Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 1952

Vol. 133 No. 1

Vote 48—Forestry (Resumed).

When speaking last night on Forestry I pointed out the necessity for developing the nurseries so that we would have as far as possible all the plants we required for the plantations in each successive year. Also land should if possible be acquired for a certain number of years ahead because, as the officials of the Department realise, when they acquire land for forestry there are great delays in connection with titles. In the case of almost every portion of land acquired in South Kerry, my own constituency, there has been a difficulty about title. This is especially true of one very important area which the Department wish to take over as a forestry centre, Lickeen, Glencar, County Kerry. That difficulty has been going on for the past three or four years and I do not know if final arrangements have yet been made. When land is offered the Department should survey it and, if they consider it good land for planting, acquire it as soon as possible having regard to the delays which may occur before the matter is finally settled.

Last night I referred to the necessity for a sufficient supply of timber for ourselves and, if possible, for export, especially because we know the difference it makes during an emergency to have our own supply of timber.

Forestry prevents soil erosion on mountain sides. When they are unprotected the soil is continually washed down but when they are planted all that soil will be saved. Again, we understand the importance of afforestation to our climate, especially along the western seaboard. I believe that at one time many years ago a forestry expert was sent here from Scandinavia by the British Government. I wonder if his report would still be anywhere in the archives of the Department of Forestry. I believe—at least it was reported at the time—that it was an adverse report and that he said that the lands along the western seaboard were not suitable for afforestation because they were so open to the sea and to the winds from the Atlantic Ocean. There cannot be any great change in the climate of this country for centuries back. In fact, it is known and has been tested that that is so. We have evidence in the cut-away bogs along the western seaboard that in ancient times these areas were certainly entirely under forest because you find the roots of oaks, pines and other trees. If that land was capable of being planted then it is equally so now.

The salvation of the western seaboard and the Gaeltacht areas depends on the extent to which forestry can be developed in those districts. Emigration principally occurs from these poorer remote areas. Let us take it that afforestation were carried on on as large a scale as possible. First, having acquired the land you will have drainage, fencing, planting and the care of the trees. When the forest matures you will have the felling of the trees and you must cart them to the sawmills. Then, again, you will have another round of planting and the same thing all over again, so that it would mean eventually permanent employment for something like 250,000 men. That is a very important aspect of forestry. It would, of course, take some time to achieve but eventually it would come to that.

I understand that the Forestry Department is adverse to the plantation of small areas but, if in a certain district you have perhaps a circle of 50 or 60 acres, or even a smaller area, in close proximity to what would be regarded as a key centre, I think areas such as that should be accepted for plantation. While it has been suggested here that a separate Department of Forestry should be set up I think we have a sufficient number of Departments already. After all the setting up of a special Department in that way would involve increased expenses and the provision of an increased staff. I would suggest, however, in order to bring to the notice of the people of the country the fact that there is a section of the Department of Lands dealing with forestry that the name of the Department should be changed to "The Department of Lands and Forestry" and that the Minister should be known as "The Minister for Lands and Forestry". That would bring it into the prominence it deserves.

County committees of agriculture have, I believe, statutory powers to give grants of £10 per acre to farmers who plant shelter belts or groves of trees. At the present time that sum is entirely inadequate for that purpose. I was just thinking—I do not wish to be offensive in any way or to introduce anything that would create any kind of opposition in this matter —that the amount of the dance tax remitted, £140,000, would pay for the provision of 14,000 such plots at £10 per acre and, if the allowance were doubled, it would help to provide 7,000 such plots.

The only grievance I have in connection with this Estimate is the fact that the amount allocated for forest development and maintenance has been reduced, whereas we had hoped that it would continue to be increased from year to year. The Minister has given some reasons for the reduction but I am not sure that they are quite acceptable. I think that the Minister should devote all his energy to the advancement of afforestation. Some Deputies have stated that arable land should not be planted and I think everybody realises that potential arable land should not be planted. You will also have difficulties in certain mountain areas where you have people engaged in sheep-rearing. You have to make a choice between the two forms of activity, but I am sure that by co-operation between the officials of the Department of Forestry and the owners of the land concerned an amicable arrangement could be arrived at. Good mountain land suitable for sheep-rearing should not be planted but, apart from that, you have in the mountainous areas of the West acres upon acres suitable for afforestation. I would say to the Minister before concluding that if he takes every step possible to promote afforestation, and if the officials of his Department will co-operate loyally to advance afforestation in every way, he will certainly have the loyal support of all right-minded people. The trees that he and his predecessors will have been responsible for planting and that future Ministers will plant, will be there in years to come as a sort of living monument to the good work which they carried out while Ministers in charge of this Department.

Year after year many members of this House have discussed this important question of afforestation. Whatever way we wish to approach the subject, I believe it is gratifying to have to admit that the Minister's immediate predecessor certainly did a good day's work within the range available to him in regard to forestry. That assertion is justified by the statement which the Minister made in introducing this Vote yesterday when he said that a figure of 15,000 acres per annum had been reached for planting. That certainly represented an increase on the amount planted in previous years. Unfortunately, although this is a work in which we should all be able to co-operate with the Minister, I am sorry to say the Minister's statement seemed to indicate that we are now inclined to drift back from the 15,000 acres mark to 12,000 acres which according to the Minister seem to be the maximum at which we can aim in future. It may be that even that figure will not be reached. Having regard to the fact that afforestation is a branch of the activities of the Central Government, I consider that it has been grossly neglected. Deputy Cogan, speaking last night, mentioned that there were many difficulties connected with afforestation. He went so far as to say that it is a matter which is bristling with difficulties. Many of these difficulties, in my opinion, are manmade difficulties. I believe, remembering all the chances we had to advance much further in our afforestation programme in years past, that we have missed the tide most severely in this respect. When we realise all that is tied up with the question of afforestation—the possibility of an improvement in climatic conditions, the feasibility of an improvement in health standards which are so badly affected at present by humidity due to the lack of timber and the question of unemployment in rural areas—I feel that it will be generally recognised that we have been sadly negligent in this matter.

The net decrease shown in the total amount asked for in the Estimate is £217,350 but the Minister did point out that there were different ways of arriving at that figure. I think it would be advisable at this stage to consider another side of the Estimate. In the Appropriation Accounts for 1950-51, I see on page 138 an explanation of the causes of variation between expenditure and grant. One explanation given in that page states that the saving in regard to a particular sub-head was "due mainly to delay in filling vacancies especially in forester grades". Why should there be such a delay in the filling of vacancies? If we want to get a solution of this problem surely it is vital to see that there would be no undue delay in the filling of vacancies? According to this statement, the total surplus surrendered in the year 1950-51 amounted to £43,352 13s. 2d. On the Vote that was passed by this House, that was a nice tidy little nest egg to have surrendered to the Central Fund.

In view of that, can it be said that we are serious in our approach to afforestation? I believe that the last Minister for Lands, who was also Minister for Forestry, did a good day's work, but even that was not sufficient. Deputy Palmer holds a certain view and, naturally, believes that his opinion is correct. Still, I am of the opinion that the very fact that the Department of Forestry is tied up with the Department of Lands makes it an orphan in the family. The Department of Lands is a very big Department and the Minister in charge of it has plenty of problems to deal with. We all know of the numerous questions which are addressed to him by Deputies about the acquisition and division of land and, generally, in connection with the activities of the Land Commission. My opinion is that if afforestation is to be tackled in a sincere manner it is beyond the capacity of the Minister for Lands to deal with forestry problems in the manner in which we would all wish to see them dealt with.

So long as this important section of Government activity is only a section of another Department, it will be ignored. We have proof of that fact every year when the Estimates are presented to us. The important Estimate is that for the Department of Lands. Even last year we witnessed the sad spectacle of seeing less than one hour devoted to forestry. I agree, of course, that was in accordance with the time table which had been set for the Estimates. We hear wonderful things said about forestry and of its importance to the country, and yet that was all the time that we were able to devote to the Forestry Vote last year. I submit it is essential that forestry should be dealt with as an independent subject with a Minister responsible for answering in this House in connection with matters brought to his notice by Deputies. We are told, of course, that if forestry were a separate branch it would mean additional expenditure for the State. Up to a point that may be correct, if Deputies want to consider the subject according to present day expenditure. But Deputies cannot be correct in that view if they refuse to accept a long-term view of forestry, realising its advantages, and are sincere in their desire that an up-to-date afforestation programme should be given to the State. As Deputy MacBride mentioned, so long as forestry is tied up with the Department of Lands we are not going to get a programme which will produce for us results anything like what we would all desire.

There are some points which arise on the Estimate that I should now like to deal with. I see that a sum of £1,702 is provided for forestry education. That represents an increase of £412 over last year. But coupled with that increase we have this extraordinary statement—it is somewhat similar to the one I mentioned earlier as appearing in the Appropriation Accounts for 1950-51:—

"There was a saving of money again because of the abandonment of the proposed course of instruction for foresters."

I think it should be admitted that our people have not been properly educated as regards the importance of afforestation.

That education should, in my opinion, start in the national schools, where young boys would get a taste for the study of this important subject. They should be interested in it early in life and encouraged to make forestry a special calling for themselves. In view of the fact that we are all the time clamouring for more education, for more scholarships for the universities and to the various professions in our cities, we certainly should do something to enable boys to be educated for a calling which, when they reach the years of manhood, would provide them with a lifetime job in rural conditions. When I say that I do not mean a type of education that would result in packing the Department with indoor officials in Dublin, but that we should offer facilities to young boys and men to take up forestry as a possible profession which would provide them with an excellent means of livelihood later in life. What I have in mind is the type of education that would fit them for such a calling. The Minister may say that such an education should, perhaps, be forthcoming from the Department of Education. That might be so, so far as the national schools are concerned, but if we are interested in this problem it is no use for us to say that the Minister and officials of another Department should do certain things for us if we are not prepared to do them ourselves. Therefore I say that if the Minister is not able to do it this year he should make provision for a substantial increase in the amount for instruction in forestry. There should be decent provision made for forestry education.

