefits of afforestation. Trees grow pretty rapidly and, after 20 years, if not sooner, there will be the clearances which will be of benefit. After ten years, or even as short a time as eight years, there will be improvement in the landscape by afforestation. It is much more pleasant to see forests growing than to see a bare patch on the mountainside.

I would also like the Minister to experiment with some of those areas that perhaps may not be considered the most suitable. As we are spending such a large amount of money on reclamation or rehabilitation of land some of that money should be devoted to experiments with a view to having land or mountain which has hitherto been unplantable brought to a stage at which trees could be planted. If that were done on a small experimental scale at first, in the course of a few years the Department would have experience which would enable them to expand and perhaps plant a much larger area than is at present contemplated.

Mr. Cogan

This is not an Estimate upon which there can be much political or Party strife. The ex-Minister for Lands set a good example in approaching this Estimate in a very constructive way. This is the Estimate, above all others, in regard to which we should think in terms of construction, reconstruction and future development. It is well that the Minister has made a fairly comprehensive survey of all the plantable land in the Twenty-Six Counties. While it may not be complete in detail, that survey gives a general idea of the amount of land that is capable of being planted and the amount of land that we should aim at planting in the shortest possible time.

We all know the difficulties that must be faced. First of all, there is the difficulty of acquisition. All land belongs to somebody. There is not a piece of land in the Twenty-Six Counties to which somebody does not claim ownership. It has not been the policy of the Department in the past and it is not their policy at present or for the future to acquire land compulsorily. The general aim is to secure agreement on the part of the owners for the acquisition of land for planting by the Forestry Department. Practically all of the land that is suitable for planting is of very low agricultural value. Many people might claim that equal benefits would be conferred upon the nation by using this land for rough grazing for sheep, but the general consensus of opinion now is that the return from afforestation, if it is properly planted, would be greater. The margin is not very wide between the two types of production but the balance is certainly in favour of afforestation.

It would be a good idea if the Minister would give us, when he is replying, fairly exact figures of the actual cost of planting an average acre of suitable land and the period of time which it would take before that crop of timber would be completely harvested, and the gross value of that timber when marketed. We would then see exactly in terms of pounds, shillings and pence the annual profit to the nation from afforestation. I know that this is not a work the value of which can be assessed exactly in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. I know that there is advantage by way of improvement in climate and general agricultural conditions by the provision of shelter belts on hills and waste land. Therefore, while afforestation has all those advantages, in addition it would be no harm for us to know, as ordinary business people, the actual value in money of the acreage which it is required to plant.

The Minister has estimated that there are 1,200,000 acres suitable for planting. I take it that that estimate is, in most cases, of waste land on hillsides, land above a certain altitude. We all know also that we have a fairly large acreage of land which is wet or waterlogged, cutaway bog and the type of land which, while it may be drainable, is not dry land at present. The Minister may have to decide with the Minister for Agriculture whether this type of land should be reclaimed for agriculture or for afforestation purposes. I think the Minister will agree with me that the cost of reclaiming this land for agricultural purposes would be immeasurably greater than the cost of reclaiming it for forestry purposes. I have inspected land which was drained under the rehabilitation scheme in County Wicklow. It was not very low-lying, but it was wettish land, nevertheless. It had been drained at enormous expense by the Department of Agriculture, and I was wondering whether it might not be more advantageous to have planted that land. It would only require a few open drains instead of the covered drains required to make it into agricultural land. It is a matter on which we must have very expert advice as to whether we can find suitable commercial timber which will grow on that type of land and be of real value to the country.

When we consider that we are setting out to plant large areas of forest, upwards of 1,000,000 acres, in the shortest space of time which is humanly possible having regard to all the difficulties and obstacles that must be overcome, we must remember that we are setting out to maintain a permanent productive organisation, the Forestry Department. For that reason we must give very considerable attention to the personnel of that organisation and in my opinion the key-men in the Forestry Department are trained foresters who are for the most part young men who have entered the service. I have met quite a number of them and they are men whom anybody would be proud to meet, men keen on their work and zealous to forward the work of planting. They are men who have acquired a good education and a good technical training and they have entered the service by the ordinary method of competitive examination. Then they do a course of training in the forestry school and after that they are sent out to do this important work throughout the country. Each forester has under his charge a considerable area of land and a considerable number of men and he has very heavy responsibilities to carry. On him depend the things which were mentioned by Deputy Dunne and Deputy Pattison, that is, the good relations between the ordinary workers and the Department. On those men depend to a great extent the amount of work which is done and the efficiency with which it is carried out. Generally speaking I think that the average Irish worker is a good worker and all he requires is capable and efficient leadership. If he is given that he will give a good return, probably a better return than workers in any other country in the world. It is these foresters who give that leadership and supervision to the ordinary worker. I am told that each forester has to control the expenditure of £5,000 a year which is a fairly substantial responsibility on a young man. He has to prepare the whole programme of work within his unit, prepare estimates of labour and expenditure, supervise and pay staff and look after sales of firewood and other forestry produce. In addition to that, I understand, each forester is responsible for his area at all times. Like a good police officer he is never off duty.

