Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Mar 1953

Vol. 136 No. 15

Vote 48—Forestry (Resumed).

Mr. Blowick

When the House adjourned on this Estimate last night, I was pointing out to the Minister that a serious misjudgment in policy has taken place, in my opinion, particularly in relation to the reduction in the quantity of seed sown in the nurseries last year and the quantity proposed to be sown this year. During the spring of 1949, 1950 and 1951 approximately 14,000 lb. of seed were sown in the nurseries with a view to producing between 45,000,000 and 50,000,000 healthy transplants for the purpose of planting a fairly sizable forestry programme. According to the information given at Question Time yesterday, that has been cut down to less than one-fourth. I think that is a grave mistake, particularly when we know that land acquisition, and that was the really big trouble in afforestation up to this, is easing up somewhat and the figures for land acquisition are a little bit more hopeful than they were three, four, five or six years ago. If the present policy continues, theDepartment will find itself in three or four years' time with sufficient plantable land to carry out the programme laid down by the inter-Party Government but with insufficient transplants to fill the programme.

There may be some argument against planting 12,000 lb., or 13,000 lb., or 14,000 lb. of seed. If the seed is planted and it is subsequently found that there is a shortage of land, labour or anything else and the transplants cannot be utilised by the Forestry Department, they will not go to loss. Room will be found for them somewhere in the country, and good use can be made of them. There was a reduction last year. I appeal to the Minister this year to reconsider the matter before the seeds are sown and put down a larger quantity of seed.

There has been a very noticeable cutting down on the programme handed over to the Minister by the previous Government. That is a mistake. Last year we paid over £8,250,000 for foreign timber of all kinds. I think I am right in saying that the country from which we imported the largest quantity of timber does not buy in return as much as £100 worth of produce. Cutting down the programme now will put off the day still further that this country will be self-sufficient in its timber requirements. We cannot say that we have not plenty of unemployed at the moment and, therefore plenty of labour available for turning over to this very useful development work.

The Government seems to have cast a very jaundiced eye on the forestry programme merely because the Minister's predecessor was keen on expanding that programme. In the light of the Cameron Report, and the advice tendered there, the Minister should review Government policy now in relation to forestry. He should certainly not cut down on it. He took over a Forestry Division in full working order. The staff had been considerably augmented. In reality, of course, forestry should be a separate State Department and not a mere section of another Department.

Cutting down on the programme for the sake of the few pounds that willbe saved is one of the worst steps the Government can take. I do not say that for the sake of scoring political points. This is a section of our national activity that I would like to keep completely free from politics. Every year we hear protestations from everybody in relation to forestry. It is not much good calling for afforestation if the Minister allows himself to be overruled by the Minister for Finance by cutting down this useful branch of public activity.

I was glad to have the figures the Minister gave us yesterday in relation to the acquisition of land. That was the big problem where forestry is concerned. If the land does not come in in a steady stream each year the Forestry Division cannot plant. While I did expect a better return I was pleased with the figures the Minister gave particularly in regard to the acreage for which offers have been made. I did not ask him for the figures for which offers had been accepted but I presume the story there would be equally encouraging.

I appeal to the Minister to expedite the work of the Forestry Division to the utmost because it is there that the foundation of the scheme lies. Once again, I appeal to him to consider planting more seeds in the nurseries this year so that he, or his successor, will not find himself in the unhappy position, two, three or four years hence with plenty of land, labour and fencing material but not enough transplants to carry out a programme. Transplants are not available from outside sources. Apart from that, I doubt if transplants from foreign sources would be a success.

Would the Minister tell us, when he is replying, has Shelton Abbey been given over as a training school and has the change-over from Avondale to Shelton Abbey that was envisaged prior to the taking over of that estate taken place? If it has not, what is the cause of the delay? One of the things that was particularly annoying to me during my term of office as Minister for Lands was the overcrowding which has grown up in Avondale due to the large numbers engaged inforestry training there and whatever necessary staffs were there. I took a keen interest, for that reason, in the purchase of that estate which obviated the necessity of the Minister for Finance providing money to build a suitably sized college in Avondale or elsewhere.

I think the Minister will agree with me that, apart altogether from the valuable crop of standing timber which was on the Shelton Abbey lands, the house or castle itself, whatever you like to call it, was a very valuable acquisition from the point of view of saving the State the necessity for building a new training college to replace Avondale.

Avondale has filled a very useful place in the history of forestry in this country. Apart from the fact that it has such an historical association with Parnell, it has performed a very useful function. I am glad to say that forestry there has grown out of its clothes and great progress has been made.

Would the Minister tell us, if he has the information, what number of trainees are under the Department at the present time and what number it is hoped to take in the coming year?

If my memory is correct, there were between 600 and 700 acres of mature standing timber of first-class commercial quality on the Shelton Abbey lands at the time of taking over. I do not know what has taken place there since but in view of the success from the financial point of view of the saw mill in Dundrum, with its drying kilns and very modern equipment, might I impress on the Minister the great necessity of establishing a saw mill there to make use of the growing timber which in a few years' time—and a few years will not be long elapsing—will be passing maturity and will perhaps go into the firewood stage? One of the greatest handicaps forestry has suffered from is that home-grown timber has never been marketed or presented to the purchaser in the same condition as foreign timber of inferior quality has been presented to the purchaser. I said this before as Minister for Lands and I repeat it now that Irish home-grown timber is second to none in theworld provided we grow it, dry it, saw it and market it with the same care and the same attention as that which is sold to us from British Columbia, Finland, Sweden and the other sources from which foreign timber comes. Our timber is equal to the best and there is only one way to make progress and the Minister for Lands should take the lead in that regard.

A start has been made in Dundrum and it has been extended in Cong. Further progress could be made in Portumna, Shelton Abbey and other places where there are considerable quantities of mature timber. The Minister should take the bit in his teeth, disregard the counsel of the Minister for Finance in this connection and establish a sawmill with the most modern equipment he can get—drying kilns, and so on. The Minister will agree with me that they are not costly. They will not scare any Minister for Finance, no matter how slowly revenue is coming in. The Minister should give a lead in this regard and endeavour to put Irish home-grown timber on the market in as good a condition as foreign timber is marketed to show and convince the pessimists in this country that forestry can be a paying proposition.

Let me refer to a feature of the Minister's opening speech last night. He paid great attention to the way the Department was using up a lot of its energy in attending to thinnings, care of plantations, and so on. I will not be led off the path by that. However, I want to say that I wish the Minister the best of luck in connection with thinning operations and in keeping the existing plantations in first-class order. Let me congratulate him on putting down his foot firmly and insisting that that work be done. As I said last night, it is only waste of the taxpayers' money if we sow a crop of timber and let it grow into a lot of spikes for want of the necessary care. Timber is a crop and it requires periodic attention just the same as any other crop on the land. It must be looked after right up to the time it is fit for felling. I am proud to hear that the Minister has taken such a firm stand in relation to existing plantations.

Let me say this also, that the sale of thinnings, if it is carried out on a big scale, will be a very valuable source of profit, and that he may convince some of the diehards in the Department of Finance that forestry is not all spending and nothing coming in. The sale of thinnings was, and is at the present time, a very valuable source of profit. It must be remembered that if there was never sale for thinnings—even if we are forced to let them rot in the ground—there is a basic necessity for the operation if we are going to produce proper timber.

However, I do not agree with the Minister when he tries to put across the floor of the House that the care of the existing plantations is a good, sound and sufficient argument for dropping down the programme. I am not at all convinced that the Minister was wise in dropping off on the programme I laid down. Preparations were made for the planting of 19,500 acres, and he comes and tells us there is no use in using up all the plantable area in one year or two. I quite agree; but does the Minister deny that the supply of plantable land is going to be increased? What was the cause for increasing the staff to the extent of 15 officials, if we include the three Land Commission men seconded? Land will be coming in. All the figures he has given us have given the lie to that suggestion that land will not be available in increasing acreages. With sufficient acquisition staff, the land will come in, and I think the Minister has made a ghastly mistake that will only begin to pinch hard in three or four years' time, by cutting down the weight of the seeds planted last year. However, the seeds are not sown this year and will not be for the next couple of weeks, and I think it is not too late yet to repair the damage. Unless he takes action now we will find ourselves in a position in three or four years' time that we will have ample equipment and ample young men to work, but we will not have the transplants to plant out.

In conclusion I wish the Minister every success and good luck in this particular branch of his Department. It is one in which I took a very keen interest and will continue to take avery keen interest. Apart from the fact that we should have our own supplies of timber we should at least lay the foundation now for earning that £8,000,000 which we are paying out at the present time so that, by the time the timber reaches maturity, it will be worth between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000.

Now that it is readily acknowledged by all that the Undeveloped Areas Bill is more or less a flop, let me point out once again to the Minister that the onus of providing employment in the undeveloped areas rests largely on the Forestry Department. Nobody can dare raise objection to the Minister for Lands creating plantations in what have come to be known as the undeveloped areas and giving employment to our young men to encourage them to stay at home. It is a very healthy kind of employment and enables us to develop our own country. It is not like making a road, making a drain or a fence in which there is little or no source of profit. From the day trees are put down nature is doubling and trebling the value of that plantation year by year until it comes to final maturity.