The next point I want to deal with is the provision for publicity—through advertising, for instance. What success can we hope for when we find that the provision for advertising is only £500? I think that the Deputies who have spoken have been justified in saying that the people in the various parts of the country are not being made to realise all that afforestation can mean to them. I agree with those Deputies who have said that there is not enough being done either by individuals themselves or through local initiative. But if that is so I believe it is due to the fact that the central Government itself is not prepared to spend anything more than £500 on publicity, through advertising, on the important subject of afforestation. That is a very small amount. When we see repeatedly in the main Dublin and provincial papers, daily and weekly, various huge Government notices on different subjects all through the year, and when we see the large amount that the Electricity Supply Board can spend telling us about the dry weather and the danger of electricity shortage, we must wonder why the Forestry Section cannot do more advertising. I am not blaming the officials but blaming the policy—no matter what Minister or what Government is in power. I blame Ministers for not insisting on a policy of getting before the people the importance of reafforestation.

There is £100 provided in the Estimate for exhibits at shows and £50 for consultative committees. Exhibits at shows in rural Ireland are an ideal way of boosting afforestation but what can any officials do with £100 for that purpose? The Minister may say it is a token figure but my personal experience is that token figures are never even expended and that there is always a balance coming back to Finance or otherwise. These two figures, £100 and £50, are not sufficient. I do not know what we ever get from the consultative committees. If a little more money were given to the various county committees of agriculture it may bring better results than by getting people who may be experts in theory but of very little assistance to us when it comes to planting trees. The assistance of the county committees in their commonsense direct approach to the subject may be much more advantageous.

Deputy Cogan mentioned that the acquisition of land may prove a problem in increasing afforestation. I mentioned a point here a couple of years ago and still believe it is worth consideration. In various parts of the country there are large amounts of derelict or waste land which is rated at present for valuation purposes at 1/6 or 2/- in the £. The improvement of that land by putting it under timber would of itself give the local councils an increased valuation. No one can say that land could be used for agricultural purposes. The Minister may say it would not suit for afforestation. We have come to the stage where soil testing and all the wonderful paraphernalia that goes with it decides whether a tree will grow or not. I can say that within 40 or 50 yards of my own home in Crosshaven there is a huge eucalyptus tree growing almost in bogland. If we asked any of the experts whether such timber could be grown they would say it was impossible to grow such trees in this country.

What is wrong is that we are negative in our approach. I put down a question some years ago about reafforestation in South Cork. There were large tracts of land which comprise turf land at present but where admittedly timber was grown a long period of years ago. We are told now it cannot grow timber since the soil analysis does not give desired results. What exactly do we want? Are we basing it on a 1952 system of minimum financial return for anything we spend in this State? Are we tied to the belief that we are not entitled to look into the future and be satisfied with a return then instead of now? Are we tied to the belief that the future must look after itself and that we are responsible only for the present time? We all know that none of us here will live to see the time when the young saplings or seedlings of the present day come to maturity, especially if they are hardwood. We will be at least 6ft. down—whatever is left behind us. Yet we could say that we are handing over to the people who will be alive then a positive possession worth having, maybe a lot more important than bank balances of money the value of which we cannot imagine in 15 or 20 years' time.

The policy of the Minister is unfortunately one of going backwards from the afforestation target set by the previous Minister in the inter-Party Government for three or four years. It is well to remember that members of the Opposition during the period 1948-51 made contributions here which were well worth hearing. They advanced a theory that we should get going with things. They pointed out that during the war years there were many difficulties, especially in regard to wire netting, but that in 1948-51 those difficulties were being surmounted. If those difficulties have been surmounted, as has been proved by the figures submitted to us, then it is poor satisfaction for us now to realise that we are putting more difficulties in the way. Instead of advancing over the 15,000 mark, we are drifting back again to the 12,500 mark as a maximum plantation for the coming year.

We will get closer co-operation from the county committees of agriculture if we ask for it and provided we as a central authority co-operate also. In Cork and Donegal the county councils have nursery plantations themselves and they are offering great advantages to farmers in their county areas, including young plants and saplings at a cheap price. Unfortunately, that policy is being weakened by the fact that there is no Government publicity drive in regard to the importance of planting. If those two county councils received the encouragement which they deserved, and if the other county councils were told what Cork and Donegal have been doing, and if we are prepared to give them co-operation and plenty of publicity, we will be starting on a road which will ultimately make 15,000 acres in the year a very small amount.

The outstanding problem for the few years that I have been here is the amount of land that should be made available locally before it can be acquired. We are told that, unless the Forestry Section can get a parcel of at least 300 acres, it would not be worth taking over. In how many parts of the country will we get, within a few parishes, a lot more than 300 acres, but which is divided in such a way that the Forestry Section consider the distances too great? Such land is left there and is allowed to deteriorate every year. Throughout South Cork and various other parts of this country we see hillsides and land which are ideal for afforestation purposes covered with gorse. The fact that we are not planting trees on these hillsides and lands which are covered with gorse means that we are neglecting those areas, that we are willing to leave the people in those areas unemployed and that we are not prepared to try and improve the climate in those areas, because we all know that the climate in a countryside in which timber is grown tends to differ somewhat from the climate in the bare open countryside.

I understand that experts from another country recently examined the question of afforestation in Ireland and that the 300-acre minimum would not satisfy them. They felt that the minimum acreage should be much higher. We should approach this problem from a different angle from that which experts from other countries may appear to approach it. This is a small country, and we have not that much land in every county that we can say that we will put 300 acres of land in different localities under timber. If we have parcels of land of 30, 40 or 50 acres then, with the co-operation of the local county committee of agriculture, the local people and the advice of the parish priest, I believe that the results will be such that we shall not have to send for experts from another country to tell us our business. These days, we are wont to claim that we know a great deal more than our grandfathers knew —but our grandfathers knew the value of timber, and in their time planted trees and played their part in regard to afforestation. We must admit that, so far as afforestation is concerned, we are not as progressive as the people who lived in the olden times.

I want to deal now with some of the sub-heads of the Vote itself. Under sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, in respect of the Director and Secretariat—there is an increase this year of £8,030. I do not object to that increase—far from it. We all know that every section of the community are entitled to the increases which they received. There is also an increase of £702 in respect of the accounts branch. Again, I am not questioning that increase. I merely bring it to the attention of the House. There is an increase of £9,423 in respect of foresters and an increase of £7,318 in respect of the inspectorate and mapping staff. These are substantial and justifiable increases in salaries, wages and allowances, but I would ask if there has been a commensurate increase in the acreage under forestry. I think that, bearing in mind the increases under sub-head A, to which I have just referred, we are taking a retrograde step when we reduce the acreage to be put under forestry. It is our bounden duty, when such increases in remuneration are granted, to see to it that the acreage to be put under forestry is increased.

Sub-head C (2) refers to forest development, maintenance, etc. There is an increase of £5,400 under that sub-head. I believe that that increase is totally inadequate for forest development, maintenance and so forth. With present-day costs, what can we get for £5,400? The Minister might as well have made no increase under that sub-head as to make that small increase. It is all very well to say that we mean well and that we are anxious to show some little increase but, in a year or two, when the appropriation accounts in respect of this year are published, we may read a note to the effect that a certain amount of money was saved on our present programme and even a little may be saved out of that £5,400. The increase in respect of forest development, maintenance and so forth, should be far in excess of £5,400.

The second point under sub-head C (2) is outstanding. It relates to capital expenditure and, in relation to labour (Initial Preparation and Drainage of Ground, Road Construction and Buildings) there is a decrease of £250,400. The Minister may say that there are certain reasons for that decrease— that so much land was put under seedlings and saplings in the last couple of years that we must now concentrate on thinning, and so forth. If that is so, then our policy in relation to afforestation for 1952-53 is a completely inactive policy and one which will not yield any satisfactory results.

Comparisons have been made between afforestation in other countries and afforestation in this country. A few years ago I gave the afforestation figures in relation to Britain, Norway, Sweden and other countries and I pointed out the miserable percentage of land under timber in this country. I know the answer which was given by the Minister. It was an answer given by his officials in his Department. I realise that that answer may not have satisfied the Minister himself. We must be prepared to face the fact that this problem must not be approached solely from the point of view of immediate financial returns. No matter what Minister may be in office and dealing with this problem and no matter what Minister for Finance may be ready to grouse at him when he looks for money for the Forestry Division, there is an obligation on the Minister for Lands, when asking for money for afforestation in this country, to make sure that the amount asked for will be sufficient to yield an adequate return.

It is deplorable that, this year, we are prepared to drop our forestry acreage from 15,000 to 12,500. The Minister's statement makes it clear that that in itself must be considered the very maximum. That shows us very clearly that we are not prepared to tackle this important matter in the way we should.

There is also the question of unemployment. Deputy Cogan covered many of these points admirably in his own way and I have nothing to say against him. If I differ on many small points the difference is so small that it is hardly worth talking about. Deputy Cogan said this was a problem which bristled with difficulties and he was anxious to see a solution in the way of lovely little villages surrounded by forest land. As a picture that, of course, would be grand but having regard to the fact that this programme takes no account of afforestation we will have to be satisfied with half the job since we know we will never have the whole job done.

There are thousands of men in the rural areas who have been looking for employment over the years. In these areas the only choice they have is either to work with the farmers or with the local authorities. If no work were available to them from either of those sources it would mean that there would be a certain number of men on the employment exchanges all the year round. It would also mean that there would be a very high percentage who, because they might never have unemployment cards, would never be able to sign on at the labour exchange. These men are put on home assistance. Just imagine in a country professing Christian ideals that these men should be told they could live on home assistance while at the same time the countryside is denuded of timber.