In the case of fire or any other damage to the plantation he must be on the spot to deal with it, and that is also a substantial responsibility. It is responsibility that should carry with it not only fair remuneration but also a certain measure of security, but I understand that foresters are not established officers of the Forestry Department. They are simply temporary officers working from year to year without established pension rights. When we have made up our minds that afforestation will go on for years, and that it will be productive, and that when we reach the 1,000,000 acres we have in mind, probably many more acres will come on the market to be dealt with and replanted, we can look on the work as permanent national work that will go on indefinitely. For that reason if any civil servant should be established and have pension rights these men who control and supervise afforestation should have these conditions. I understand that men in the same classification in Britain, and even in Northern Ireland, are established officers. Another point is that more than any other civil servant they actually produce the means to pay their pensions in visible physical assets. Each forester controls and plants about 100 acres per year, and by the time a young man starting on that work reaches pension age, the produce of his area and of his years of work will be coming on the market.

I want also to support the case made with regard to the ordinary forestry workers. They are engaged in a difficult, strenuous work. I have been a manual worker for most of my years, and will not acknowledge that there is any undue hardship in manual work in the open air. It is strenuous work, work for a hardy, healthy man, but it has many advantages in addition to the disadvantages. Many of the disadvantages could be overcome by care and thought on the part of those in charge. To begin with, the forestry workers have to travel a long distance to their work. The permanent solution of that problem is to bring the workers' houses nearer to the work. In his introductory statement, the Minister said the Department is planning the building of houses for the forestry workers. That should be pushed forward. It may be said it is the duty of local authorities, but there is a special duty on the Forestry Department to provide housing accommodation for its workers. They have the land and they know exactly where the men are required. In ordinary housing development, a man applies for a house in a certain place, and in due course it is built for him on that site. That is a haphazard way of dealing with this problem. The Forestry Department require a certain number of men in a certain area, and it is their duty, in addition to planting trees, to plant the workers convenient to the work.

I could give instances of that. In County Wicklow, in the great valley of Aughavannagh, there is a very sparse population at present, yet there are, I suppose, thousands of acres of plantation all around. That would be an ideal site for a model village for forestry workers built by the Forestry Department. It is not enough to build a house here and there. If you bring the workers nearer the work you must provide some of the ordinary amenities which a worker enjoys in the smallest villages and towns. You must build a group of houses where they would have the usual amenities of any established village, and the Minister should be thinking along those lines. It is wholly undesirable to denude large portions of the country of the human population in order to achieve the ideal of afforestation. If you remove smallholders who own the mountain lands, you must replace them by some other type of worker, and the only type you can put there is the forestry worker. For that reason, the Minister should push very hard to secure the erection by his Department of suitable housing for those workers in isolated areas. That would remove some of the grievances they have in having to travel long distances.

In the same way, it should be possible to have here and there for adverse weather a few portable shelters where men could take cover in case of really severe weather during their work. Also, in the very cold or wet weather, these shelters would be useful for men taking their midday meal. Small comforts of that kind supplied to the men thoughtfully would go a long way to win their wholehearted confidence and make them feel that the Forestry Department was not a cold, impersonal machine, determined to extract the maximum from the men and give the minimum in exchange.

As a manual worker accustomed to working in the fields, I had a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Dunne when he mentioned the question of an evening meal. We all know that matter might not receive very sympathetic consideration from the ordinary higher civil servant who thinks in terms of working from 9 to 5 and going home to his evening meal. The forestry worker continues on some days to 6 p.m. and then may have to travel a considerable distance home. That means that from 1 p.m. till 7 p.m. there would be no refreshment of any kind. That is an unduly long period. Everyone knows the kind of appetite you can acquire when working on an open hillside. That problem needs to be thoughtfully and sympathetically considered. No one suggests there should be a long break in which men would go away to cook a meal, as that would mean too great a loss of time. It should be possible to provide a small, light evening tea which would be very much appreciated. There may be difficulties, but I am sure the Minister would find ways of getting over them. These are small matters, but they would create between the men working on the hills and the Department that spirit of co-operation and goodwill which is essential to work of national development.