I say that in the hands of the Minister for Lands lies the solution for saving what is left of the Irish-speaking population of the Gaeltacht. Secondly, in his hands lies the opportunity to develop our undeveloped areas. The factories, if any, that will be established under the Undeveloped Areas Act will be confined to the towns. In the hands of the Forestry Department therefore lies the solution for maintaining employment in the rural areas and at the same time of assuring this country of decent supplies of native timber. I urge on the Minister the necessity of going about the country and taking even a greater interest than he has been taking in forestry. That is not accusing him of lagging on the job up to the present but I want him to take even a greater interest in this work. I was very proud to hear him say last night that he has visited plantations which are far removed from the capital and I urge on him to do more of that kind of work. The staff of the Forestry Department has not,I am sure, changed since my time and he will find them willing and ready to co-operate with him in every way. He will find that they are as competent at their job as any staff in the Civil Service and that is saying a good deal. I am sure the enthusiasm that I observed when I was in the Department has not waned since. The Minister has it in his power to save what is left of the Irish speaking population. Apart from that, if he carries out this programme energetically he will leave behind him a crop of growing timber that will be of considerable value to coming generations who in their turn will thank him for what he has done for them in this country.

Seán Mac Carthaigh

Is mian liom an t-Aire do mholadh mar gheall ar an obair foraoiseachta atá ghá déanamh aige. Le cúnamh Dé, beidh sé i ndon an obair sin do leathnú agus beidh gach éinne buíoch de ma dhéanann sé í. Tá gá lena thuille plandaí fuinseoige do cur ag fás i dtreo is go mbeidh ábhar camán le fáil le haghaidh ár gcluicí Gaelacha. D'féadfaí an t-adhmad seo a úsáid i gcóir a lán rudaí seachas camáin. Molaim don Aire a thuille plandaí fuinseoige do chur ag fás mar tá gá mór leo. Bheinn féin buíoch de dá ndéanadh sé sin.

Mr. McQuillan

I propose to reserve my remarks on the Forestry Vote for the general Estimate which will come before the House in the near future. Arising out of the Supplementary Estimate, however, I should like to emphasise the importance of one or two points made by Deputy Blowick, especially in connection with the Gaeltacht areas and congested areas generally in the West. I have got figures in the course of the last few months from the Minister in regard to the plantations in each of the counties that are known as congested counties and I am afraid, although a great deal of lip service is now being paid by both sides of the House to the necessity for afforestation in western areas, that very little practical work is being done. In the year 1950-51, of the total afforestation programme in thecountry only 2,319 acres were planted in the eight counties of Clare, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon and Sligo. If anybody suggests to me that that is a worthwhile contribution towards the solution of the problem of afforestation in the West, my answer would be that it is completely insufficient. Apart altogether from the small amount of plantation work that has taken place, let us have a look at the figures with regard to the amount of land acquired for afforestation in the period 1950-51. In that year 3,800 acres were acquired for afforestation purposes. To my mind that is only nibbling at the problem in the West of Ireland.

I do not agree with Deputy Blowick that the Undeveloped Areas Act has been a failure. It is too soon yet to know whether real benefit will accrue to the West of Ireland from that Act and I think we should give it a little more time but nobody can hope that the Undeveloped Areas Act by itself will provide the solution for the problems that face the West of Ireland. Undoubtedly if afforestation is carried out on a major scale, it should be possible to relieve a great deal of the unemployment in the West and to stem emigration. The extraordinary position in which we find ourselves in this House, however, is that while little afforestation work is being done in western areas—the figures given by the Minister prove that—when we come to examine the valuation of holdings in Ireland, we find that in those congested counties in Connaught there are 55,000 holdings with valuations under £4 and we have 51,000 holdings with valuations over £4 but under £10. There is no hope that these people will become owners of economic holdings in the near future. The Land Commission has said time and again that there is not sufficient land in the country to give economic holdings to those who are living in the congested districts. Consequently alternative steps have to be taken to provide employment and what more useful employment could be provided on those holdings than that derived from afforestation?

I asked the Minister a questionyesterday about the possibility of embarking on an afforestation programme in one area in my own constituency, and he told me that they had no office in that locality. I believe that if the officials of the Forestry Department are serious about their job, it is their duty to go down to these areas and inquire from the people whether they are willing to give up land, at the same time pointing out to them the benefits that will accrue if an afforestation programme is embarked upon in these areas. We have the extraordinary suggestion from both sides of the House that if we do not get land for afforestation then we cannot carry out afforestation. That is the sum total of the remarks of the Minister and of the ex-Minister. I wonder are we serious about this matter? I make no bones at all about it; I am expressing not alone my own view but likewise that of a very considerable volume of opinion outside this House in regard to afforestation. If it is found impossible to get land for afforestation under the present system, then power must be given to the Department of Forestry to acquire that land if necessary by compulsion.

Mr. Blowick

Oh!

Mr. McQuillan

Do not mind your "Oh!" If you are serious about afforestation and about putting people into employment, it may be necessary at times for certain individuals to get hurt or have their toes trodden upon.

Mr. Blowick

Put down a motion to the effect that such legislation be introduced and I will tell you what I think about it when it comes.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not very worried about what you think about it.

Mr. Blowick

Put down your motion if you are sincere.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to find out from Deputy Blowick and Deputy Derrig, the Minister for Lands, whether they are satisfied to make afforestation the plaything of politics as it has been for the last four or five years. DeputyBlowick comes into this House and attacks the Minister for not embarking on an increased programme of afforestation for the West but the figures during his own régime proved he had little or no interest in afforestation except, perhaps, in regard to his own constituency. Deputy Blowick should keep quiet on the question of what he did for the West. I suggest to the Minister that the people need education on this question of afforestation.

Mr. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. McQuillan

It is quite evident that in rural areas many people do not realise the immense benefit that would be conferred not only on the country but on themselves in the various areas if afforestation programmes were carried out in the congested areas in the West. I think the Minister should send his inspectors to local halls, get the co-operation of the local clergymen and give lectures in these halls on the advantages of afforestation. If you get the local spirit of the people behind you they will pour in offers of land to the Department of Forestry at a reasonable price once they realise the benefits that will accrue if afforestation is carried out. It is very foolish to expect the first step to be taken by the local people when they have little knowledge about the method of going about it. I have no doubt that the amount of land that could be made available for afforestation in the West could be trebled at least if the steps I suggest were taken by the Minister.

If it was decided, through the co-operation of the local people, to embark upon an afforestation programme in a certain congested area it would follow that there would be employment for at least six months of the year in that locality. Up to the present the only employment available to these men is that which is provided by the Special Employment Schemes Office which generally amounts to the repair of a road and the cleaning of a drain. The total sum involved might be in the region of £200 to £300. That work might last for three weeks or five weeks at the most, but for the rest of the time the men in that locality either twiddle their tumbs or go across to England to work.

Now and again the county councils might have a roads improvement scheme in the locality. That is also helpful in a congested area but in that connection there is no such thing as security. In those areas a man could not say this year: "I will have work next year, the year after and the year after that again on afforestation in my locality." If the matter is put to him in that light, I am certain that he will be willing to give up out of his small valuation a portion of his land to the Forestry Department so that this afforestation programme could be gone ahead with. If you got in any of these areas 300 to 400 people willing to give portion of their land—all these holdings adjoin each other—look at the employment that could be given.

I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should pick a pilot area in the West of Ireland. There is one place at the moment crying out for that type of experiment. It is the Kiltullagh area which I mentioned recently. In a half parish alone you have 428 holdings, 348 of which are under £5 valuation. In that area alone, there is land ideal for afforestation. Surrounding that congested area there are thousands of acres of bog and mountainy land. If my suggestion were adopted, Land Commission problems in that area would be solved for all time. It would solve the problem of the labour exchanges in that area as a whole because employment would be given and the returns would be there in the form of fine, standing timber, 20 or 30 years hence.

In addition, in that area—I am only mentioning this area but the same could be done in many other areas if the Minister so desires—it would mean that many of the houses in which the people live at present could be demolished and a village or small town could be erected by degrees in the heart of that forestry area. The fuel and power to supply and keep that community going could be provided by the afforestation itself. It would be a self-contained unit where there would be good employment, good housing conditions and all the necessary services for the people of that locality.

If the Minister wants information on how these things are done he need only look at some of the films which show the degree of development work of that nature which is carried out in Canada. If they can do that in Canada I cannot see why we should not be able to follow that example in Ireland. For the past 30 years we have too much dead wood at the head of the Department of Forestry. There is plenty of timber and we have got quite a considerable amount in the Forestry Department. I do not want to be taken as criticising individual civil servants but I am afraid that the proper Government directive has not been given to the Department. To my mind if any Government Department is given a line of policy and the money then it will carry out whatever directive is given it. I do not want to be taken as blaming members of the forestry section. I prefer to cast the blame for the neglect that has taken place on the Governments that have been in power and in particular on the Ministers who have had control of the Forestry Department in the years past.