We have land in this country fit for nothing else but the growing of timber. It is the type of land that would yield first class timber and even if it were not suitable for the growing of first-class timber it would at least be ideal for the growing of timber suitable for pit props or firewood. We could give employment to people in their own localities and thus relieve the plight of married men with families living on home assistance.

For years past we have been depending upon foreign experts to tell us our business, but there was a time when there were no experts to tell the people of Ireland their business. Yet they were able to carry out a programme of afforestation. In this section of his Department the Minister has men as capable as any experts in any other part of the world. While that is so, policy must be laid down by the Minister and not by the officials of his Department or anybody else. The Minister should tell his colleagues in the Government that a large number of unemployed people in rural Ireland could be employed on afforestation. We could improve the land by giving employment. Land would be improved by growing timber on it. If we went ahead with such a constructive programme we would be on the high road to success, but I cannot see this being done as a result of this Estimate. On that account I am forced to speak as I do.

I would have been perfectly satisfied if the Minister had kept to the figure of 15,000 acres given by the last Minister. Had that been done, we could not say that we were making a retrograde step. It might be that we ought to pause and hold on to the 15,000 and, after a while, strike out for a higher figure; but, in fact, we have drifted back from that.

The amount under the heading Appropriations-in-Aid shows an increase of £56,510. That will help the income figures in the Book of Estimates this year, but while the amount shows a total increase of £56,510, it is estimated this year that forests receipts will be £60,000. We are hoping for an increase of £60,000 from the sale of timber from the forests, but at the same time we are admitting defeat by reducing the acreage under planting.

Somebody will suffer by this in the long run. That may not happen either in the Minister's time or in my time but in the future. Yet we are hoping to increase our sales. We are hoping to sell more timber, but at the same time we are adopting a negative policy of reducing planting, a further weakness in this important Vote.

It is mentioned that there is a decrease of £5,000 in the sale of sawn timber. I do not know how that may be but the Minister can easily account for that. I do not know whether or not there is a demand for prepared timber, but that is a matter that can be got over.

At the outset, I referred to the question of education. It is a significant fact that the increase in wages given to foresters amounted to £9,423. I believe we could not concentrate enough on this matter. It is my opinion that we have not got enough foresters. We are not offering an inducement to would-be foresters to stay in their own country. Very often the people consider those who write articles on the subject of afforestation in papers and periodicals cranks because they may happen to be Irishmen. Yet, if we could get experts from Scandinavia or America we would bow to them and consider them almost supernatural beings when they tell us what we should do in regard to afforestation. The sooner we realise we have men with brains in this country, and the sooner we give them employment as foresters and forestry experts the better-off we will be. Instead of sending our young men abroad and thereby depriving this country of the benefit of their expert advice we ought to keep them at home.

There is another matter to which I should like to draw attention again. During the emergency a huge amount of timber was felled in this country. We are all aware of the amount of money that was given by means of grants for replanting purposes. If ever there was a waste of money or squandermania in this country, it was those grants. I am not blaming the present Minister or his predecessor for the grants. It is quite true that a Minister cannot be aware of every little plantation which is being replanted throughout the country. I am aware of certain cases in which these grants were received under false pretences. The individuals so guilty planted thousands of young saplings close to the roots of old trees and allowed them to grow there for five years without attention, resulting in their becoming choked by weeds. I have seen some of the recipients of these grants for reafforestation purposes sticking plants into the ground and allowing them die for the want of attention. Such is the useless purpose for which the Government allocated money. Perhaps, there were not sufficient inspectors, or maybe the inspectors were not told to fulfil to the utmost their duties of making sure that saplings were properly treated when planted.

Every member of the House knows that there are ideal forests in the Black Forest area of Germany, but, perhaps, members may not be aware that, during the 1914-18 war, Irishmen who were taken as prisoners of war by the Germans were sent to work side by side with the Germans in these forests. When trees were felled, the timber was cut up and sold to the local people. The vacant plots were then dug up and treated as well as we would treat a cabbage plot in this country, and then the young saplings were planted. What a contrast to what happens here! The individuals who received grants under false pretences in this country employed a young fellow, got him to stick the saplings in the ground and then failed to give them the requisite attention. There has been no greater waste of State money within the past five or ten years than the giving of these grants. If it is not too late, I would request the Minister to have the areas planted, checked and reported on by the local Gardaí if there are not enough inspectors available. Surely those carrying out the inspections would have enough common sense to know whether or not the saplings are growing. They would realise that if the areas planted are not devoid of weeds and briars young trees and saplings will have no hope of developing properly. If reports, as a result of these inspections, were presented to the Minister's Department showing the negligence of people who got grants, some effort should be made to prosecute them.

I will not prolong my contribution because I realise that the previous Minister for Lands is anxious to speak on this matter. There were some other points that I wished to consider, but, realising that other members are anxious to speak, I will conclude by saying this to the Minister. It is unfortunate that we are taking a backward step as regards this problem of reafforestation. We should be prepared to say that 15,000 acres of planting per year is not sufficient and that an additional amount of money should be allocated for seedlings. The problem of not being able to acquire the necessary land is one which can be surmounted if we wish to surmount it. I trust that the Minister and the Government are anxious to solve that problem. Every member of this House is anxious to see it solved. If we adopt a progressive attitude and if we continue the policy pursued by the Minister's predecessor and try even to improve on that policy, we will be approaching the time when we will have a worth-while afforestation programme in this country.

Listening to Deputy Palmer, I decided that he would be a very suitable character for the Merchant of Venice. He spoke of reafforestation at great length, and he told us where we could plant trees or saplings. He said that afforestation would prove of great benefit to this country and that it would employ 250,000 people. He made quite sure to say to the Minister: “You are to keep away from any land that sheep can graze on.”

Half a million.

It was not the Minister's plan to plant any land that would provide grazing for goats or sheep. There is certain land throughout the country that will feed nothing else. I do not know where the Minister is going to get land for afforestation even allowing for the fact that he is a most efficient Minister. Deputy Palmer spoke at great length on this point, but he made doubly sure that everything he said would sound right to his constituents.

I must say that Deputy Desmond gave a fine speech as to what, in his opinion, afforestation should consist of in this country. He raised a very vital point that any Minister should bear in mind. If this House gives the Minister for Lands a carte-blanche enabling him to take over certain mountainy districts by a stroke of the pen by merely saying: "We wish to take over this land, and we are not going to consider the rights of a number of families who have made their livelihoods in this area for hundreds of years," a huge problem will be created. In my own area in County Dublin, I have known of cases where people complained because their means of livelihood was taken from them. If the Minister takes over a parcel of land in Kerry on which goats and sheep have been grazing and then comes along to some other area and interferes with the natural rights of the people who have been rearing sheep, goats and cattle there, there will be loud protests in this House, and the Minister will be called a dictator. Therefore, this is a matter which presents many difficulties. Every member of this House would like to see plenty of trees growing throughout the country.

Reference has been made as to how the previous Minister advanced while in office. I know that the previous Minister, like other Ministers, did his best in this connection. Definitely the present Minister and his Department are doing their best. They cannot do any more. If this House is prepared to give the present Minister full authority to tell inspectors to go out to a tract of land on a mountainside where sheep have been grazing and on which people are depending for a livelihood and acquire it for forestry purposes greater advances could be made. That is the only way that it could be tackled on a large scale but as long as we are a democratic Party and a democratic Parliament and as long as we act under the Constitution we will have to consider the livelihood of all citizens within this state. We must consult them within reasonable bounds if it happens that we are interfering with their livelihood in any way. In that regard we can only move slowly and judiciously, doing things as well as possible in the circumstances which prevail and we must definitely face up to that position.

I must say this of the previous Minister. A policy was adopted by the previous Administration—and I do not blame the previous Minister too much for it at all because I know that he had been driven very hard by people who were inexperienced in the inter-Party Government—that, as long as you got a tree down, if the tree was only a week old it was as good as a tree years old. The policy was to get that plant down at any cost, and it was a bad policy. I had some experience of the planting of trees and the replanting of them after some years. I took great pleasure from watching the growth of those saplings of all kinds. I must say I observed certain plantings that had been carried out as a result of the previous Minister's policy where some little plants were put down on the bleak mountainside and had no chance of surviving. Surely if the present Minister and the Department, in their wisdom, consider that it is better, as a result of advice from experts in other countries as well as this country, not to plant saplings out on a bleak mountainside or on a moorland until they come to a certain maturity, surely it is better to adopt that policy than to put out thousands of small plants that are not mature for replanting and would possibly die of exposure.

At what age would the Deputy say trees would be properly mature for replanting?

Deputy Desmond said that a number of plants were choked by weeds and grass where they had been given to certain people who gave their timber during the emergency. On that particular point might I remind Deputy Desmond that we, in this country, were delighted to have trees cut down during that emergency, and I would not like the Minister to take any advantage of or be any way harsh on the people who gave their timber, and possibly gave it to their neighbours to cut down to keep their fires going during the emergency?

Were they not well paid for it and did they not get a grant for replanting?

I had a lot to do with this question of cutting down trees during the emergency and going to farmers and others to get the trees from them. I must say that on many occasions we had to use a lot of diplomacy to persuade those people to give the trees for the benefit of the people of the parish. While they may have been paid for it most of the people I had to deal with were fonder of the trees than they were of the money. In cases of that kind in my area my experience is that the people are very anxious to see that these young trees will grow. Looking on them harshly and saying that they were paid for it is not a fair judgment of the situation. I suppose there may have been a few people who took advantage of the emergency, who bought tracts of woodland, cut it down and commercialised it, but then you have the other type of people who gave it from purely national motives and tried to help during that period. In judging the people in this connection you can put them into two or three categories.