I hope the legislation we enacted this year for the acquisition of land will help the Minister, particularly in the case of mixed farms where there is a considerable amount suitable for agriculture and a considerable amount suitable for afforestation. I had personal experience of a fairly large farm offered to the Department and which they were anxious to acquire but, because it was more than 50 per cent. agricultural land, they could not acquire it at the ordinary price payable for forestry land. They had to wait for the Land Commission to decide to acquire that particular holding, and in the course of the departmental delays the owner of the farm found a better buyer and sold the land, with the result that the Forestry Department was at the loss of it. If some means could be found to speed up the acquisition of such holdings, it would be possible for the Forestry Department to utilise to great advantage more than half of such a holding. Furthermore, the Land Commission could utilise the other half for their purposes, for the relief of congestion or the provision of holdings for migrants. These delays should be overcome. It is very difficult to find a holding which does not contain some agricultural land. There should be some departmental method of getting over the difficulty of having to acquire agricultural land, in addition to mountain land, and to rearrange that as between the Forestry Division and the Land Commission proper with a view to utilising portion for the provision of exchange holdings for those who are giving up their land for planting.

Provision is made in the Estimate for the grant of a sum of £10 to farmers who plant trees on their own lands. The Minister would not appear to be very optimistic in this particular direction since the amount he has set aside for that purpose is very small. I do not think he has any reason to be optimistic. I do not think farmers at the moment have any desire to avail of these grants to any considerable extent. One reason why the grants are not availed of to the extent the Minister would like is that they are too small to permit of the land planted being properly fenced; £10 will only go a very small distance towards fencing. I do not ask the Minister to increase the grant but I do suggest to him that he should introduce a loan scheme under which the farmer would be paid the full cost of both planting and fencing. The loan could be made a charge on the actual acreage of trees planted. It should not be repayable in yearly instalments. It should be repayable when the trees mature. I think a good many farmers would avail of such a scheme. They would have the pleasure of seeing their farms improved with plantations and proper fences. The value of the farm would be enhanced. The farmer might not himself reap the benefit since the trees would be mortgaged to the Department of Lands but he would own the land upon which the trees grew, and he would have some scenic addition to his farm. If, at the end of the time it took the trees to reach maturity, there was any surplus, that surplus would go to the farmer. At any time he could, of course, repay the mortgage and do what he liked with the timber. I think a scheme along those lines would result in a much larger area being planted.

It may be said that there would be little use in asking a farmer to undertake this work on a large scale without expert advice and instruction. I understand that a large number of additional agricultural instructors are about to be appointed. Surely these could be given a course in afforestation so that they would be competent to advise farmers in the future. A great deal of valuable work could be done under such a scheme. Deputy O'Grady pointed out that if 20,000 farmers planted half an acre each a considerable acreage of afforestation could be achieved. I think that is a rather modest estimate. I can quite visualise 100,000 acres planted under a scheme such as I have outlined, over the next five or six years. It would be a valuable addition to the work being done by the Forestry Division itself. In most farms there are small areas which are unsuitable for agricultural purposes, but which would be quite suitable for afforestation. The support of local organisations, such as Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre, could be enlisted and a tremendous amount of work could be done along the lines I have suggested. I do not think we should be disheartened because the farmers have not applied for the £10 grant to the extent that was anticipated. I think it would be a good idea to discuss this matter with the farmers themselves, and with the organisations that I have mentioned.

There is one small point I would like to raise with regard to the actual plantations already in existence. I think the divisions between the plantations are not sufficient to afford adequate protection should fire break out. I know that we have not experienced any conflagrations here to the same extent as they have been experienced on the Continent, but it might be a good idea if we took precautions in advance to check the spread of fire should a conflagration break out. We should, therefore, be on our guard in time. It would be a terrible disaster if many thousands of acres of trees were completely destroyed by reason of the fact that we might have, as we had in the past, an exceptionally dry summer. While one may talk of public opinion, civic spirit and all these things, a fire will sometimes occur accidentally without any wilful neglect on the part of anybody. It could be brought about in a variety of ways, and it would be a terrible thing if the whole community were to lose thousands of pounds' worth of valuable timber by reason of the absence of adequate precautions. Various precautions will suggest themselves to the Department, but I think wider spacing between the trees in plantations or wider passages between them would be desirable.

Mr. de Valera

The statement that surprised me most in this debate was that little interest is taken in this question of afforestation. I imagine that there is hardly any economic question that has been so much before our people for so long a period. I listened very carefully to the arguments that were put forward here and I think I could parallel every one of the statements made with regard to the advantages of afforestation by statements made throughout the country at least 30 years ago. There is nobody who thinks at all in terms of national wealth, improving the national estate and developing the national resources who at some stage or another will not come to the question of afforestation. If he has lived any reasonable length of time he will have paid very little attention to public affairs indeed if he has not been told very many times that there are probably few countries in the world so treeless as ours, and that, from every point of view, we should try to get back to a reasonable proportion of forests in this country.