Mr. Morrissey

It is extraordinary that, even on a debate on forestry, Deputy McQuillan can always hold himself forth consistently as the only Simon Pure in this House, the only man in this House who is not a politician and who is not in politics. On every subject that is debated in the House Deputy McQuillan impartially belabours a particular Minister and a particular Deputy and in case anybody might question his independence he seeks immediately to transfer his criticism to the other side of the House and he belabours the other side of the House with equal vehemence. That sort of thing does not cut any ice either inside or outside the House.

Mr. McQuillan

You often heard me talk about Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Mr. Morrissey

Exactly. We are all, except Deputy McQuillan, either Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

Mr. McQuillan

That is quite true at the moment.

Mr. Morrissey

That is the Deputy's opinion and he is quite entitled to it. The Deputy cannot be both Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Mr. McQuillan

Thanks be to God I am neither.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is spread between the two. He has a leg on each of them. Might I suggest to the Deputy that there are people on all sides of this House who have just as much interest in forestry as the Deputy has? There are people in this House whose approach to the solution of various problems, including forestry. is made with as much sincerity and honesty as his is. The Deputy has no right—and certainly he has no right to be allowed to get away with it—to suggest that everyone here but himself is a dishonest politician or an inefficient one.

I find myself on this Estimate to a very large extent in agreement with the criticisms of the progress that have been made, but unfortunately I have been criticising this Department for about 30 years without a break. The Department had a view for years—I did not agree with it and I hope it has changed—that you could not grow timber on the western seaboard, notwithstanding the evidence there to show that where the money and the labour were available timber could be grown successfully. That evidence exists in Connemara and along the western seaboard and there is in Connemara to-day—though, unfortunately, very little of it, apart from what has been cut down—very valuable mature timber, commercial timber. It can be grown there if the right methods, the right varieties and the right approach are there.

On the other hand, there is no use in Deputy McQuillan trying to make out that it is easy to do it. He said he was not going to accept from the present Minister or his predecessor the plea that it was difficult to get land. According to him there is no trouble in getting land—even where it is more scarce than in any other part of the country. He told us there are tens of thousands of uneconomic holdings in the congested areas where the valuationwas less than £4. Does not that in itself answer his sweeping assertion that it is easy to get land? Where can we get it?

Mr. McQuillan

Did the Deputy not follow me fully?

Mr. Morrissey

I tried to follow the Deputy and tried to see how far I could agree with him. I was not listening for the purpose of picking holes in his argument or in order to say he was making a downright dishonest approach to the problem. I know he was not doing that. If you go to the West of Ireland and find in one area, as he said himself, something like 450 holdings of which 357 are £4 and under——

Mr. McQuillan

In some of those £4 valuations there may be ten or 12 acres and that land is suitable for afforestation.

Mr. Morrissey

——in order to acquire enough land economically to plant trees and give the amount of employment required you would have to dispossess at least three times as many people as you could find employment for in the planting and care of forestry. I wonder what would happen to the other two-thirds of the people. We know that these people hang on to their little homes and holdings as tenaciously as any man in County Meath, County Tipperary or County Limerick.

Mr. Blowick

Why should they not?

Mr. Morrissey

I could give several reasons why they should not, if they could get better, but they cannot. It is not as easy to get this land as Deputy McQuillan asserts. As one who has always been critical of the Department and never satisfied with its progress, I want to say that since the war—I am not claiming any particular credit for the period when we were in office but am speaking of the last five or six years—very definite progress has been made. I do not think any of us is satisfied that it has been as rapid as we would like to see it, but there are difficulties.

Mr. McQuillan

There has been progress in the West?

Mr. Blowick

Yes, in the West.

Mr. McQuillan

Cod.

Mr. Morrissey

Fight it out between yourselves. If the Deputy would only listen to me he would find I am going further along the road with his line of thought than probably the Minister or the ex-Minister would go. In the West and North-West, even in Donegal, more has been done in forestry in the last five or six years than was done in the previous 15. That is not admitting for a moment that it is anything like what should be done, but at least it was a start.

I would like to see more money made available and a fresh effort to get more land and suitable land. This year, we are making directly available for tourism in the neighbourhood of £500,000—£250,000 to the Tourist Board and £250,000 to the other board we set up. Ireland is talked about as being a beautiful country. It is, in spots. The beauty spots are fewer to-day than 50 years ago, as a lot of the spots made beautiful by rich mature timber have been despoiled by the timber being cut down and no replanting. I venture to say that notwithstanding 30 years of State work there are fewer trees in this country to-day than there were 30 years ago. I think there is very little doubt about that.

I know there will have to be a very definite tightening up on the felling of timber, even in the immediate vicinity of the towns and cities. People acquire land for development purposes and they are allowed, apparently without question, to fell trees, some of them really beautiful trees that add considerably to the amenities of the district and to the approaches to our various towns and cities.

We are so fond of attacking the particular Minister who happens to be in office at the moment, and so fond of attacking the Department, that I think we ought to face the fact that those of our people who have land and who live in the rural areas are not themselves doing their part. I suggest that, without any great cost to the State and at very little cost to the individual farmer,this country could be made infinitely more beautiful than it is to-day and we could add enormously to the number of trees in the country while, incidentally, we could take that cheerless appearance off the majority of houses in rural Ireland to-day. I can see no reason whatever why, when the plants are made available free of charge—and if they are not I believe they should be —any man who has a holding could not plant from 25 to 500 trees around his own home without seriously affecting his farm, but, indeed, adding considerably to its value. If we had trees planted around houses in rural Ireland —and particularly some evergreens— the whole of the country would look better and so would the houses themselves. They would certainly not look as cheerless as many of them do now on a winter's day.

I suggest that Deputies who are members of local committees could themselves do a considerable amount, and I would be prepared to advocate that, if it is necessary—although it should not be necessary—not merely should the plants be made available free of charge but even a small subsidy should be given, provided the farmers would undertake to see that those trees were properly planted and properly protected and that the maintenance would be the responsibility of the farmer and his family. It seems to me to be an easy way, a simple way, and it is, in my opinion, for what it is worth, the least costly way of getting results and getting them fairly quickly.

I agree entirely that if there is one matter more than another which should not be made the plaything of Party politics it is forestry. I have belaboured, not both sides of the House at the same time, but whatever side happened to be in power at the time and have told them quite plainly and bluntly that they were not making the efforts they should make and, as I thought, could make. We talk a good deal about attracting tourists. I think we are forgetting the essentials and forestry is one of them. Anybody who has ever been, even for a very short time, in Switzerland or in parts of France will appreciate that thebeauty of these countries or parts of these countries is almost entirely due to the fact that they are planted, and I have seen trees growing in places the climatic conditions of which differ very little from our climatic conditions here. I can see no reason why they could not be grown here.

I know that it is said that along the western counties, owing to the prevailing winds, you cannot get timber to grow, that it is stunted and warped and blown to one side by the prevailing strong west winds. The winds blow in countries other than this country and in some they blow much more strongly than they do here, and still with very little, if any, difference in climatic conditions as compared with this country they are able to grow timber successfully. I know there was a theory—I hope I am correct in using the past tense—in the Department that you had to have the minimum of 200 acres to make it economic to plant timber.

Mr. Derrig

300 acres.

Mr. Morrissey

It is worse they are getting, instead of better. I do not accept that argument for one moment, unless you are going to take it purely on an £s. d. basis and there are returns to this State other than purely £s.d. returns. I am not admitting that, even on an £s.d. basis, it would not pay. We are paying through the nose for timber year after year— importing it from the ends of the earth. There are many subsidiary industries which could be working effectively, usefully and profitably here, if we had our own native timber. In Switzerland, every three miles of road at least that one that travels one sees a sawmill working on their own native timber, but there is more than that, because, in practically every house in rural Switzerland, wood carving is carried on and they are producing souvenirs for the tourists attracted by the beauty of the country, a beauty which is largely made up of green trees, and selling these souvenirs in the best market in the world and at the highest prices at home to tourists. Their own homes are largely built of timber andthere is much more timber used in the building of their homes than is used in the building of our homes. It is to an extent used as a substitute for other building materials which, if they had not their own native timber, they would have to import.

While I am not at all satisfied that we are progressing as rapidly as one would like, it is only fair to say that there has been an improvement and I am quite satisfied that the present Minister is keen, like his predecessor, on progressing as rapidly as he possibly can; but Deputies ought to remember also that the Minister can spend only the amount of money that is made available to him, and that depends very largely on the Minister for Finance. That ought to be kept in mind. When Deputies talk about the importance of forestry or re-afforestation—and it cannot be over-emphasised—they ought to think of that when we make available and spend money on matters which are of very little importance and which will not give us anything like the same return.