I do not intend to speak at length on this question but I am definitely fond of trees and interested in reafforestation. Again I know the Minister's strong national views on this point and how anxious he is to help this national effort. On the other hand, I am not so satisfied that the Minister and his Department, through the county committees of agriculture, are getting it over properly to our people in regard to the shelter beds about which we have so often spoken. The shelter beds on the farms throughout Ireland are, firstly, very nice, secondly very useful and, in an emergency, of invaluable assistance to the farmer. I do suggest that the Forestry Division should make a new drive in this connection. A number of farmers have quite a lot of bad land on their farms and if the proper approach were made to people in, say, a parish or village they would be encouraged to grow trees, so that in the course of 50 or 60 years' time a saw mill might be erected in that village. You would therefore be helping the national effort in a supplementary way as well. That could be done by more propaganda, more encouragement and would promote a love for trees among our people.

When travelling throughout the country, if you see a shelter bed near a dwelling-house and a drive going up to the house you will surely admire it when passing by. From the scenic point of view it looks well and, apart from that, what a great national asset it is to the country. Everything cannot be left to the Forestry Department. Great progress could be made if our farmers would contribute by planting saplings and trees. In that way we would eventually reach a most satisfactory stage in our forestry programme.

One Deputy said here we are not planting enough trees and, as we dare not go into land that cattle, sheep or goats can graze on, he suggested that we should go to some parts of the hills or mountains which are almost a complete desert, possibly devoid of vegetation of any kind. In other words, according to certain Deputies in the Opposition, the Minister and his Department will have to try to plant trees in No Man's Land. That is a very poor outlook.

Finally, I want to appeal to the Minister and his Department to encourage our farmers a good deal more to go ahead on the lines I have suggested. By doing so they will be enabling the farmers to make a supplementary effort to that being made by the Department of Forestry. If this matter could be considered on a national scale it would definitely instil into our people a greater love for trees and a greater love for planting them. If this development should materialise it would be a great advantage to our country.

Much play has been made about this target of 25,000 acres. As far as we in Kerry are concerned, we did not see any reflection of that programme or any practical effort made to bring that about so far as our districts in South Kerry were concerned. I myself made representations to the previous Minister from 1948 onwards particularly in regard to Lickeen and Glencar, County Kerry. For one reason or another nothing was done until two or three months ago.

That is not true.

That is true. The lackadaisical approach and the slowing down, as I call it, prevented us from having title completed and the scheme put through. It was not until recently as a result of questions and representations by me to the Minister and his Department that the Minister and his Department made special representations to the solicitors concerned on behalf of the landlord and title has now been put right and the scheme will go ahead.

It is not the Department's job to settle the tenants' title for them. That is a matter for the tenants themselves.

It is all very fine to talk about a target but what is the good in having a target of 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or 60,000 acres if we do not try to reach the target? So far as I can see it is only so much propaganda. If the ex-Minister can point out to me any important scheme in Kerry that was put through from 1948 onwards I will agree with him that his statement about hitting a target of 25,000 acres per year had reality, but I do not think the ex-Minister will be able to do that. Deputy Blowick at one time mentioned that their Department would plant what he called maritime pine around the coast which could be developed and sold subsequently as commercial timber. That scheme never materialised.

I am giving the facts now as I found them in my experience. My chief complaint about the policy of the last Government and the present Government is the Department's approach in relation to the acquisition of land. We have been told that no scheme of under 300 acres will be considered. It is said that an area of less than 300 acres will not be economic. While that policy continues in operation we are wasting time talking about the development of afforestation. I submitted a scheme to the Department subsequent to 1948 in connection with Milltown, County Kerry. We had approximately 200 acres there but the Department did not consider it an economic proposition. If that policy continues the Forestry Department will wait for a good many years before they will succeed in getting the acreage they require. Is the Department content to leave it over for half a century and to leave these districts without any afforestation schemes?

The plea that has been made for the non-development of these smaller plots is that they could not be supervised and would prove too costly. Why not group the smaller plots together in order to make them economic?

In recent months I have been approached by organisations such as Muintir na Tíre. These organisations are anxious to have schemes sanctioned if they can get sufficient land to carry out schemes. These schemes would be sponsored by the local parish committees under the auspices of Muintir na Tíre and the committee is anxious to have the assistance of the technical adviser from the Department. In that way we would have what might be described as a communal scheme sponsored by Muintir na Tíre and developed by the Minister and his Department. I think that approach is worthy of consideration because it would give local people an interest. I was told in fact that they could get people to invest in such a scheme. Such a development would be an asset to the State and to the people in the vicinity.

There is another point for consideration in relation to the county committees of agriculture. I think the Department could have closer contact with those committees. I know that these committees work on a different basis. They get a subsidy for the planting of trees. I think we could go further than that and regard these committees as propaganda units for the purpose of advertising the advantages and assets of reafforestation. These committees could assist the Department's inspectors in securing land and in collecting the necessary data.

I am grateful to the Minister for his efforts which enabled us to complete this important scheme in Glencar. Before the year is out I hope further schemes will be developed in South and West Kerry, because these areas have been left for many years without any attention or any investigation. At all times I have received the greatest courtesy and assistance from the Minister's officials in connection with any representations I had to make.

Deputy J. Flynn ended his speech by complimenting the forestry officials on their courtesy. He was not quite so complimentary in his opening statements. Possibly, having tried to wound, he was anxious to pour some oil over the wound or apply some kind of plaster to soothe the hurt feelings of the officials. As regards the Lickeen forest and any other plantations or proposed plantations in Kerry or any other constituency, the local Deputy, if he approaches the problem correctly, can do a great deal to assist the Forestry Department officials and the Minister if he wants to do that. I have a shrewd suspicion that if Deputy Flynn, who was very fond during the inter-Party Government régime and afterwards of making lovely statements about his concern for the establishment of a forest in Lickeen, asked the people to get the title of their lands straight in order to facilitate the Forestry Department, he would be doing much more good.

You did nothing about it.

Deputy Flynn was supporting the Party now in office for 16 years before the inter-Party Government came in, and in all my reading of Dáil debates I did not notice that Deputy Flynn had the slightest interest in establishing a forest in Lickeen or any other part of South Kerry. It is only when we gave it the fillip during our period in office that Deputy Flynn began to wake up to the possibilities of forests, possibly as a vote-catching stunt rather than for the good of the country.

I was disheartened when I found that the Minister had decided to cut down the planting programme to 12,500 acres. Is he wise in that? If his argument is that the supply of plantable land would not be sufficient to meet a greater annual target, could he not overcome that by doing two things—first, by increasing the acquisition staff in the Department and, secondly, by offering a more attractive price than is being offered at the present time? I would like to know from the Minister when he is replying if he has altered the ceiling price in the last 12 months. If he has not done so, I think he is not wise in continuing that ceiling, because it must be admitted that even from the poorest land the income has increased slightly, and when the income has increased slightly the cash value of the land has increased. If the Minister is determined to proceed with forestry on a big scale he should increase the price. At present the price is holding up matters. Many people consider the price that they have been offered is too shabby, even in cases where the income of the land was not very considerable. It must be admitted that for the last three, four or five years, since the price of agricultural produce stepped up a little, the price of land increased accordingly. If it is intended to proceed with afforestation in the manner that we would all wish, many difficulties will be eliminated if the two suggestions that I have made are carried out, namely, to increase the price payable for land if that has not already been done, and to put more acquisition staff at the disposal of the director. I do not know whether or not the acquisition staff has been increased during the last 12 months, but such an increase would be very desirable.

The Minister has admitted that approximately 15,000 acres were planted last year. The target set by the inter-Party Government was 25,000 acres. I have not the slightest doubt that if the inter-Party Government were in office that target would be reached in a very short time. Deputy Flynn adopts the foolish attitude that miracles can be worked overnight, that an afforestation programme can be jumped up from 3,000, 4,000 to 6,000 acres per year to three or four times that acreage. That is childish and he does not believe it himself. He tries to pretend that he believes it. He knows that it cannot be done. It could be reached in a few years if the proper approach were made.

Last year, when the Minister's Party was soliciting support in this House to enable them to form a Government and to displace the inter-Party Government, amongst the famous 17 points, almost every single one of which has been ditched, was the afforestation programme that was filched from us. Candidates went out and said that they would carry out a better programme than we were carrying out, that they would do it better. The Taoiseach mentioned in one of his speeches that it was his policy to acquire a great deal of land that hitherto was unplantable, to make it available for afforestation and to put it under timber.

Personally, I have absolutely no faith in the present Government's policy, not only in afforestation but in almost everything else. They made promises to lure people to support them and flagrantly broke them. That is what has happened in what I consider to be one of the most important aspects of government so far as rural Ireland is concerned.

If we are to put into practice that part of the Constitution which prescribes that the maximum number of people will be maintained on the land, afforestation is one of the means by which that can be done. We are very fond of talking of and bewailing the flight from the land. That flight is taking place day after day. The cutting down of the afforestation programme will increase it.

Forestry work is one of the most useful kinds of employment that can be given in rural areas. Investment in afforestation is not like any other investment. I do not mind what advice the Minister has received from officials of the Department of Finance, the directors of the Central Bank or any other body. I maintain that the safest possible investment at present in this country is to plant something that will increase in value day after day. That is something that cannot be said of practically any other form of Government investment. It is argued, and it is true, that afforestation is a long-term investment. That is agreed. This generation would feel proud and very grateful if some Government 25, 30 or 45 years ago had planted a fairly substantial acreage of forests which could have been handed over to the Irish Government on its establishment. We would say of such a Government that they were not afraid of the future, that they were not afraid to sink money in one of the soundest investments in this country.

I want to tell the Minister that he is certainly taking a retrograde step when he decides to cut down on afforestation. It may be argued that the supply of plantable land is slow in coming in. It is slow while we are prepared to pay only a shabby, mean price for land. We are asking those who are making a living on the land to sell it to the State for a shabby price. These people are not fools. When they sell land to the State they are parting with their means of livelihood.