You have the economic question, social questions and so on, all bound up with this subject. Suppose we leave the question of the commercial forests and their value to the end, we might look at the matter for the moment from a broader point of view. There is the scenic value to the country generally of our woodlands. Anybody who has lived to middle age must be aware that there has been considerable deterioration in the country from that point of view. That is due to the fact that the estate lands, which were fairly well planted with woodlands, have been distributed and that the ordinary farmer looks upon a tree on his land as something of a pest. Most of us remember the trees that grew by the fences. Anybody who has had experience of working in the fields knows of the damage caused by these trees and the farmer naturally desired to get rid of them. Again, the trees that were planted in the fields and dotted the lawns on these estates, have also been taken away since the estates were divided. There has been, therefore, on account of the division of land, a considerable destruction of our ordinary woodlands. It is vain to think of the restoration of anything of that sort but we ought to try as far as we can to do what we can, consistent with our present policy of the division of these lands, to restore some of the woodlands.

The only step taken to promote private planting, so far as I know, was the Minister's scheme providing for grants of £10. That scheme has not been attended with favourable results. I think we ought to try to make a scheme of that sort workable. If £10 per acre was not so very attractive some years ago, and if that were regarded as the minimum sum necessary to get trees planted by the individual farmer then, it is quite obvious that that sum is altogether inadequate now. Has the Minister any plan to get the individual farmer to plant portions of his land which are regarded as more suitable for growing trees than for any other purpose, in addition to any planting that might be done in the way of shelter belts? If the scheme is to be of any value, it seems to me the amount will have to be increased. We know that the cost of fencing has increased considerably, and without fencing it would be merely so much wasted effort and money to plant trees. When fencing has to be provided for, forestry becomes fairly expensive. It is on account of that expense that the Department itself, in dealing with State forests, will not take very small areas for plantation, as they are regarded as uneconomic. Our first effort should be to get as many trees as possible planted by private individuals. That is not the State forestry scheme as such, but it is part of the whole question of getting a reasonable amount of woodland in the country.

Passing away from that, and coming to the question of the planting of commercial timber in State forests proper, the Minister has tried to create the impression that no attention was paid to this matter at all until he came into office. Of course, that is ridiculous; the figures prove quite the contrary. From 1922 on to 1932 there was an average yearly plantation of something like 2,700 acres — it was under the 3,000-mark. Fianna Fáil came into office in 1932. Part of its programme was to develop afforestation, to get ahead and try to secure as large an acreage of suitable land as was possible and plant it with commercial timber as quickly as possible. The figures again show what was done. The figures went up progressively, year by year, from less than 3,000 acres, to 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, until it reached the 7,600-mark, which was the figure just before the war. There were well over 7,000 acres planted in three successive years. I can speak with some knowledge of this matter, because every Minister who had been in charge of the Department since we came into office was, I am sure, annoyed more than once by the persistent demands I made for even greater progress.

One has, however, to be reasonable in these things. You cannot get good work done if that work has not been properly prepared. We had 7,600 acres when the war came. During the war we had a shortage of fencing material, a shortage of tools, a shortage of seeds and of other things. Of course, Deputies say that we should have known that the war was coming and should have made full provision for all these things. I am sometimes amused when I hear people talk like that, on the one hand, and then talk about the amount of turf that was left over at the end of the war as if we could have arranged to a nicety when the war would end so that the supplies we had would just go out when the war finished. One might as well say that those who engage in war should arrange for its finish to coincide with the time when the cannon had fired its last round and the other weapons had ceased being serviceable. That is, of course, all nonsense. You cannot foresee definitely when war is coming and neither can you know exactly when it is going to end.

It is my view, for instance, that at the present time — I do not want to digress, but to say parenthetically in regard to these arguments to which I have been referring — we are not making the preparation that we ought to be making in view of the dangers and the circumstances with which the country is faced. But, to come back to the point I was on, Governments, in a situation like that, have to depend upon their judgment. Now, we can be accused of not having foreseen that the war was coming, and of not having made ample provision in the way of sufficient wire netting, sufficient tools and sufficient seeds to keep up the advance from the 7,600 acres which we had reached before the war, and so continue the progress of some thousands of acres additional every year which had been obtained up to that particular time.

Mr. C. Lehane

May I ask the Deputy a question? Will he indicate who blamed the Deputy or his Party for not foreseeing the advent of war in that connection? Can he give any instance of having been blamed by anybody for not foreseeing that?