I suggest to the House, as well as to the Minister, that we might see if effect could not be given to the suggestion I make with regard to inducing people living in rural Ireland to do their part in the immediate vicinity of their homes by carrying out planting, even if it were 25, 200, 300 or 500 trees. When you have regard to the number of holdings in the country, that in itself would be a very big contribution to the problem. I sincerely hope the Minister will continue his efforts and will try to get more and more land. I know that it is not easy to get it, and I know that there is a local outcry if you take land upon which even a sheep can nibble an existence, for forestry. The unfortunate part of it is that, down in the West of Ireland, you can see mountainsides where there is nothing but bare rock, because whatever soil was there has been washed and blown away, due to the fact that there is nothing there to hold it. Unless there is some planting done even in the foothills, so to speak, still more rock will be exposed and more soil washed away. I know one or two areas where a very genuineattempt was made by the Forestry Department to acquire land on the sides of hills—land which was commonage or held in common as sheep runs. They met with as ferocious an opposition as they would meet with in the heart of County Meath if they went in there to acquire land for the purpose of planting. While one must express the view that we are not entirely satisfied with the progress made, at the same time, we ought to give some recognition to the difficulties the Department has to meet and try to overcome.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Morrissey might be pleased to know that it is not my intention to attack either the Minister or his predecessor. I am satisfied that both have been making some attempt to deal with this problem, but I think that both the present Minister and his predecessor will admit that the progress has been very slow. Living as I do in a county which is extensively under afforestation, I know some of the difficulties that have to be encountered. You may think that a hillside or mountain is freely available for afforestation, but, when you come to acquire it, you may find that it is owned jointly by a number of comparatively small holders who depend to a great extent for their economic existence upon the grazing rights they enjoy there. While one or two might be willing and even very anxious to sell to the Forestry Department, others might not. They might, perhaps justifiably, be anxious to hold on to the grazing rights which they have held over a number of years. These are not large landowners and not people of the landlord class. They are ordinary working farmers and when you come up against that problem, you realise that you have to step carefully. You cannot trample under foot the rights of owners of hill land or bog land. If you do, you will create dangers and difficulties which will impede rather than speed up afforestation. Nevertheless, it is essential that the work be advanced. It is gratifying to note in this Supplementary Estimate that over the past year there has been a considerable expansion in the work of afforestation. It is gratifying to see the Forestry Departmentcome to this House before the end of the year to seek £70,000 more than they estimated at the beginning of the year for their requirements I think it is much better for a Minister to do that than to estimate for a large sum and to fail to expend it in the course of the year.

The fact that we have acquired more land in the past year for afforestation, that we have planted more land during the past year than in the previous year, that we have employed more workers during the past year than in the previous year and that we have paid them higher wages in the past year than in the previous year, is a matter for satisfaction.

All we can do in connection with this Supplementary Estimate is to encourage the Minister to go forward as rapidly as possible with the work of acquiring and planting land and to seek ways and means of overcoming the fundamental difficulties that beset his path. It is very easy to say to the Minister to go out and acquire holdings upon which there is a considerable amount of hill land suitable for planting. On every holding that you acquire there will be a certain amount of land which may possibly be suitable for planting but which is even more suitable for agricultural purposes. In our anxiety to press forward the work of afforestation we must not allow ourselves to fall into the error of planting with timber arable land which can be and which has been cultivated.

There is no doubt whatever but that when the Forestry Department acquire a substantial holding of land after considerable difficulty and expense there is a great temptation to put that entire holding under timber. I think that that is something which ought not to be done. If one or two fields upon a holding which has been acquired for afforestation can be used for agricultural purposes I say that those fields should be separated from the rest and utilised for agricultural purposes.

We must not allow ourselves to be blinded by our enthusiasm for increased plantation to the essential needs of the community in the matter of the production of food. The conflict betweenthe production of food and the production of timber will always exist. Only those who live in a county where there is considerable afforestation can realise this very fully. I know the difficulty in regard to this matter. If you want to separate the agricultural portions of land that adjoin or perhaps become surrounded by a timber plantation you must incur expenditure in the matter of fencing. That is the difficulty that the Forestry Department are always up against but it is a difficulty which they must face. You cannot put considerable areas of good agricultural land under timber merely in order to save a certain amount of expenditure on fencing. I think the Minister should stress that to his Department. Every Deputy who knows anything about this problem knows that there are considerable areas of good agricultural land which, until recently, yielded excellent crops of potatoes, oats and other agricultural produce and which are now under timber. I do not think that even those who are most enthusiastic about the planting of waste land would advocate such a step but it is one of the difficulties that must be faced and overcome.

If we are to extend the area under afforestation, we must be prepared to deal with smaller areas than we have dealt with heretofore. We must be prepared to put areas much smaller than 300 or 200 acres under plantation. That creates administrative and fencing difficulties but we have got to face the situation as it exists in this State. There are not so many very large areas in the country that can be acquired and planted. You must deal with smaller parcels of land suitable for the growing of timber. In that way you can add very much to the area under plantation.

I have been informed of a grievance of men in my constituency who are employed by the Forestry Department and that is that in adjoining areas different wage rates prevail. I suggest that, wherever that occurs, the higher rate should be paid. Where you have a number of men employed together as in North Wicklow and on the borders of County Dublin, I think it is essential for contentment and satisfactionamong the men that the higher rate of wages should be paid to all the men employed together.

This is a very comprehensive Supplementary Estimate covering most of the activities of the Minister's Department. As it has been mentioned already, I should like to ask what progress has been made with the development of Shelton Abbey as a forestry school. I should also like to know what it is intended to do with the Avondale afforestation school. Is it to be continued or, if not, for what purpose will it be used?

The Minister is to be congratulated on the considerable expansion that has occurred in his Department during the past year. If that expansion is to continue, it is most essential that the utmost use be made of all timber that comes to maturity, in the first place, and of all thinnings which are being eliminated in the course of the maintenance of plantations.

I think that nothing would be more conducive to an expansion of our forestry operations than the fact that there was an income to the State from the sale of the products of the areas we had under plantations. I think that the development of an industry for the manufacture of wallboard and other products of that kind, which are produced from timber pulp, should open up a very substantial market for the thinnings of our plantations and so ensure a certain income to meet the expenditure which the Department incurs.

I think that the whole question should be examined with a view to seeing what other industries, based on timber, can be established. I think it is essential, wherever you have substantial areas of land under State forests and where timber is coming to maturity, that industries should be established for its utilisation to the best possible advantage. I suggest that not only do you require sawmills but you require the necessary plant for the drying of the timber so as to make it available in the best possible condition. You require, in addition, such industries as will convert that timber into finished products, whether they befurniture or woodwork for building and other operations.

I think it is by showing the community at large that there is a potential and growing income to be derived from our State forests that we can get its goodwill for the increased expenditure that may be required to expand the area under those forests. I think, further, that the whole question of giving an incentive to farmers to put a certain area of their land under timber should be examined. The existing incentive is not, I think, sufficient. It is true that there is a plantation grant which probably covers the cost of the plants, but the greater expenditure in regard to small-scale planting of timber is in the matter of drainage and fencing. I think it is in that respect that something further should be done to ensure that on every agricultural holding a certain area is put under timber. I know there is a great deal of good work being done by the local committees of agriculture in the production of shelter belts in Wicklow particularly and, I think, in Carlow. I think that scheme has been very widely availed of and that it could be extended. Anyone travelling through County Wicklow will notice how many shelter belts are to be seen on farmers' holdings.

I still think that there is a great deal to be done in the production of timber. On a great many farms there is a patch of one acre, or even less, of waste land that could be planted if some additional help were given to cover the cost of its fencing. It must be remembered, of course, that every farmer who puts an acre or two of land under timber is depriving himself of the chance of deriving any income from that piece of land for a considerable number of years. That fact has to be understood. For the community at large, as well as for farmers themselves as a body who, of course, have to look forward and consider the interests of their successors, there is a great advantage to be derived from the planting of small patches of waste land on every farm where such waste land is available. For that reason, I think the whole community—the State in the first place, thecounty councils, the local committees of agriculture, and the local parish committees—should pull together to ensure that this work is undertaken: to see that every available inch of waste land which cannot be used for agricultural purposes is put under timber and which will produce not an immediate income but an income which will become available in the course of a period of years to the farmer himself in the first place, and to the whole nation.

Mr. O'Hara

I do not wish to hold up the House very long on this Supplementary Estimate for the forestry section of the Department of Lands. I do want to say at the outset that I listened to Deputy McQuillan's suggestion that the lands of small tenant farmers in the West of Ireland should be acquired compulsorily for afforestation purposes. I want to warn Deputy McQuillan——

Mr. McQuillan

Did the Deputy ever hear of the word "misrepresent" or does he know what the word "truth" means?

Mr. O'Hara

I heard you misrepresent.

Mr. McQuillan

Wash your ears.

Mr. O'Hara

If you are sorry for what you said that is another matter, but the Deputy did, within my hearing——

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of order. Might I suggest to the Deputy that he quote me and not misrepresent me? I am not sorry for one thing that I said, but I am very sorry that I cannot take steps against the Deputy for misrepresenting me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Hara.