While Deputy Flynn and other Deputies, I take it, would have us acquire land compulsorily, I would not favour such a course. There is only one thing to do to secure plantable land, and that is to give a good price. If the price has not been altered in the last 12 months, it is a shabby price and it is definitely keeping many farmers from closing with the Forestry Division.

I notice that the Grant-in-Aid for land acquisition is up by £15,000. That is a very poor gesture indeed. The acquisition of land is the foundation stone of forestry work and expansion and there is no use in impeding progress by not having sufficient staff to deal with acquisition and by paying a price which will deter people who would otherwise sell land to the Department from closing the deal. An Act was passed within the last five or six months for the improvement of what is known as the undeveloped areas. Building factories in towns is an ideal thing, and I should like to see it go ahead. At the same time, I do not want to see the rural part of Ireland neglected. While the Undeveloped Areas Act will do a certain amount of good by providing factories in towns, it is also necessary to prevent the flight from the land. That Act will not prevent the flight from the land. It might in some cases only hasten or accelerate it. If we want to keep the people in the countryside, if we want to do what Goldsmith wrote about, to maintain our peasantry, we must bring the work to their doors; we must induce them to stay on the land. Will anyone show me a better means of doing that than by afforestation? At the same time, afforestation will leave a crop behind it which will be improving in value year by year.

I have been eight or nine years in this House and I have not ever heard any proposal to check the flight from the land which is better than afforestation. We must admit that afforestation is a crying need in this country. In 1950-51, the last year the inter-Party Government were in office, something like £8,000,000 was paid for timber and wood products imported from foreign countries. I am sure, if the Minister had any means of finding it out, that the figure was even more than £8,000,000 last year. That will continue because our reserves of matured commercial timber must be going down. If in our generation we do not do anything to replace these reserves we will lay ourselves open to condemnation by posterity.

In those areas where new forest centres were established, particularly along the west coast from Donegal to Kerry, they met with the complete approval of the people, particularly the younger generation from 18 to 40 years of age. They saw at once the advantages to be derived from the development of afforestation. The sum provided in this Estimate for afforestation is something less than £1,000,000, and £1,000,000 out of £101,000,000 which we are to spend this year is a very small sum for such an important Department. No matter what pressure was brought to bear on the Minister, he should not have yielded to pressure to cut down the Forestry Vote. Whatever other Vote was cut down, he had no right to yield to the slashing of this Vote by almost £250,000. It is a serious injustice to the country. The Minister has failed very seriously in regard to one of the most important aspects of his Ministry by allowing the Vote to be cut down. I do not know how he feels about it, but if he yielded easily to that cutting down, he certainly has been guilty of a gross misdemeanour as a Minister. He should not have yielded. If money had to be saved, it could have been easily saved in other directions. The axe should not have been allowed to fall on such an important matter as afforestation.

Mention has been made about the grant of £10 per acre. Some Deputies seem to have a completely erroneous idea of what that £10 is for. I should like to see that grant increased. It was my intention, if I were in office when fencing material was available and when the privately-owned nurseries would be in a position to supply plants to those who wanted them, to increase that grant as an added inducement to private owners of land to put down even one statute acre of timber on their land. In that connection, we must remember that the bog plots attached to holdings provided by the Congested Districts Board and the Land Commission in days gone by are being rapidly cut away. I am puzzled to know what method of heating and cooking is to take the place of turf when these are all cut away. I am reliably informed that the materials necessary for protective fencing of plantations is now plentiful again. I therefore urge the Minister to increase the grant and also to bring to the notice of landholders the wisdom of and, perhaps, the necessity for putting down at least one acre of timber on some waste corner of their land. Even on the best corner, it would be an acre of land very well employed and would pay handsome dividends in time.

While we have an abundance of bog land in some areas, the smaller bogs in other areas are being rapidly cut away. No smallholder of land, in my opinion, will be able to stand up to the cost of buying fuel, whether it be turf, coal or timber, because it would run from £35 to £50 per year for the average small holding of from £7 to £20 valuation. That is a sum which the average smallholder would not be able to bear and the result, in my opinion, will be a further flight from the land and a further depopulation of the small holdings. Now is the time to advise these people and put this problem before them as I did while I was in the Department. I would sweeten the pill somewhat by increasing the grant by £2 or £3 or even £5 per acre so as to induce them to put down their own plantations.

Might I say to Deputies who have been advocating that the provision of shelter belts should be a function of the Forestry Department that I would not like to see that happening? If we burden the Department with the problem of providing shelter belts for every holding in the country the main job of afforestation will go by the board. The Forestry Department was never intended for that. The county committees of agriculture are very suitably staffed for that particular kind of work and it is a very useful kind of work. These shelter belts break the monotony of what would otherwise be a barren countryside and they provide a useful shelter for houses. The county committees of agriculture are the people to facilitate farmers who want to provide themselves with shelter belts.

Before I leave that point I want to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph V of the summary and recommendations in the Cameron Report which reads as follows:—

"A new acquisition programme should be developed, and approved by the Board of Review. This programme should resolve the conflicting demands for land use and, in so far as the commercial forestry programme is concerned, it should include the primary requirement for establishment of forest area aggregations of not less than 3,000 acres. To facilitate the acquisition of commonage areas, expropriation proceedings should be taken in cases where 75 per cent. of the holders of commonage rights are agreeable to sale."

I should like to have the Minister's private opinion on that. I have my own opinion, but I do not propose to give it now. The paragraph continues:—

"The ceiling purchase price for plantable land should be raised to £12 per acre with a proviso for higher purchase prices on approval by the cabinet Board of Review."

I fully agree with him that the price for plantable land should be increased and I want to impress on the Minister the absolute necessity of such an increase.

I notice that the Minister is aiming at a very high figure for Appropriations-in-Aid — £172,000 as against £160,000. I should like to know if he is aiming at that figure because of the increased price for timber sales in the saw mills or is he basing it on an increased sale of timber. We have a good deal of mature timber all over the country, mostly on lands purchased from time to time by the Department, and, while I do not claim to be an expert, my view is that some of that timber may very easily go past maturity and have little value except as firewood. I suggest that a visit to the saw mill in Dundrum erected some time ago would give the Minister a completely new slant on what I would describe as the profitable side of the Forestry Department. Every one of us in the House and outside is too fond of looking at the Forestry Department as a Department which is costing a lot of money and doing little good beyond putting down plantations and giving a certain amount of employment.

There is a vast amount of mature timber on State forest lands and I want to impress on the Minister that that timber should not be allowed to go past maturity into the firewood stage for want of up-to-date saw mills to convert it and to give it to the people who are anxious to get it and to pay a reasonable price, and a good price, at present. Shortly before the change of Government, Shelton Abbey was purchased and there were something like 700 acres of timber attached to it, most of which was matured. I hope that for the sake of saving a few pounds on whatever the erection of a well equipped modern saw mill to saw that timber up and give it to the people who want it, people who are willing to pay a good price for it, would cost, that timber will not be allowed to fall into the firewood stage, as might very easily happen. I should like to know from the Minister how much of the £172,750 will be realised by an increased price for timber, the Order for which he gave some time last September or October, as he informed me in a reply to a question before Christmas.

As regards Avondale, could the Minister let us know what is happening about the proposed transfer of the forestry centre from Avondale to Shelton Abbey? Avondale is hopelessly small for the accommodation of forestry trainees at present. It has certain advantages that Shelton Abbey will not have, in the matter of the provision of suitable ground, plantations and so on, but that can be easily met and it should not be regarded as a reason why the whole school should not be transferred to Shelton Abbey, since Avondale has served its purpose and, the family being now grown up, so to speak, is not now capable of housing them. Shelton Abbey was purchased largely because of the splendid accommodation the house offered. That was one of the reasons which weighed heavily in the acquisition of Shelton Abbey from the Earl of Wicklow a couple of years ago. I hope these trainees will be transferred as soon as possible.

I hope, also, that the Minister will establish what I proposed to establish, a research institute attached to the Forestry Department. As our forestry acreage grows, problems will crop up, because the new forest acreage is bound to bring its own diseases and pests, the same as any other crop. The country is free of them at present, and we have a perfectly virgin soil to work on. I think I am correct in saying that our forests at present are completely free from pests and diseases of any kind. We should have a research institute which would be ready to pounce on any stranger that might come in, and, seeing that transport and travel are so quick at present, it would not surprise me to find some disease that was not known any nearer than Canada or Labrador had broken out here, which would do immense damage to our forests in a short space of time.

There is no controlling of these pests, because there are 1,000 and one ways in which they can travel. The very elements favour them at times, and people travelling and the conveyance of merchandise facilitates them. We are free so far. That is my information up to last year, and, as we are free, the way to maintain that freedom is by the establishment of a research institute ready to pounce on any intruder who comes in here and to wipe him out before he has time to get a foothold rather than spending millions in trying to eradicate some pest or disease after it has got a foothold. There are many other things such a research institute could do which are absolutely necessary if we are to tackle the problem in a proper way, but the one thing that scares me stiff is the thought that we might not be prepared to meet any kind of danger that might threaten our forests in that respect.

There is another matter which I have raised by parliamentary question on two occasions. In some areas, a difference of wages exists, due to the fact that forestry workers' wages are coupled with the local county council rate. Where a forest centre lies across the border of two counties, serious discontent is caused. There is one area I have in mind, portion of which is in my constituency, the Cong Forest. Workers all over County Mayo are getting £4 per week, while workers in County Galway are getting only £3 12s. 6d. These are the two county council rates.