Mr. de Valera

It was said by some Deputy during the course of this debate. I cannot remember who. I heard someone say it but I regarded it as being so absurd as to be really not worth taking notice of. The point is that, by progressive stages, we had advanced from 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 and up to 7,600 acres in the successive years up to the outbreak of war. Now, when the war came we went back year by year from that figure of 7,600 acres until in the last year of the war we had only got 3,500 acres. That was mainly due to the fact that the seeds and plants which have to be arranged for were not available. The fact is that if you want to plant 10,000 acres of land with trees you must first sow the seeds. The seeds have to be planted, the plants have to be planted out and transplanted, so that a period of from two to three years will intervene before your desire to plant trees can be accomplished, if you start at zero.

In 1946 we considered this whole question, and, as part of our post-war planning, we set up a subcommittee to develop our programme of afforestation. I got particulars from the Forestry Department. I will give some of them to the House so that the situation, as it was in 1946, may be known. It will be helpful, I think, to do so, because it will enable us to get a sort of picture of the problem that is ahead of us. Before I come to that, may I say that it seems to me the Minister is very foolish? What has he gained by detracting from the work that we did? From the official figures supplied to me, I find that 27,460 acres were planted between 1922 and 1932, and that between 1932 and 1939, 42,487 acres were planted. That is to say, that during the period 1932 to 1939 over 6,000 acres were planted each year, while over the period 1932 to 1947 over 80,000 acres were planted. That represents an average of well over 5,000 acres a year. In view of these figures, there is no use in pretending that this question was completely neglected. It is a question to which a great deal of thought was given by successive Ministers.

I come now to the position in 1946 as it was presented to me and to the subcommittee of the Cabinet that was examining this question with a view to proper planning for the post-war period. The estimate that was presented to that subcommittee was that we had about 600,000 acres of forest, which would supply not merely existing needs but foreseeable needs. It was said that about 100,000 acres would be required, in addition, for protective purposes, and I take it that most of these protective purposes were the ones suggested by Deputy Cogan. That meant that 700,000 acres were regarded as the amount that would be required. We had already planted 115,000 acres, which were in State hands, and there were 85,000 acres of effective woods in private hands. Therefore, of the 700,000 acres which were required, there were about 200,000 acres already planted, leaving 500,000 acres to be planted — that is on the assumption that the estimate given was accurate. Even though we can examine these things in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, as Deputy Cogan said, I still think that we ought to make liberal allowances, and so let us take the figure that I have given merely as a working figure. I take it that the people who are advising the Minister were those who advised us. I think if that advice was given to us, then it ought not to differ very much from the advice given to the Minister. We would like to hear about the changes and the reasons for them. If the estimate was too low, let us hear the reason. Why was the estimate given at that time too low?

Mr. Davin

Does the Deputy mean suitable acreage?

Mr. de Valera

That figure was not given to me. The point was, what was the acreage in woodlands or in timber which would be sufficient to supply our ordinary needs? Everybody knows that we want timber for housing. We know, too, that if we had timber we could use it for pulping, and so try to secure some independence with regard to our paper supplies. If we had the raw materials in pulp, there is no reason why we should not develop a paper industry here and so make ourselves reasonably self-sufficing in that respect. Our whole object was to try not merely to have the industrial variety that is to be got from different uses of the land but, as far as possible, to supply our own fundamental needs. We were told at that time that 500,000 new acres planted would meet our needs. In this matter you have to think in the way of succession if it is not to be a question of a feast and a famine. I have been told that during the election people were talking about planting 1,000,000 acres in five years. The whole thing is absurd and nonsense. Anyone who gives any thought to that would know that there is no sense in it. If you did that, it would all mature about the same time and would have to be harvested about the same time, and then you would have, as I have said, this matter of a feast and a famine. You must arrange for a regular succession year after year, and in that way you will get in the amount of timber that you want roughly each year. If you take 500,000 acres as the quantity, it will work out at a yearly planting of 10,000 acres. The obvious thing, therefore, would be to plant that much, making provision of course for a little extra. That would be a sort of minimum planting.

We investigated the position in 1946 and we were informed that, with the position as it was then and with the possibility that in a year or two we would have sufficient supplies of seeds, tools and netting for fencing, we could hope, in a period of about three years, to advance to the 10,000 acres figure. That was indicated as being the figure which would, year after year, meet our requirements. I do not recollect exactly the way the committee discussed the matter, but I do know that my attitude was that we had only got at the best before the war 7,600 acres. That was reduced during the war to 3,500 acres. Therefore, there was no use in talking about a higher figure than 10,000 acres until we got to the 10,000 acres. Then, when we got to the 10,000 acres, we could review the situation. Having got to the 10,000 acres, we could advance beyond that if we thought it desirable and if we could get the land. The present Minister has not yet reached the 10,000 figure. The factor which will ultimately determine the rate at which we can go is the rate at which we can acquire land.