Mr. O'Hara

I understood Deputy McQuillan to say that the Minister for Lands who is in charge of forestry should take steps to acquire compulsorily from small farmers in the West of Ireland, their land for forestry purposes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

DeputyMcQuillan denies making that statement and the Deputy should accept Deputy McQuillan's explanation.

Mr. O'Hara

I accept that, but I want to say this that while I am a member of this House I will not stand for that class of thing. After all, the farmers in the West of Ireland are the people who were driven into the poorer lands in the years gone by, and if Deputy McQuillan or anybody else is descended from a class that believes in that class of thing, I want to assure him that I do not believe in that class of thing, and that I am not descended from such a class. I agree thoroughly with the different points that were made in their speeches by Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Blowick. They have spoken at considerable length and have mentioned many of the matters that I had intended to refer to.

The main suggestion that I would make to the Minister is that he should encourage small farmers, landowners and others, to make use of the grants available under the afforestation scheme for the planting of trees on their own lands. I believe that the amount of the grant payable to a farmer for planting his own land is entirely inadequate. Ten pounds per acre is not sufficient. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the advisability of doubling the amount of the grant. My information is that the sum voted annually by the House for that particular section of the forestry branch is not availed of to the extent that we would like, the reason being that the farmers consider the grant inadequate.

In recent times in this House there was an announcement made by the Minister for Agriculture that he would increase the amount of grant payable for projects under Section A of the land reclamation scheme. If the Minister for Agriculture can persuade the Minister for Finance to give substantial increases to farmers for land reclamation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying from the Supplementary Estimate. The matters herefers to are not mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. O'Hara

With respect, I submit I am drawing an analogy between the two Departments. I suggest that when the Minister of a particular Department can persuade the Minister for Finance to give increased grants for one section of the Department the Minister for Lands can grant increases to the type of people I have in mind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the Estimate referring to grants to farmers.

Mr. O'Hara

I will pass on from that.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy is getting lost.

Mr. O'Hara

Indeed, I am not getting lost.

Mr. McQuillan

I thought you might have got lost in Deputy Blowick's forests.

Mr. O'Hara

I would like to impress upon the Minister the importance of increasing substantially the amount of grant in that particular direction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate about the grants the Deputy has mentioned on three or four occasions.

Mr. O'Hara

With respect, Sir, we are voting a certain sum of money on the Supplementary Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can refer to the various sub-heads and nothing else.

Mr. O'Hara

I consider that the previous Minister and the present Minister did their best in furthering this particular branch of the Department of Lands. In my view the task of a Minister for Lands is an onerous one. He must accept a lot of responsibility. He must deal with Land Commission work, and many other things, apart from this particular matter of forestry. I submit that it would be advisable to have a separate Departmentof Forestry or, alternatively, that the Minister should have a Parliamentary Secretary. Other Ministers have Parliamentary Secretaries. Having regard to the volume of work undertaken over a number of years by the Land Commission, difficult work that occupies a great deal of the time of the Minister for Lands, the Minister could not devote the time to this particular aspect of his Department that I would like to see him devoting to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That might be raised on the main Estimate. It is not relevant on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. O'Hara

Tourism has been referred to by Deputy Morrissey. At the present time colossal sums of public moneys are being devoted to schemes, perhaps some of them good schemes, to encourage tourists to come to this country. If we want to encourage tourists, one of the first things we should set about doing is to build up forestry blocs, particularly in the West of Ireland. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in many parts of Mayo, particularly North Mayo, there are tracts of land that could be acquired, not by compulsion but by agreement, at full market value. Quite a reasonable approach can be adopted. There is no need to resort to black-and-tan methods in a matter of this kind. If the Minister sets about this task of acquiring large tracts of land in North Mayo by agreement, paying full market value, that in itself will tend to attract tourists into areas where the ordinary people find it very hard to attract them. The tendency is for tourists to go to the larger cities, to built-up areas. By speeding up acquisition of land and the planting of what is at present waste land in the West of Ireland the Minister would be doing a very good day's work which would be in the national interest.

Technical advice with regard to afforestation is rather difficult to get. The average countryman knows very little about planting trees. There may be a certain amount of care taken in planting the trees and in looking afterthe trees for a short time but after a while there is very considerable neglect and the trees start to grow wild for lack of attention and for lack of technical knowledge with regard to these matters. If the Minister has any scheme in mind to increase the acreage under forests, particularly with regard to planting by private individuals, one of the first matters for consideration would be the provision of technical advice as to the best and most suitable lands, drainage, fencing and other relevant matters. It would be futile to spend public money on work of this kind if the money is wasted in the long run. I would strongly urge the Minister to make more technical advice available to the people concerned. As other Deputies have suggested, the help of local committees, Macra na Feirme, Young Farmers' Clubs, committees of agriculture and other such organisations should be solicited for the promotion of this work. These people, who have co-operated in everything that was good for the country, would be only too glad to co-operate in any way they can in a matter of this kind.

I have in mind a big tract of land in the vicinity of Foxford. I would mention particularly the Craggagh area in the vicinity of Craggagh cemetery. I was told by a forestry expert that there is a good lot of land there which is practically useless for any other purpose and that the soil in that area is ideal for forestry operations. If the owners of that land were approached and if you could satisfy them with regard to price—knowing the people as I do I think they are reasonable people—I consider it would be of great advantage to that rugged mountainous area. It is quite a nice tourist district, but definitely there is not enough of timber in the area.

There is another matter. I should like to refer to and that is the question of State forests. Certain development work was undertaken at Cong, County Mayo, some time ago and I was of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that when that forest would be opened timber would be made available to the people of County Mayo at what I would regard as an economic price. I havenot heard that any timber from Cong has reached any private individual in Mayo. As a matter of fact, my information is that merchants in other parts of the country are benefiting from this Cong forest.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter for the main Estimate. This is a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. O'Hara

I thought I might mention it in passing. With your permission, Sir, I suggest to the Minister that as far as it is possible——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled that it is out of order.

Mr. S. Collins

This Supplementary Estimate has a specific provision in it for conversion and surely it must be relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy raising a point of order?

Mr. S. Collins

Yes. On that issue, I submit that you are limiting this within limits not contemplated by the Supplementary Estimate under discussion as there is a specific provision in it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is trying to limit the debate to the main subject.

Mr. S. Collins

There is a specific provision for conversion and surely the question of the disposal of timber from State forests must be relevant.

Mr. O'Hara

On the point raised by Deputy Collins, the reason why I mentioned it——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair thinks it is a matter for the main Estimate and not for a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. O'Hara

As this matter has been dealt with at length by other Deputies, I will conclude by saying that I am glad to note that the lands of Triesta, Boughacloon, Ballina, North Mayo, have been acquired. It was Deputy Blowick in the first instance who negotiated that deal, at least the preliminary part of it, and I congratulate theMinister on having brought it to its final stage.

Mr. Derrig

It has nothing to do with this Estimate anyway.

Mr. O'Hara

If the Minister could speed up the work and get started in that area it would be appreciated by the people of North Mayo.

Mr. S. Collins

I feel very strongly that within the terms of this Supplementary Estimate virtually the whole field of the Forestry Department is open to discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the Chair.

Mr. S. Collins

It provides money in relation to practically every facet of the Department's activities from the planting to the ultimate conversion into timber for use. I do not intend to pursue a discussion that might traverse the whole field of forestry, but I do submit to the House that, without prejudice to the particular limitations I am putting on myself, the extent of the activities of the Department covered by this Supplementary Estimate does make it possible for Deputies to raise the whole subject.

There are, however, specific sections of this Estimate which are giving me considerable trouble. I do not mean that in the sense of any objection to the Minister getting the unanimous support of the Dáil for further moneys for forestry. My feeling on the issue of forestry is that we should support in every way possible a Minister seeking money for expansion in that direction. But I was rather amazed in regard to one specific sub-head. The Minister may not have adverted to it. I refer to sub-head C 2 (2)—Capital Expenditure (initial preparation and drainage of ground, road construction, and buildings): materials, £1,000; cartage and freight, £2,500. There seems to be some lack of co-ordination in regard to that particular item—£1,000 for materials and £2,500 for cartage and freight.

Mr. Derrig

Only for the concluding part of the year, as the Deputy will recognise.

Mr. S. Collins

The Minister has not told us. How can we recognise anything when the Minister has not told us? I am putting the question for the purpose of eliciting from the Minister if some peculiar circumstances arose by which at the end of the year the charge by way of freight and cartage will be in the ratio of 2.5 to 1 for materials. It may be that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that, but we as Deputies, not having got that information and trying to discharge our duties in this House, are perfectly entitled to seek an explanation when we see a blunt analysis on the back of an Estimate without any explanation.

As far as the Fine Gael Party is concerned, we welcome any impetus to the development of forestry. Unlike either Deputy Blowick or Deputy Morrissey, however, I have a feeling that the time has come for us to have a slightly different outlook on forestry generally. I can appreciate very readily the difficulties that may arise in connection with the acquisition of land. I can appreciate the difficulties that have arisen in connection with the acquisition of land, particularly commonage, much of which in the main is not used at all. The Minister has a duty to discharge. I feel it is time that the farmers, and particularly the farmers in areas where there is land more suitable for timber growing than anything else, were made fully aware of the fact that an investment of their money in growing timber will in the last analysis reap for them a richer harvest than will the placing of that money on deposit receipt in a bank.