The workers in the Cong forest who work in the County Mayo portion receive £3 12s. 6d., and they feel that they should get what their neighbours in Lough Carra, Doolough forest and other centres are getting, £4. For the sake of the few hundred pounds which it would cost, the Minister should remove this discontent by giving the higher rate in the whole forest area. It is not an unreasonable demand and it is not a demand that will involve the Minister or the Department of Finance in huge sums. The cost of the removal of this discontent would more than pay for itself in the contentment created and the better output brought about. It would also show a little generosity and would show that the Department and the Minister are not out to chisel down the wages of these men, or to catch them by means of what they might think is a cheap trick. It is something which, in the tying up of forestry workers' wages with county council wages, did not occur to us until it cropped up later. At that time an increase in wages was absolutely necessary and it was done. It does not exist except in two or three forest centres over the country. To spend the few hundred pounds which would wipe out that disconent would be a generous gesture on the Minister's part and nobody could grumble at it.

Once again I should like to deplore the cutting down of the forestry programme. If we want to stop the flight from the land we will have to bring industries of some kind into the rural areas. It is a fine thing to bring industries into rural towns, but we must bring them to the country places which are miles from any town. If you do not establish them, in 40 or 50 years you will have a completely depopulated land and all the population of the country living in towns. Then it will be too late.

The Minister must be well aware that the flight from the land is heaviest where the quality of the land is poorest. That is very plain to be seen. I am sure that in the recent by-election compaign in North Mayo the Minister saw houses tumbled in, houses that a few short years ago sheltered happy, contented families. This has been happening, so much so during the last 20 years that I would say that some villages have been wiped out by 50 per cent. If the cause for this were a war or something over which the Government had no control, we would all be completely unanimous in saying that it was nothing short of a national disaster. Yet it is happening under our noses. It is happening to houses here, there and all over the place. Slowly the people are moving off the land. The reason is that the income from a small-holding is not fit to maintain a family at the present time. Taxes, rates and every other expense have gone up, and that is something over which the people have no control. The only thing they can do when they find themselves on the wrong side of the ledger is to clear out.

We can do away with that state of affairs to some extent. I do not say that we can provide a complete cure-all for this malady, the flight from the land, which is so serious, but forestry properly carried out and driven hard into these areas would do a lot to stop it, and maintain what any country's boast should be: a happy, contented peasantry. Any cut in the Forestry Vote will have an adverse effect.

I do not make any secret of the fact that I was proud of the strides forestry made during the three years I was with the Department. My earnest hope was to be there long enough to put forestry on a firm, solid footing. One thing which causes me grievous disappointment and dismay is to find the Vote cut down and chiselled away. The Minister is guilty of a very serious misdemeanour when he allows that to happen. He should not have allowed it to happen. He should have increased that Vote and kept on increasing it until the forestry programme reached 25,000 acres, or even 20,000 acres. The Minister knows quite well that there were plans in his office for planting 19,800 acres in one year alone. The Minister may say that that is grand for one year, but that there will be no plantable land if it continues.

I would not take that for an answer. The Minister has two means of getting land; to give a price for it, and secondly to give the Department sufficient acquisition officers to deal with the acquisition of land. I will not ask him to do it all of a sudden because he cannot do it. I would not be so unreasonable as to ask him to do so, but inside three or four years he could hit the 20,000 acre programme quite easily if he just faced up to the job of work. I do not say that for the purpose of blaming. I say it for one purpose: to bring home to the Minister as forcibly as I can the usefulness of this side of the work of his Department.

It will be very serious if he intends to be slack about that. The Forestry Department can get all the land they want. They have plenty of nurseries and a staff in the Department which is second to none in the State. I never met one person there who was not boiling over with enthusiasm to get on with his work. I am safe in saying that many of them did overtime for which they never got a penny pay but which they did out of sheer downright enthusiasm. In what branch of the Civil Service covering the whole 13 Departments do we find that except in the Forestry Department?

The Minister should definitely increase the Estimate instead of reducing it. He can find plantable land, and I have told him the way to do it. That is the method I used. When I took up that office the ceiling was just half what I think it is at the present time. There was one acquisition officer to deal with the intake of land by the Forestry Department in the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties, to deal with title and with all the slow tanglesome matters which have to be dealt with before land can be transferred from an owner or owners to a Department.

It is not good that in the short space of a 12-month the Minister can go back on all the promises which were made if not by himself at least with his authority by his Party when they were seeking power last year. An afforestation programme was one of the principal points in the famous 17-point programme. They have gone back on that. The people of the country were led at that time to believe and we, the members of the Opposition, understood from the programme that they meant to carry out this 25,000 acre development. You walk in here, however, and within a year you calmly tell us that you have cut the programme by half and cut the Estimate by £250,000. If that is going to create a healthy atmosphere in the country, I know very little about politics and I must go to school again. If people who seek and get the responsibility of forming a Government and running the country treat their promises in that way, I am afraid that I for one do not know anything at all about trying to live up to my promises.

Deputy Blowick, I suppose, is not trying to provoke me; but whether he is or not, I find that his remarks make it necessary for me to go into matters in somewhat more detail than might otherwise have been necessary. I think he stated last year on the Estimate that the Department should not try to do more planting than their capacity would permit. In the previous year, I remember, he stated that he did not take it on himself to give directions in technical matters: "I am not a forestry expert, and I leave all these things to the Department." The suggestion is that I, in some way, have been badgered or bullied by the Minister for Finance or by the Department of Finance into cutting down the Estimate under certain sub-heads. There is no foundation whatever for that allegation. The Estimates are prepared on the basis of consultation between the staff of the Forestry Division of the Department and myself. With the best information available to me, there is no reason whatever why I should submit, if I were asked to do so, to any cut in the Forestry Vote. I would not do it, and I dislike the attempts that have been made in this debate to suggest that I should be singled out or that I would subject the work of the Forestry Department to some arbitrary cut. There has been no cut whatever by the Government in respect to capital projects generally. They have taken the position as they found it and they are carrying on these projects to the uttermost extent that our resources permit. We propose to continue and expand these projects where necessary. That being the position, it is quite inconsistent and obviously false to suggest that the forestry programme has been selected and has been picked out for special attention by the Department of Finance.

Why cut the Estimate so?

I shall explain to the Deputy if he has a little patience. Before I come to that point, I want to say something with regard to the acquisition staff. The number is now 12. There has been an addition of four inspectors, grade 1, since I took office and, if further inspectors are necessary, they will be appointed. I am of the opinion that so far they are covering the country fairly well and that the results are as good as can be expected. We have not increased the price of land during the past 12 months. We have not attempted to go out into the market and pay the price that is ordinarily expected, the market price that has been increased owing to the high prices for agricultural produce, etc. That is a matter that is under constant consideration. It is of great importance but in my opinion it is not possible for the Forestry Division to pay the price that is ordinarily fetched by land that is of a semi-agricultural or semi-arable type.

Does the Minister say that the Department cannot pay the price for land that it would ordinarily fetch?

We cannot pay the full market price for all the land we would like to get. It is beyond us.

In the first place, if the land is suitable for agricultural purposes, there is the big question of national policy as to whether the forestry division would be justified in trying to acquire it. Secondly, as the Deputy understands, if the land is acquired for Land Commission purposes, then the Land Commission requirements must take priority.

We are not talking about land of that kind. We are talking about ordinary offers by tenants to the Forestry Department. I do not see why the market value should not be paid for it. I do not see why tenants who part with their land to the Department should not get as much for it as they would get in the open market. That is clearly side-stepping it.

It was stated by Deputy Esmonde that the present rate of grants to farmers for planting purposes had been unaltered for a period of 25 to 30 years. That of course is not correct. It was altered in 1934, and 1945 when the amount of the grant was increased to £10 per acre—£5 after six months and the remaining £5 after five years. This big increase in the amount of the grant was designed to meet the increased cost of plants, fencing material, etc., brought about by emergency conditions. At the present moment we are re-examining the whole grant scheme. It may be possible to recast it further but I am not in a position to make a definite announcement at the moment. With reference to the suggestion made by Deputy Desmond that the Department is not safeguarding the rights of the public in not taking steps to see that moneys expended through these planting grants to private individuals is not wrongfully expended, I should like to say that planting grants are not paid until the Department satisfies itself by an inspection of the planting areas concerned and that the second instalment is paid only after five years on a second inspection.

Another question asked by many Deputies was why the Department does not take smaller areas of land than the 300 acres basis for a forestry centre? The reason is that the opening of a new forestry centre is going to impose a certain financial and administrative liability on the State. We have to see that the work in that centre will, as far as possible, be a continuous project. The cost of the necessary stakes and rabbit fences is extremely high in the case of small areas. Assuming perfect squares, the cost of fencing one acre is four times as much as the cost per acre of fencing 16 acres. Furthermore, the cost per acre of supervision is inversely proportional to the size of the centre. As it is, the average emoluments of a forester come at the 300-acre basis to at least £1 per acre. The area which one forester can supervise adequately is about 3,000 acres, and the ideal situation would be, even if there is a distance of a few miles between one plantation and another within the particular forest area for which he is responsible, that he should be responsible for at least 3,000 acres. The average size of all the present State forests is about 1,500 acres. Up to recently, 300 acres were considered to be the minimum economic initial block, but within the past few years, since the plantable land survey has indicated where additional acquisitions may be expected to accrue, it has become not unusual to start with smaller blocks provided (1) that the block is one in which there is a reasonable proportion of plantable land, and (2) that preliminary inquiries show that there are good prospects of being able to acquire such additional lands as will bring the total for the centre up to 300 acres or more.

What is really in question in setting up a new forest centre is the potential gross output of the block. If the prospects are favourable, it may be possible to start with a comparatively smaller area.

With regard to the acquisition and the building up of a plantable reserve, which is necessary, all experts agree, I should like to inform the House that in 1935 there were 18,000 acres acquired representing 42 purchases, or an average of 400 acres each; in 1952 we acquired 19,000 acres, representing 168 purchases of 162 acres each. The total plantable area that we acquired last year was 15,000 acres, including the large purchases at Kinnitty and Shelton Abbey. Excluding these, the average works out at 125 acres per purchase. At the present time purchases which are in the hand of the Chief State Solicitor work out at an average of only 67 acres.