If, as has been suggested, the Minister is going to work on a 25,000 acres a year programme, we on this side of the House will not oppose it, provided the work is properly done. There are two things which I think are completely improper. One is to pretend that you can do something you know you cannot do and the other is to scamp the work, to do bad work. When we had compulsory tillage one of the things which had to be watched was that people did not pretend to till when they were not tilling.

Mr. Davin

They got away with it.

Mr. de Valera

We tried to see that they would not get away with it. One reason why there was not more land division then was that Land Commission officials were employed as inspectors to see that that would not happen. We had to get people who knew their business to do the work. However, we on this side of the House would support the Minister in getting as much land as properly afforested as he can. We do not, however, want any deception. We know that afforestation cannot be carried out by sudden expansion. You can go on by gradual expansion and by progressively improved expansion.

Mr. Blowick

Where is the deception?

Mr. de Valera

The deception was to say that you could at once plant 25,000 acres, to pretend that you could plant 1,000,000 acres in four or five years, and also when the Minister said that there were only 3,000 acres planted yearly during our time. That is positive deception. We will support the Government in developing the resources of the country, in trying to make this country more self-sufficient, and in this particular way we will help him. If the Minister can get 25,000 acres planted yearly, nobody will be more pleased than we will be. If he is to get 25,000 acres a year planted, as he says, the land must be acquired at a rate which will permit that to be done. If you are going to plant 25,000 acres per year you should have a pool of land ready for it so that you will be able to look two or three years ahead. If you are not able to look ahead for two or three years, if you have not 50,000 or 70,000 acres on hand, it will be difficult to do good work. For instance, we do not want young seedlings transplanted and have it then pretended that there has been planting. We want to see good work done.

Mr. Davin

You are refusing to give the money.

Mr. de Valera

We are not refusing to give any money for this particular purpose.

Mr. Davin

You will not allow the Government to borrow.

Mr. de Valera

Our attitude in regard to borrowing money has been explained many times. We are always prepared to borrow money provided it can be reproductive, and that we get back the money we spend. Take, for instance, forestry. It was suggested that the value of some of the poor land was 25/- an acre. The Minister is prepared to buy land at up to £8 an acre. Suppose you forego £1 a year for 50 years, and that from what you forego you only expect some sort of gilt-edged return of about 5 per cent., in 50 years you will have to get from £200 to £300 per acre back. If the Minister pays £8 an acre for land on the basis that it produces £8 per year, he will have to get back £1,600 per acre without any question of the extra money which will be spent in the preparation of the soil and in planting and subsequent care. Therefore, from the purely narrow economic point of view one has to be very careful not to use land for afforestation which is valuable from the agricultural point of view. Otherwise, you would need a tremendous return.

I should like the Minister to give us some figures, as was suggested by Deputy Cogan, even though we are not tied down absolutely to those figures and they only refer to the present situation. We do not know what may happen in 29, 30, 40 or 50 years. It should be possible, however, to make some guiding estimates as to the returns for the expenditure. We know that there are vast areas in the world where they are ruthlessly destroying forests for the purpose of getting agricultural land, making clearings in order to make settlements. That is a proof that trees in themselves in all situations are not more valuable than land on which other crops can be grown. Therefore, if we are considering this from the economic point of view, and I think we must have the economic point of view in mind, we have to be careful not to encroach with our afforestation on lands that are cultivable and can produce agricultural produce. If the Minister is right that there are 1,200,000 acres of land which are better suited for forestry than anything else — I do not know if he means that it is land really suited for forestry; it might be better used for forestry than for other purposes and yet not be much good for forestry, as trees need their proper land too — the point is that it would be important for him to tell us whether that is land that has been certified as being suitable for forestry——

Mr. Blowick

Suitable and plantable.

Mr. de Valera

——and more suitable in the sense of being more profitable and economic. If there is twice the amount of land available than the figure given to the Cabinet in 1946, then we ought to be able to meet our requirements without encroaching on land which could be used otherwise to better advantage. We have, therefore, a problem for which there appears to be a solution. On the other hand, it has been pointed out to me by successive Ministers that the chief difficulty is the getting of this land which is to be planted from families who have used it as their means of livelihood. It is quite obvious that we ought not simply to give a cash value to families such as these and then let them go. If they wish to leave, all right, but it would be very much better for us to see that these families are somehow employed in connection with afforestation work. I expect that it is the policy of the Minister and of his Department to try, as far as possible, to give the alternative livelihood through forestry to the people who, up to the present, have been using the land as sheep ranches.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear?