I am not in accord with certain types of appeals made here about increased grants. The type of increased grant that the Minister will give to encourage afforestation by the farmers themselves is that commensurate with what is necessary provided the Minister and his Department can properly impress upon the minds of the farmers the value to them of growing timber.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thequestion of grants to farmers does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. S. Collins

With due respect, I submit that it does. There is in this Supplementary Estimate provision being made for increased expenses of the directorate, the inspectorate and everyone else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing grants to farmers.

Mr. S. Collins

I submit that the general policy of the Department enters into the discussion. If every other Deputy has been allowed to discuss in my presence the question of increased grants for farmers on this Estimate, I will resent any curtailment of my remarks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The last speaker was informed by the Chair that the question of grants to farmers did not arise on this Supplementary Estimate and, since the last speaker was not allowed to discuss the matter, Deputy Collins will not now be allowed to do so.

Mr. S. Collins

I submit, though I must bow to the ruling of the Chair that that ruling is not in fact in accordance with Standing Orders.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may disagree with the ruling.

Mr. S. Collins

I will raise the matter elsewhere without any hesitation. I will discuss under the sub-heads of this Supplementary Estimate the full general policy of forestry, as every other Deputy did.

Mr. Derrig

Surely the Deputy will obey the Chair.

Mr. S. Collins

I will not take any direction from the Minister.

Mr. Derrig

It is my duty to point out that there is a specific sub-head under which the question of farmers' grants can be dealt with but that sub-head does not appear in this Supplementary Estimate. The Deputy is also dealing with general questions of policy. I am rather at a loss to knowwhat is the distinction between the main Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. S. Collins

Very little.

Mr. Derrig

Are we entitled to have precisely the same discussion on this Supplementary Estimate as we will have on the main Estimate?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The general policy of the Department is not discussed on a Supplementary Estimate. Only the questions arising on the various sub-heads can be discussed.

Mr. S. Collins

I submit that under sub-head B, travelling expenses, I can ask the Minister apropos grants to farmers whether any of the increase in travelling expenses to the director, to the inspectors or to the foresters arises as a result of their having to investigate and deal with the question of grants payable in general from the money voted to his Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may ask that but he may not advocate an increase in the grants because the question of grants does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. S. Collins

I am not advocating an increase in grants at all. That would have been shown had I been allowed to develop my argument. I was directing the Minister's attention to the fact that, as far as grants are concerned, I believe that it is not the grant that is important but the conviction of and appreciation by those who may avail of such grants of the value of growing timber on their holdings. Had we been less precipitate in our conception of the rules of order it would have been found that I was not going to discuss the question of grants except en passant.

Much play has been made here about the value of timber. The Minister is an experienced member of this House. He is experienced in analysing Estimates and Supplementary Estimates because he acted for a time as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.With regard to conversion, there is no suggested saving, no suggested Appropriations-in-Aid and no reduction. I thought the Minister would have indicated what exactly was being done. I thought he would have told us whether large quantities of timber were being cut for storage purposes, whether they were being put into some type of reserve or going through some process of development which would require a certain period of time and because of which no return could be shown to the Exchequer by way of moneys earned through the sale of timber.

I agree with Deputy Morrissey on the question of the development of State forests and particularly in regard to the utilisation of thinnings. We import immense quantities of raw wood material. Much of the publicity that so many of us seek appears ultimately in print on a wood basis. Wood pulp is very important in the production of newsprint. There must be an avenue for exploration in technical development in relation to the use that can be made of all types of waste from State forests. I feel these are the industries that the State should really get to grips with because they will be germane to the economy of the country as a whole. Possibly the Minister will deal with the matter when the main Estimate for his Department comes before the House and I throw out the suggestions now in the hope that he will give us that information in due course.

I am glad that the Minister has successfully co-ordinated a plan to bring about a more useful type of supervision and greater expedition in the thinning of our young forests. Apparently, a good deal still remains to be done. Possibly there are technical difficulties to be faced. If there are not technical difficulties and if it is possible to do the work of thinning with not too skilled labour working under proper supervision the Minister need have no hesitation in coming to the House to ask for whatever money he requires to give an impetus to thinning. We would welcome such a proposal because it would mean more employment apart from eliminating thedanger that our forests might become clogged because of delay in carrying out thinning operations.

We must be more realistic in our approach to reafforestation. Some people look upon forests as a wonderful world of green trees while others regard them merely as something from which they can reap tremendous profits. What is the general position now governing the availability of the young trees that the Minister found difficulty in procuring in previous years? Has the situation generally eased and what is the situation from the point of view of the Department in relation to likely supplies equating against land available for planting?

I am interested in the question of the acquisition of land and possibly might be more verbose on the main Estimate than on this. As this Estimate provides specifically for certain moneys in addition to the acquisition of land, I would press the Minister to come to the House as early as possible with suggestions to obviate some of the difficulties he has in regard to acquisition, particularly on the title side.

I do not know what one might say with regard to acquisition of commonage. As we know, a good deal of the land available in the heart of Ireland that would normally be suitable for planting, comes under the category of either mountain common or marsh common. I do not know if the Minister has any specific plan that might make such acquisition easier. Unfortunately, you will find, as has been adverted to already, that one or two people may dig their heels in.

Deputy Blowick made an attempt, in the Land Bill he brought in in 1949 or 1950, to deal with the question of an apportionment of commonage in order to make certain parts of it available. The difficulty in regard to the acquisition of land which has arisen in the Minister's Department is twofold. I do not say this in a spirit of criticism but the Department is archaic in its concept of a 300 acre minimum for operations. I would say that the Minister and his very expert advisers couldreorientate themselves to the situation without any great effort in order to appreciate that the development of forestry and of agriculture go hand in hand in this country.

The days of being able to get these nice composite units that would give you the theorist's solution are gone and the Minister will have to approach the problem of getting as near as he can to an economic unit in areas, as distinct from laying down a specific unit. When I say that, I say it in the special sense in which it applies to people living along the western seaboard and in my own constituency running from Inchigeela, Ballinageary, Ballyvourney, right through the backbone of the county into the Bere Peninsula itself. What I am anxious about in that area is not so much that the Forestry Department should do the work as to have there a composite nursery unit at least from which all the people of that area would be able to draw such plants as they want for the purposes of their own forestry development.

I do not want to delay the Minister in his Estimate at this stage. I asked the Minister questions about the particular delineations and explanations of his Estimate not in a spirit of criticism or in any anxiety to embarrass him or, indeed, to question the Estimate. I think the Minister will appreciate himself that, not in bad faith—I certainly would not like to imply bad faith—in the general statements, specific explanations which the House might reasonably expect were lost sight of. I would like him to give them.

In conclusion, though it might be more appropriate to leave the type of speech made by Deputy Blowick and Deputy Morrissey to the main Estimate, it might be well for the Minister to realise that in dealing with the Department of Forestry he is dealing with a Department for which the House in general has amazing goodwill. It is a Department on which there is general agreement for capital expenditure and I would suggest to the Minister seriously that he should contemplate forestry on the basis of doing the maximum that is within the capacityof himself and his Department and ever trying to increase that maximum outside of any financial considerations. My real belief is—and I am sure it is the belief of anyone who is interested in the development of State forestry and in the planting of trees in this country— that in the ultimate analysis the trees will not only serve a useful purpose by way of ornamentation in the country, by way of wind barrier and wind breaking to protect and improve lower grazing patches or to maintain and preserve better quality and heart in the land, but that as each year progresses the value of that timber to the nation as a whole will appreciate and that at least when posterity comes to look upon the activities of those of our day who had advocated growing timber, they will have a practical realisation in the conversion of that timber into an asset in their day.

I believe we should approach forestry on one basis only. It is a really sensible bank in which to sink some of the Irish money and I would far sooner, as a counter to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs' army of occupation of pound notes in England, have a large and ever growing occupational force of growing young trees in Ireland ultimately to enhance the value of our homeland and not of anybody else's.

Mr. Cafferky

The regrettable part about this Supplementary Estimate is that it comes so close to the annual Estimate which will be discussed here in the matter of a few weeks. It is quite natural that Deputies will be anxious to speak in general about the policy of afforestation and most Deputies are inclined to be long-winded on a subject of this kind. I do not propose to deal with this matter in detail as you have made a ruling, Sir, which curtails the discussion on this subject.