A Deputy expressed surprise when I said that even to accomplish the target of 12,500 acres it would be necessary to bring into this year's planting programme about 3,000 acres which the branch has not yet taken possession of. The reason for this is that the plantable reserve has always been so bad that for many years the Department has had to include in the planting programme lands which came in barely in time to have them prepared, fenced and planted during the season.

For example, in 1950-51 there were at least three cases in which the land was acquired as late as August and up to the end of September, and in 1951-52, lands which were acquired in August and in October of last year and even in February of this year, had to be included in the planting programme.

The first public pronouncement regarding this 25,000 acre programme which Deputy Blowick speaks of, and for which I cannot find any authority at all from the technical officers responsible to me: the first reference to it appeared in a document which did not issue from the Forestry Branch. The document was issued by the Minister for External Affairs as a White Paper to E.R.P. on the 20th December, 1948.

That was the first public statement, so far as I know, regarding the 25,000-acre programme. The Department of Lands know nothing officially about it. No official authorisation had been given by that Department to that programme, and it was only during the following year that the then Minister, now sitting on the other side of the House, stated to the Forestry Division that "the Government had adopted a planting programme of not less than 25,000 acres."

The Government—that is right.

And 1951 was mentioned as the first year in which the Department should try to fulfil this programme, but no firm direction was given in the matter.

And no money was provided.

In the debates on the Estimate in April, 1949, the then Minister stated that the necessary transplants must be available before the necessary stocks could be raised to enable this programme to be carried out. He stated that the purchase of land must in the meantime be stepped up by at least 30,000 acres per annum, and that it would be preferable to increase the rate for the next three years to 50,000 acres or thereabouts. The total plantable reserve at the present time, as last year, is only in the neighbourhood of 30,000 acres.

The Estimates for the year 1951-52 were originally drafted in relation to a programme of 25,000 acres. Why then were they reduced to 20,000 acres which, as events show, in spite of the most extreme pressure being put upon the Forestry Branch to enable them to go beyond what they, as reasonable men, thought possible and practicable, and in spite of the greatest possible efforts carried on at a later period of the season with the aid, of course, of mechanical preparation? Nevertheless, not more than 15,000 acres was possible of achievement.

That is not correct.

I am going to make my speech.

I am going to make this interjection, that the Department had plans for 19,800 acres and you cut it down.

That statement is not correct.

It is correct.

I must ask you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to ask the Deputy to withdraw it.

I did not ask the Department to cut it down, and I challenge the Deputy to produce any evidence of that.

I had made arrangements for the Department to carry out 19,800 acres this year, and it would have done so if the change of Government had not taken place. I will not withdraw that for anyone.

The Deputy has made the statement that the Minister gave certain directions to his Department. The Minister has denied giving those instructions to the Department. The Deputy will accept the Minister's word.

Fair enough, just for the sake of order in the House.

And for the sake of truth, honesty and decency in public life. Anything that I do I am going to stand over it. I am not going to go out and say one thing and do another thing. The Department worked harder and longer than ever they worked before. They could not accomplish that. The Deputy knew they could not accomplish 20,000 acres, and might as well have said 35,000 or 50,000 acres, because, in fact, it was not the Deputy, but another Minister who was, apparently, responsible for forestry policy here.

The Department did not cut down the 18,000 without acquainting you and getting your permission. Do not tell me.

The Minister is in possession.

You have been caught out.

Your man is caught out.

You are shut out and caught out as well.

You are deflated.

I gave the reasons why it was not possible for the Forestry Branch to carry out a programme greater than 12,500 acres. I explained, in my opening statement, that thinning operations which should have been carried out systematically on a fairly large scale for many years past has been neglected, had been put aside, and that there were very heavy arrears of work to be carried out. Those who are acquainted with forestry know that these sylvicultural operations and the maintenance of forests in proper condition, so as to get the maximum output in valuable timber at the end of the rotation, take precedence of replanting and must be attended to unless serious loss is the result.

The fact is that, at the present time, very large blocks of land, 300 and 400 acres, are in urgent need of treatment for thinning. These blocks must be dealt with and, at the same time, the whole stand of timber must be treated concurrently. You just cannot take up work to-day and leave it again tomorrow. If your aim to get the best return in commercial timber at the end of the rotation is to be achieved, you have to see that the thinning operations are carried out regularly. These large blocks of timber, which require thinning, are coming in yearly or in alternate years in a good many of our forest centres, and they have to be attended to.

The second point I made was that the reserve of plantable land was insufficient. I need not worry Deputies by calling their attention to the fact that Mr. Cameron, the expert, again adumbrated the principle in his report that you must have a three years' reserve in hand if you are going to make progress and if you are to have continuity. If you are going to accept the position that, for political or other reasons, you are going to swell your programme arbitrarily by putting into it an effort that might be more wisely expended in other directions and not get the result you would get by approaching the problem from the point of view of having continuous progress over a period of years: if you are going to adopt that kind of thing to bolster up a programme, one year for political or other reasons, then face a decline next year, and then bolster it up again, it means that you are not going to give the country the return that should be given through forestry operations.

I propose to show convincing evidence to the ordinary Deputy that it is not possible to do what Deputy Blowick pretends to believe was possible, that was to get 20,000 acres planted last year. I have a list here of a number of centres which were pressed to plant more last year than they would have planted normally in two, three, four or even five years. In one case, 430 acres were planted, leaving a plantable reserve to date of only 540 acres. In another case, 356 acres were planted, leaving a reserve of 631; in another case 331 were planted, leaving 301; in another case 337 were planted, leaving 310; in another case 498 were planted, leaving 812. In another case, in an area which Deputy Desmond probably knows, 835 acres were planted last year, leaving a reserve of 67 acres in hand for future operations. In another area, not very far away from that, 596 acres were planted, leaving 553 in hand. In another area 397 were planted, leaving 241 in hand, and in another area 467 were planted, leaving 401 in hand. The total for all those areas showed 4,247 acres planted, and the total reserve left in the nine centres was only 3,856 acres.

That tells us nothing.

It tells us that we cannot continue to give employment in those areas, when we have planted them up, during the period which must elapse until thinning operations take place. What is the use of talking about giving employment, about stopping the flight from the land, if we are going to plant up, as the Deputy would have us do and apparently thinks is the right national policy, the reserves which we have within two, three or four years, when we will have nothing to continue the work after that?

Why not have it?

And throw the men out of employment?

If you are facing an afforestation programme that way, you will never get anywhere. The Minister should give up decently and say he knows nothing about it.

I have another summary here. We have 150 centres and in about 22 there is scarcely any work on hands or any prospect at the present time. That is largely due to the fact that last year, in most if not all of those centres, the plantable reserve that existed about then was absorbed almost completely, leaving nothing for future development.

There is another number of centres, about 60 or more, where prospects are good, because we have reached the position where thinning operations are going on or even if planting stops and additional land for planting is not available, nevertheless other operations will mean that the amount of employment which was given in the area can be continued. In a good many of these areas, it is to the thinning operations and the ordinary forest operations rather than to planting that we shall have to look, I fear, to keep up the level of employment. There is an intermediate number of centres, perhaps about 50 or more, where, as in the case of the 22 centres where very little is being done at present and very little in prospect, while we cannot say they are quite as bad as these, nevertheless the prospects are not at all favourable.

I want to point out to the House that if we are to have a planting programme it must take cognisance of the fact that we have a labour corps attached to each of these forest centres and if we mean to have progressive afforestation we must have a programme that will aim at keeping these in employment regularly and continuously, and if possible, increasing the amount of employment. There is no use in a forest policy that aims at going into an area and, by mechanical ploughing or otherwise, planting up some hundreds of acres, then have the same thing the following year and the same thing the year after that, until that reserve is exhausted and there is no employment in sight until such time, twelve or fifteen years later, when operations may start again. I do not think any forester would agree for a moment that that policy is reasonable or wise in any respect. If Deputy Blowick or Deputy MacBride or anyone else wish to put that before the people as their policy, we are quite prepared to answer that and to show that it is a false and misleading policy, that it has not the true interests of the country at heart and that it would simply mean that after a year or two forestry operations would break down altogether.

Does Deputy Allen agree with that, I wonder?

Yes. I want to see the men in continuous employment. The Deputy would put them out of it after a year or two.

That is a nice enunciation of forest policy.

Deputies are criticising the reductions in the amounts provided under certain sub-heads in the Vote. They forget what I specifically called attention to in my opening statement, that the capital and constructional expenditures last year were based on the assumption that a planting programme of 20,000 acres would be undertaken. Such a programme was entirely beyond the realms of possibility. It was not possible to achieve it, and therefore the provisions for labour in the 1951-52 Estimate were out of perspective. I am being candid and frank and, I hope, honest, with the House and the people in saying that 12,500 acres is the target, that the Forestry Division tell me that is the utmost they have a reasonable prospect of achieving this year; nevertheless, the total provision for labour is at least £9,000 more than it was last year, when my predecessor told us he had a programme for planting 20,000 acres.

Is it not down from £181,000 to £135,000?

The rate of wages has increased during the year, and if the rate of wages should increase further and it should be necessary to make adjustments, or if it is found that the provision for labour under any of the appropriate headings is not sufficient, I am quite prepared to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, as was done last year when the original provision was found to be insufficient.

I pointed out yesterday, in reply to Deputy Sweetman, that, in sub-head C 2 (3) there is provision for materials, £50,000, for wire netting. The Estimate this year provides for almost a normal supply of materials. Last year the expenditure on materials for stockpiling was charged as capital expenditure. This year, it is being described as normal constructional expenditure.

Deputy Blowick thinks the increase of £15,000 is not sufficient for acquisition. If it is not sufficient, and if sizable areas of land, for which we have not made provision, should come in during the year, we shall look for the additional provision. I should like to remind the House that last year we purchased two large properties— Shelton Abbey and Kinnity Castle, with the surrounding lands. They cost us very substantial sums of money. Whether they will justify entirely what they cost us is not for me to say. I am afraid I am rather soft-hearted in these matters and I should prefer at the moment not to express an opinion. The provisions for acquisition, nurseries, maintenance and the conversion of timber have all been increased.