Mr. de Valera

I would point out that that is much easier said than done. The worst about all these projects is that you hear people justifying them by talk about courage and imagination. I saw a reference by a learned Senator in that connection. Imagination and courage are splendid things provided there are other qualities with them. You can go down to the Bankruptcy Court any day and you will see people with imagination and courage who find themselves there. You can visit our prisons and you will find quite a large number of people there who are people of imagination and courage. If you want to see examples of concentration of imagination and courage, you have only to visit a lunatic asylum. It is not sufficient, therefore, to talk in that manner about large schemes unless it can be shown that, in addition to imagination and courage — which, as I have said, are splendid qualities in their way, but they have to be accompanied by other qualities — other qualities, such as prudence and so forth, are also present.

Mr. McQuillan

You want to damn the afforestation programme with faint praise.

Mr. de Valera

I have more interest in afforestation, and I think I have proved that I have more interest in it, than the Deputy because I have got down to brass tacks.

Mr. McQuillan

You have got down to higher mathematics, you mean, not to afforestation.

Mr. Moylan

One million acres in five years — is that not your policy?

Mr. McQuillan

Not 3,000 acres in five years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These interruptions must cease and Deputy de Valera must be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. de Valera

The aim of Fianna Fáil was to get all the land that was available for afforestation, if we could, and to plant it to the extent necessary in the national need.

Mr. McQuillan

You did not get it, though.

Mr. de Valera

We would have got these 10,000 acres. I can show where the Department had given us their plan, on our pressure, to produce 10,000 acres after a period of three or four years from the end of the war — that period being necessary to get the seeds planted, the plants ready, and the necessary materials which had been in short supply owing to the war. If the Minister can come along with his 25,000 acres in 1952, as he says he will, and as his Party say they will, I shall be the first to say "Well done" to him.

Mr. Blowick

But you are sceptical about it?

Mr. de Valera

I am sceptical about it, and I have a perfect right to be so.

Mr. Davin

Fair enough.

Mr. Blowick

Very fair.

Mr. de Valera

I would point out, at the same time, that I am talking about 25,000 acres a year. The pool must be behind it and the Minister must be able to continue it. I am aware that when the Minister took office, there was a considerable pool of land in hand. If he is going to continue, he will have to try and have 25,000 acres to start with and then have 25,000 acres a year after that. He must acquire at a rate at least as rapid as the rate at which he is going to plant. As I say, if he does that, I shall be very glad to say "Well done". If there is an indication, as has been pointed out by Deputy Moylan, that this thing can be continued——

Mr. Davin

Give him the money for it.

Mr. de Valera

The money was never, in that or in all these other things, the real final barrier.

Mr. Davin

It was last week.

Mr. de Valera

It was not last week. Not at all. The point is that there are certain things for which it is right to borrow and certain things for which it is not right to borrow. We can very well live on the future. You can always get a man, if he happens to inherit a good estate, who can do very finely for a few years but Deputies must not forget the old Irish proverb which says "Deineann tart tart". The more you go on mortgaging the future, the more it becomes a disease and the more difficult it is to get rid of it. Our anxiety is to ensure that we borrow for the things for which it is proper to borrow — the things that will give us a return that would be commensurate with what we expended. If we have an income of £100 a year, say, and deal with it in such a way that we would only have an income of £50 a year, that could not be called a prudent operation, could it? If, instead of getting £50 a year out of our £100, we only got £5, it would be more ridiculous still. Our anxiety is that we should consider the people not merely of this particular time but the people who will come after us and the younger people in this country.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear, and let them pay it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Did we not have all this last week on Resolution No. 5 in connection with the Budget?

Mr. de Valera

I think so. I shall do my best to keep off it. I should not have gone on to that line were it not for certain objections that have been raised. I have very little further to say on this matter except that the Minister, as far as this side of the House is concerned, will get all the assistance that we can give him to carry out that programme. We enter a caveat that we want good work — we do not want scamped work — and prudence. If the Minister succeeds in reaching the 25,000-acre target, although it is two and a half times — and I would be willing to leave a fair margin of safety — the amount suggested to us, at the time, as the estimate of what would meet the national needs, we shall not object. It would, no doubt, be possible not to go ahead so rapidly afterwards if it were found that the figure was more than was likely to be required. At the very best, anyhow, these can only be estimates.

To end as I began, I should like to say that I was very surprised when people said that little interest is taken in the question of afforestation. I believe a great deal of interest is taken in it and that much interest has been taken in it over a long period of time. The difference is that some people think the mere wish to do a thing enables it to be done. That, as we know, is not so. You have to follow up your desire to get a thing done by devising the practical means which will enable you to reach your objective. If you do not do that, it is simply vain wishing. There has been interest, and once more I say that, so far as we are concerned, we will be very happy to support the Minister in any efforts he makes, reasonably, to try to get this work of afforestation undertaken.