I welcome the fact and it is a healthy sign that the Minister is coming into the House even late in the day seeking a Supplementary Estimate of £70,000 over the regular Estimate last year. I recognise, as I have always done over a period of years, the necessity for increasing afforestation. Most Deputieswho have contributed to this debate have referred to the Department of Forestry. That is an oversight on their part, perhaps. There is no Department of Forestry. It is because there is no Department of Forestry that forestry has become the cinderella of the Land Commission. We find ourselves criticising and asking the Minister to be more considerate in acquiring land and in increasing the amount required with a view to the expansion of afforestation. I have on more than one occasion suggested the setting up of an independent department. Deputy O'Hara, who spoke a few minutes ago, suggested a Parliamentary Secretary—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And the Chair advised him that that would be a matter for the main Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

——and, as I said, we shall leave that over to the annual Estimate. The bone of contention in this Estimate, and I take it in the annual Estimate, will be the method of approach to the acquisition of land. I agree to a certain extent with Deputy McQuillan that there is quite a lot in the method of approach and that apart from holdings of individual tenants, there are big areas of commonage running into hundreds of acres held by many tenants. It is to the method of approach in endeavouring to acquire such commonage with a view to having it planted, after allowing reasonable compensation to those holding commonage rights, that the forestry section should direct attention. I am sure that is what Deputy McQuillan had in mind.

I do not think that any Deputy would be so insane as to suggest the acquisition of any tenant's holding by compulsion but as I say there are vast areas of commonage the acquisition of which might be considered for this purpose. For instance, adjacent to the road from Ballaghaderreen to Charlestown, there are 300 acres of land on a hillside known as Mullaghanoe and the tenants there have offered that land over a period of years to the Land Commission. I wonder what approach the Land Commission made in that direction. Again, in part of Kilmovee parish, there is a considerable areawhich was formerly occupied by a wood that was cut down when I was about 14 or 15 years of age. That area would now be available for replanting. You have also Sneehall in which there is not a tree growing. Again between Kilkelly and Swinford, there is a considerable area in which there is scarcely a bush in existence. An area of from 400 to 500 acres is available for reafforestation in the townlands of Barnacoogue, Shammer and Curryane.

These townlands which are adjacent would provide a very considerable area in which a forest could be developed. Apart from the value of the timber itself the maintenance of these forests would provide employment for children yet unborn. Permanent employment could be provided year in, year out for the present generation in the planting of these areas while, as I say, the maintenance of these plantations would provide employment for future generations. The Land Commission is at present spending considerable sums in the reallocation of land held on the rundale system, in these areas, land which is fit for nothing else but afforestation.

Mr. Derrig

You are against that work then?

Mr. Cafferky

To be quite frank, I am. I consider it a waste of money. It would be much better to acquire that land for afforestation and to transfer the tenants to areas in which there is plenty of good arable land available for them. Such land is available to-day in Meath and other counties. I pass it twice a week and it is growing only furze. Land Commission houses are actually being built on some of this land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter which cannot be discussed on this Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

I am just making a passing reference to that fact in order to substantiate the point I made. I think that instead of spending money on houses of that kind it would be much better to develop forestry villages for the development of forestry. Last year the Minister, in presentinghis annual Estimate, left us in grave doubt because of the fact that he did not furnish us with a more detailed explanation of the plans of his Department. I hope that this year he will give that detailed explanation.

The time has come, I think, when every Deputy and Senator should be presented with a booklet giving a detailed account of the operations of the forestry section of the Department and giving an outline of the manner in which the large sums of money paid out for the development of forestry each year are expended so that we might be able to speak with more authority on these Estimates. Nobody wishes to be parochial in a matter of this kind. It is a national problem and we wish to approach it from a national standpoint. The time has therefore come when the forestry section of the Department should present Deputies and Senators with a book giving a full detailed account of the operations of the Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not relevant to the Supplementary Estimate. I would ask the Deputy to relate his remarks to the various sub-heads. We are not discussing the general policy of the Department.

Mr. Cafferky

I suggest that there is a sum of money provided in this Estimate for the acquisition of land. There is a sum of £7,000 provided in the Estimate for the acquisition of land in addition to the amount provided in the main Estimate at the beginning of the year. I should like to know the purpose for which the Minister requires his £7,000. I do not know where he is going to acquire the land. I take it that it is somewhere in the Twenty-Six Counties but we do not know whether it is arable land, grazing land or rugged mountain. We are left in the rather peculiar position that we cannot offer any criticism or any assistance in a matter of this kind. The Minister simply walks into the House with a vague suggestion. I should like to know what would happen if I walked into a bank and asked the manager for a loan of £7,000 without specifying what I intended to dowith it or how I proposed to repay it. I do not think the manager would give me the loan unless I explained specifically the purpose for which I required it or what the results of the investment were likely to be. The Minister walks in here and give us no explanation.

Mr. Derrig

I gave the explanation in my opening statement.

Mr. Cafferky

Is the Minister intervening

Mr. Derrig

I said I gave you the explanation.

Mr. Cafferky

The Minister's explanation was very vague, not merely to-day but 12 months ago. However, I propose to conclude now and I shall reserve any further remarks until the main Estimate is presented to the House. I shall conclude by saying that I am prepared to associate myself with the remarks of those who have welcomed the Minister's Supplementary Estimate, but I hope that when he comes before us in a few weeks' time, he will be in a position to give a more detailed account of the whole working of his Department for the last 12 months.

Dr. Esmonde

I join with other Deputies in welcoming this Estimate because I think we are all agreed that afforestation is one of the main things upon which we have to fall back in this country. It means profit for the future, it means wealth for the country, it means employment and it means that any debts we may incur will be refunded, both capitally and otherwise, in the years to come. I am afraid I am not in full agreement with some of the methods adopted by the Department for the last few years. It seems to me that it is a very short-sighted policy in the acquisition of land not to take any land that is offered which is suitable for afforestation. I gathered from the discussions which I heard to-day that it seems to be accepted now in the Forestry Department that it is not economic to take over any area of less than 300 acres or so.

Mr. Derrig

To start a new centre, Deputy. They will take smaller areasif they are convenient to an existing centre.

Dr. Esmonde

Would the Minister clarify that further for me and say what is the minimum limit they will take over?

Mr. Derrig

If the area is adjacent to the forest they will take half an acre.

Dr. Esmonde

Yes. I will try the Minister's patience a little further by asking him what he means by adjacent? Would the Minister clarify what he means by an area being adjacent to a forestry centre?

Mr. Derrig

Within three miles. If they get, say, 30 or 40 acres or even less I would say three miles roughly speaking. They would be glad to get it at such a distance that the forester would be able to manage it.

Dr. Esmonde

Would the Minister not consider it to be a little more economic to go a bit further than three miles? Modern means of transport are very facile nowadays as compared with what they were. We have had several instances in my own constituency where the Forestry Department were offered land that is of no value for anything else whatsoever for the purpose of planting. I am sure the Minister will accept the fact that it is extremely difficult for the ordinary private individual to plant an area of, perhaps, some 50 or 60 acres. I can give the Minister instances in County Wexford where land was actually offered to the Forestry Department and where there was a forest centre within five miles or so. The particular farmer concerned indicated that he was not in a position, as he owned a tillage farm which he had to work in order to increase production, to replant this land. It was not that he was not in a position to do so from the financial point of view. He simply had not the time available to do the work. It seems to me that it is short-sighted policy, when it is so difficult for the Department of Forestry to obtain land, if the Department does not readily jump to take land offered to them which is suitable for afforestation.

Mr. Derrig

Did the Deputy see the forestry branch about the particular case?

Dr. Esmonde

I have already notified the Forestry Department and asked them to take over this section of land. I was told that it was not economic to do so simply because it was not a big enough area.

It contains 50 acres of land and is a cut-down wood suitable for nothing else but planting. It is within a radius of about six miles at the very outside, if it is even that, of a forestry centre. I think it is very short-sighted of the Department not to take this over. I force my arguments home by adverting to the fact that, in the place where I live in Wexford, I have had to endure the sight of the Forestry Department planting arable land, land which I have seen in my childhood growing beet, wheat, barley and oats. It is as good arable land as there is in Ireland. I cited the instance where the Department are offered 50 acres and will not take it.

I could bring the Minister down to my constituency and show him 200 acres of arable land which has been afforested. Of course that is finished and done with now. We cannot go in and pull up those trees. I have seen an arable field adjoining my own farm at home afforested with beech trees right out to the middle of the field itself. Is there any sense in that? In 250 years' time those trees will probably be matured. Is it any wonder that farmers are not interested in afforestation? Is it any wonder that they do not take the right interest in afforestation and that they do not go in for afforestation themselves when they see a Department carrying out a policy such as this?

Mr. Derrig

I do not think that is the general policy. Obviously there are individual cases.

Dr. Esmonde

I quite agree. I am stating this policy. The Department of Lands know that has happened. I told them that repeatedly. I told them before I was elected as a Deputy and I told them since I was elected, but they have taken no notice of it.

During the emergency, when wefarmers were forced to till our land under an emergency Order—I am not disputing that it was not essential at the time—I asked the Department what explanation they had to offer for afforesting arable land in a national emergency. Were they not bound by the ordinary tillage regulations just the same as any other citizen in this country? The answer I got was that they did their quota of tillage elsewhere. They probably did, but it does not cover the fact that they were doing an act that they should not have done. Worse than that, they were setting a bad example to the farmers in the country as a whole on the question of afforestation.