Deputy Cogan referred to the fact that the Department's forestry staff are, in the main, unestablished. That question is one in regard to which the Department have always been very sympathetic but there are a number of difficulties in the way. Most of those difficulties have been overcome and I am glad to be able to say that a solution is in sight. A decision has been taken, in principle, that the forester grades are to become established and I hope it will be possible to take the necessary steps to give effect to that decision in the Autumn. Deputies may rest assured that there will be no avoidable delay.

For the information of Deputies, I should like to say that the costings of the manual preparation and planting of land work out at about £16 to £20 per acre whereas the mechanical preparation and manual planting of land costs about £10 per acre.

Deputy Blowick admitted when he was responsible for this Estimate in former years that due to the attractive prices for land and the prosperity of agriculture the Department were being forced back more and more on very inferior and very bad land.

The inspector's report on some of the land that we are being offered at the present time is that it is "deep, soggy, fibrous peat with large areas of quagmire and innumerable pools". I shall give the House now, as an example of the type of land he has been asked to inspect for afforestation purposes, the opinion of an inspector which will meet with the general approval of those who are interested in the progress of forestry as a serious proposition from the national point of view. He said that we would not be justified in going ahead with acquisition until the inferior type of land offered has been scientifically evaluated on the experimental forests which have been established on similar ground. We have a number of these forests in the West. The advice of the technical experts to me is that we ought to go cautiously in regard to the plantation of those areas, that we ought not to plant them up in a short period but over a period of time, watching the results and hoping that they will be favourable. As soon as it becomes clear that the inspectors are satisfied that the results are favourable, we can proceed to plant very much larger areas of that type of very inferior land which, up to the present, was considered unplantable.

Afforestation is not the only purpose for which these lands might be utilised. There are other purposes for which they might be utilised with, perhaps, greater advantage to the people in the area, greater advantage to the country and even, possibly, greater employment. For example, valuable experiments are being carried out at present in Kerry and in Galway by the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company for the production of grass from reclaimed bogland. Apart from the land rehabilitation project, for many years the Department of Agriculture and the Land Commission have been encouraging the reclamation of land in the congested areas and have met with a considerable amount of success. With regard to the potentialities of high bog for turf development and for the development of electric power—leaving out agricultural or semi-agricultural purposes—we are, as the House is aware, entering on a very big phase of development. The opinion has been expressed that in an area where very extensive development of bog is going ahead for an electric power station to be built in the area in some years' time, the cutaway bog area may be used there afterwards for afforestation purposes.

An important point is that some of those districts, where large areas of bogland hitherto considered unplantable have been acquired for afforestation purposes, are very remote from centres of population. It would be very difficult, especially if there is not a continuous programme of development, to hold out the hope to those who seek employment that they are going to find continuous work over a period of years. It would be very difficult indeed in some of those areas to find sufficient local labour. If we go into those areas, being satisfied from the point of view of experiment that the possibilities are good and that wholesale expansion on a very large scale can be carried out, inevitably the question of providing accommodation for workers will arise. The workers will have to be drawn from the neighbouring areas or perhaps brought in from outside areas.

It was suggested that I was rather exaggerating when I said that there was a shortage of labour in certain areas side by side with the fact that in certain districts, due to the shortage of a plantable reserve of land, we are in danger that we may have to lay off men during the coming or succeeding seasons unless the situation alters. In some of our best-known centres, due to the isolated areas in which the forests are located, it is difficult to get labour. I have before me a reference to one forest. "Practically all the available labour has been absorbed into forestry employment, but, at that, we can find only 45 men out of an authorised staff of 60. Large-scale thinning and associated road-making absorb most of the labour force and although there is a pool of some 700 acres available for planting, the planting programme must necessarily be restricted in relation to the supply of labour available. Serious damage to plantations can result from continued deferment of thinning once it becomes necessary and it would be contrary to the principles of good sylviculture to allow a programme of fresh planting to take precedence over such work." That is not the only area; in an important area west of the Shannon, where I was very hopeful there would be considerable expansion and where the prospects were very, very favourable, I find that only an average staff of 20 can be supplied where the desirable quota would be 32. "It is doubtful if the thinning programme for this year can be completed owing to shortage of staff, and overlong deferment of this work is highly undesirable." That is the position in a number of areas.

In a southern area the authorised labour staff is 30 men and 24 men are casually employed. "Shortage of labour has not been a significant difficulty up to the present, but next year's planting programme is situated at an isolated area, thinly populated. Men cannot be expected to travel from the main centre to the new area, and it is feared that difficulty may be experienced in completing the programme."

A great deal has been said about the Cameron Report. The Canadian expert recommended the establishment of 500,000 acres of commercial forest at planting rate of 11,750 acres per annum. It is true that he also recommended there should be a social forest programme, but definitely as far as the commercial requirements of the country and the provision of our own needs from our own resources were concerned, he recommended a planting rate of 11,750 acres.

That is having regard to the needs of the country at the present time. We hope to have a bigger population.

The expert—I do not know where he got the figures—estimates that our population might increase by 50 per cent. With regard to the suggestion that expropriation proceedings should be taken where 75 per cent. of the owners of a commonage are prepared to sell, the forestry division has never looked with favour on a policy of compulsory acquisition of land. We prefer, if possible, to acquire land with the goodwill of the people, and I think Deputies will generally agree with that.

Hear, hear!

In any event, I think it would be difficult to have a rule of thumb policy whereby we would take compulsory proceedings arbitrarily where a certain percentage of owners were willing to sell. Actually, we get a great amount of assistance from the Land Commission and their inspectors in dealing with commonage.

In that connection, I would like to point out with regard to the argument that there should be a separate Department for forestry and a separate Minister—I am not going to offer my own opinion one way or the other— that there are certain advantages at present in having forestry closely associated with the Department which has the machinery, the organisation and experience that the Land Commission has for the acquisition of land. It means that if large areas of land, which are not required for allotment among uneconomic holders are available, they can be transferred straightaway with the greatest goodwill and the least possible friction from the Land Commission to the Forestry Branch. As Deputies will realise, very substantial areas of land have come in that way, but if we approach the problem on a different basis we would not have that advantage. In any case, as Deputy Cogan pointed out, it is not really a question of appointing a Minister. It is the question of the machinery, the organisation and the method of working that is in operation, in my opinion, rather than whether the head of the Department should be responsible specifically for it to the Dáil or, as some Deputies would think, the forestry work should be administered under the control of a board such as Bord na Móna or the Electricity Supply Board.

Deputy Flynn raised a number of points regarding lands in Kerry. I think I can assure him that so far as the Lickeen case is concerned, although it is not quite completed, everything possible will be done to bring it to a conclusion. With regard to another case in Milltown, where some years ago it was decided not to proceed because the area was rather limited in extent, only 98 acres, fresh inquiries are being made and possibly it may be taken over.

A Deputy asked me about research work. The position is that this matter has been engaging the attention of the Department for some time. In our opinion the most important field for research and experiment in the near future would be the assessment of our plantations and the analysis of annual income to determine the most suitable thinning cycles and in the cultivation of particular species on certain types of land.

Deputy Blowick asked me what was the position regarding Shelton Abbey and Avondale. Final decisions have not been come to owing to difficulties which have arisen with regard to the premises at Shelton Abbey. There has been no departure so far from the intention to provide alternative accommodation for the trainees. We have two large buildings, Shelton Abbey and Kinnitty Castle, and both of these are in question. In the case of Shelton Abbey, there is the question of substantial reconstruction work at very heavy cost upon the building. I have not come to a final decision yet as to whether we should proceed with the proposal to make Shelton Abbey a training school or whether we may not have to adopt an alternative. All the aspects of the case will be carefully considered before any final decision is come to, and it will not be a question of submitting to the dictates of the Department of Finance. It will be a question of what is best in the general interests of the forestry service.

With regard to the forestry workers' wages in adjoining counties, where workers on one side of a county boundary are being paid differently to workers on the other side, we are considering that question. I am not in a position to make a promise. My inclination is in favour of paying the same rate but I am not yet quite satisfied that we will not have anomalies in other directions. When forestry workers' wages were linked with county council wages, some councils were paying higher rates than others and the forestry workers could claim they were doing the same type of work.

The question may be raised later on of having a general rate, but my sympathy would be rather more for having all workers paid the same rate for the same type of work rather than having a differentiated one. However, that matter is under consideration.

Deputy Blowick is very interested in the flight from the land. I do not agree with him that forestry development alone will keep people at home who have been going for generations to England and Scotland as migatory labourers. I have been acquainted with these people during my whole life time, and my firm belief is that nothing less than permanent industrial employment of a good and remunerative type will prevent them from emigrating. Perhaps, even the provision of such employment would not keep them at home. As was pointed out recently, the attractions in Great Britain are not merely financial ones. There are large numbers of our people congregated together in London, in Birmingham and such places at the present time so that those who emigrate will be certain of having a large circle of acquaintances.

As has been pointed out by an independent authority, that is probably as big a factor as any other in inducing young people to leave this country. The conditions under which they live at home appear very difficult to them, and when they realise that urban life provides cheap transport and other such amenities they are not inclined to remain in their native places where, probably, such amenities are not held out to them. Since I went into the Department of Lands, I have seen files dealing with the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes, and I notice that the young people are not staying in remote mountainy areas, though the older people may remain on in these areas for some time. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that industrial employment alone will keep our young men and women in this country. Maybe the making available of permanent employment as a result of afforestation, the reclamation of bogs or other reclamation work would do the trick. In my opinion, the employment will have to be continuous, and the remuneration fairly good if we are to succeed in keeping them at home.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share