Mr. Desmond

Last year, unfortunately, I was not in a position to speak on this Estimate, but two years ago, when I did speak, I offered what I considered were constructive criticisms. Even though they were criticisms, they were offered in a constructive fashion. Reading through the remarks of the Minister at the time, I found one small sentence that stuck closely in my mind. The Minister's statement was that time and knowledge of the working of Government Departments temper one's statements as the years go by. The Minister used these words two years ago when winding up the debate on the Forestry Estimate and these words are taken from the official record of the debate. I think these words would seem to indicate the difficulties that beset us as Deputies if, in our sincerity, or, as we imagine, in our wisdom, we consider it worth while to spend a long time discussing this Estimate.

It is at least a healthy sign to find Deputies on all sides of the House stating clearly that they are in favour of a good, healthy programme as regards reafforestation. It is but natural that before we consider the amount of land we should put under trees we should give some consideration to the acquisition of that land. The Minister mentioned 1,200,000 acres as the minimum suitable for reafforestation. It is well to realise, be the target 10,000 or 25,000 acres, that before we start figuring out how we stand we must lay our hands on the land. Deputy de Valera mentioned 7,600 acres as their highest figure, but I think their highest figure was 7,328 acres and that was in 1938. The difference may be small, but, nevertheless, the Deputy was on the wrong side. Surely that does not represent the type of progress that should have been sought for?

I was glad to note when Deputy Moylan spoke that he was not satisfied with a target of 10,000 acres — that that was not enough. I agree with him there. I suggest that 10,000 acres should not be our maximum target. I must condemn the action of the last Government, not alone for failing to plant at least 10,000 acres, but for not acquiring more land for afforestation during the emergency years. Even though these were years when it might be difficult to plant trees, the Government could have attained a better rate in acquiring suitable land. They could have done more than they did.

It would seem that there are different opinions as regards the quality and type of land that should be acquired. So far as mountain land is concerned I was glad to note that Deputy Moylan seems to hold the same opinion as I do. Though mountain land may be of a certain type, we cannot just accept its present value to people who may be using it for grazing purposes. As the years roll on its value for grazing purposes will, naturally, not be the same. Why not take the mountain land now, where it is of good value for reafforestation purposes and while there may be better opportunities for doing so than in the years to come? Then we have to consider the bog land. I can say truthfully that I have seen timber, both hard and soft woods, growing on land which may not definitely be bog land, but which certainly is marshy.

Experts may tell us lay people about the various types of timber to be grown, but in this matter I would prefer the common-sense approach. If you go around the country you can see the types of timber that are grown in the various areas. It is not sufficient to say that the experts are there to advise us. My honest opinion is that the experts are hiding behind a barrier just as strong as any barrier in Eastern Europe and we cannot get at them. We spend our time discussing these matters in the House, but when all is said and done they have the last word.

Reference has been made to the amount of land that is available at the sources of our rivers. In the matter of land reclamation, if we are clearing areas at all, it is surely worth our while to clear the river beds. If we are not determined to plant the hillsides around the sources of the rivers, I suggest that in a number of years we will find the beds of those rivers becoming choked up with the silt from the mountainsides and hillsides. We can, I suggest, get a large amount of timber into these areas.

In fairness to the Minister, this type of work could have been done in years gone by. Deputy de Valera said there is trouble in getting a certain type of land, but I believe there would not be so much trouble in getting that particular type. There might have been a little trouble, but the Government at the time did not seem to go to any great trouble in securing land which, as Deputy Moylan admits, is most essential for the purpose of reafforestation.

As regards replanting, there was one statement made by the Minister which is of the utmost importance, and that is that the people who definitely made a lot of money — some of them made large fortunes — out of the felling of timber during the emergency, have still not replanted in many cases, and I think that the date given by the Minister when he opened the debate — 31st March, 1952 — should be clearly indicated through the Press and on the radio, and the people who made money during the emergency and who are allowed a certain amount towards replanting should be notified that they must do their duty. Even those who have replanted have, in many instances, done it in a shameful, negligent way. It should be made clear to the people who have not yet replanted that after 31st March, 1952, they will be made answer, through the courts if necessary.

We should be determined that every acre available — and thousands of acres are available — will be put under trees. The Minister should realise that while it may be difficult to deal with the acquisition of new land he should use all the power he has to see that land fit for reafforestation where timber was cut during the emergency is planted and that there will be no mercy shown to those who do not answer to their responsibilities in the immediate future.

There is another aspect to be considered in connection with the acquisition of land and the planting of trees. I have in mind the position of the Department of Defence. That Department has a good deal of land of which it could make better use. In some parts of the country Deputies can see plenty of furze bushes growing on land where there should be timber. That is not to the credit of any Department of State. If private individuals must accept their obligations, certainly a Department of State should also accept its obligations, and I believe that there is failure in that respect in the matter of afforestation.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.