I know that the Forestry Department are doing very good work in this country. I know that over the past ten years or so there has been a very serious attempt in this country to carry out a proper policy of afforestation. The fact that we are backward and slow in regard to afforestation is due to the fact that the policy, dating back to the days of the British Government, was not a proper policy of afforestation.

In this Estimate we have a sum for the acquisition of land. I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the fact that any land he can get, no matter where he can get it, which is for the purpose of afforestation should be acquired by him. Even if it will cost the Department a little extra money to do so, it is a good and sound national policy. Apart from what we can get out of the land itself the only thing we can fall back on in this country is afforestation.

I would like to say a few words about afforestation in the Gaeltacht. My experience of the Gaeltacht in the West of Ireland and in Donegal is purely that of a tourist travelling to these places. It seems to me that we have in those areas bog containing a tremendous amount of turf. I think it is very doubtful whether we will ever be able to use all this fuel in the country. The land to which I refer— this bogland—is very suitable for afforestation. I think that the Forestry Department should concentrate on the West of Ireland. They should drain the land there in part for afforestation.

I would suggest to the Minister that in so far as any further acquisition of land by him is concerned he should concentrate on areas such as those which I have mentioned. He should also concentrate upon the higher rugged land which is gradually becoming denuded of soil. There comes a time—unfortunately it has come in a great many areas in this country—when you cannot sow timber because the land is simply arid and there is nothing to hold the roots in the soil.

The only matter really upon which I join issue with the Forestry Department is this. They should get out of arable land and have nothing to do with arable land except in so far as they require it for nurseries. I appreciate the fact that a certain section of land is required for that purpose and that is the end of it. Here and now the Minister should adopt definitely the idea that if there is any arable land vacant—and I appreciate that often when he is buying arable land he is buying it in conjunction with another parcel of land that is fit for afforestation—it should be handed back to the Department concerned with arable land. This branch should concern itself only with the ordinary land that is suitable for afforestation—excepting, of course, that required for nurseries, as I have mentioned already.

Great advances have been made in afforestation. Every Deputy appreciates that it is one of the things which will really be of lasting benefit to the nation. It will help to absorb our people, give them employment and keep them at home. It will help, above all, to build up in Ireland what we want here, the raw materials for the industries of the future. It will help also to safeguard us against any loans or debts that may accrue in this country. We will have behind us always the feeling that, as the years go on, these forests will grow up and they will be something to fall back on as so many European countries found in recent years, that the forests are the wealth and the main resource behind agriculture in any country, particularly one such as Ireland.

Mr. Finan

I want to direct the Minister's attention to the Castlerea area, County Roscommon, where there was a proposal two years ago to acquire some 240 acres. I would like to know how far progress has been made in acquiring that tract of waste land and I would like to have it pushed on as quickly as possible. There is very considerable unemployment in that area at present, as a result of Bord na Móna discontinuing turf production. Anything the Minister can do to expedite the matter would be very much appreciated. The land itself is of no great value and I am sure the compensation demanded would be purely nominal. I do not see anything in the way of acquiring that tract and it would provide very great employment.

I appreciate what the Minister has said regarding the difficulty of supervision of forests, but it is a pity he would not alter the policy on the acquisition of smaller tracts. In County Roscommon and other counties there are several small tracts readily available for afforestation, but the fact that the Department is inclined to concentrate on 300-acre tracts is holding up the matter.

The forestry section offer a rather unfair price in many instances for land. I know theirs is a long-term programme and will take a long time to yield dividends, but when they do come in they will be big dividends and the work will repay future generations. The present approximate value, £4 an acre, being offered by the Department is probably keeping out of the Minister's hands a lot of land which would be available if a more reasonable price were offered.

Mr. Derrig

I will look into the point Deputy Finan has mentioned. As regards smaller tracts, it is a pity the county councils would not take some responsibility in encouraging afforestation locally.

I entirely agree with Deputy Esmonde that we ought to plant every acre we can get, but the trouble of fencing those places and taking care of them is rather substantial. I must confess I do not know what the reason is in the particular case he has mentioned.Where there seem to be reasonable prospects of expansion we have not been debarred by distance from the nearest centre. When we went into counties like Donegal or Leitrim, where in the opinion of the forestry branch there were good prospects of expansion, the soil seemed to be fairly suitable and we were not encroaching on agriculture in any way, we were not stopped by distance.

If the acquisition inspector, having gone round the area, felt that the land was going to come in—as has happened in East Donegal, where we are making fairly good progress—we did not allow ourselves to be held up by mere distance. If, however, we are going into some agricultural area like Wexford, which is overwhelmingly agricultural, and the amount available for new plantation or the amount of old plantation coming into our hands is very limited, it is a question whether it is worth devoting our energies to it.

If any Deputy sends me particulars of any case such as that mentioned by Deputy Esmonde, I can promise to have the inspector visit the area. While the inspector is quite prepared to go into a particular area and inquire, our staff is limited and— unless we get assistance from Deputies and others to help them out and enable us to get a strong foothold in a particular area—it may be that it would be better from the point of view of progress, to leave these acquisition inspectors in the areas where they are making fairly good progress. If Deputies can direct me to particular persons with whom they think it might be possible to come to agreement, I would be glad to do it; but when general appeals are made that a particular area needs attention, I am afraid we cannot reach on them all.

One of the things I am very conscious about is that a heavy burden has been thrown on the administrative staff. We have about 155 centres, we are operating in nearly every county, and that means a tremendous amount of travel. It means that we are really over-reaching ourselves, I think, if we try to continue to expand into further areas. Some process of consolidationis necessary and the expansion ultimately will not be held up in any way by consolidating what we have and establishing ourselves on a firm footing where we are already in possession. The experience that we will gain in that way in the more concentrated areas will be all to our benefit later on, and if the acquisition of land goes ahead we will have this three years' reserve that we would like to have.

I mentioned on the main Estimate that with regard to a certain number of the plantations there is no great prospect of land coming in. In a further number, the prospects are not very good and there may be 50 or 60 plantations where the prospects for expansion are very good. The policy of the branch is to try and provide regular employment and there is no use in saying that we are doing that by going into an area and starting off planting a few hundred acres this year and a few hundred more next year and then having to leave. Regarding these large areas to which reference has been made in the West of Ireland, like North Connemara, the Ox Mountains and West Donegal, anywhere there are areas in which the layout of the land is suitable and the exposure is not very severe, I would like naturally that we would make more progress in those areas, if we could get substantial tracts of land.

I would have no hesitation in going to the Government and asking for a great deal more money, if I could see these tracts coming in, but what I see is that, in these areas, the Ox Mountains or Leitrim, we have to approach individual land holders, who are very small people, and have to bargain with them about their few acres and about their commonages, and the older they are, I suppose, the more difficult it may be to come to agreement with them. Certainly, as has been stressed in the debate, anybody who thinks that the ordinary small farmer in the West is going to give up his few acres with his mountain commonage without driving a hard bargain is making a very serious mistake.

We are naturally driven, therefore, if we want to make progress, to theareas where we think we can get the land. There are a few areas which are more promising than others. For example, as I have said, Donegal is good; Laois is fairly good; the western areas are rather slow; Cork and Kerry are described as very good; North-West Clare and Tipperary, fairly good; and Limerick rather slow.

We make some progress in Clare and Galway, but not as much as we would wish, but, generally speaking, the overall picture is that it is not easy to get land in the West, unless we go up the mountainside. I think there is a certain amount of land, derelict holdings and so on, that could be got, so that the Forestry Department would not be driven entirely, in the case of expansion in the West, on to the hazardous and very exposed areas running up to 1,000 feet or more. In this matter, if Deputies can give me any assistance, I shall be very glad indeed to have it and to co-operate with them, if they think that more can be done in their areas.

Although the general question of grants to farmers was ruled out of the discussion by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I should like to say, since the debate has covered a rather wide field and speakers like Deputy Morrissey have referred in particular to the importance of arousing a feeling amongst our own people, and particularly our farmers, as to the advantages of afforestation, that there are planting schemes for farmers under both the Forestry Department and the Department of Agriculture. If I am not trespassing too much on the rules of order, I should like to say that we have a scheme of which I do not think great advantage is being taken. It may be that, if the grants were increased, more advantage might have been taken of it, but I think that we have reached a stage now, in spite of what Deputy O'Hara has said, that merely increasing the grant is no proof either that the scheme is good or that advantage is going to be taken of it. The point is that if people are interested in planting trees, they have these two schemes, one run by the forestry branch and the other by the Department of Agriculture.

Looked at from the educationalpoint of view, so to speak, we find that the trees are supplied at half cost by that Department; the planting is supervised by the county instructor of horticulture; and the maximum number of trees supplied is 1,000. Still, we find that only about £100, representing half the cost of the trees, is the average annual county grant, meaning that about 25,000 trees, or possibly 15 to 20 acres, are planted every year. It will be seen that we have a great way to go and I have a great deal of sympathy with Deputy Morrissey's point of view that more could be done locally. The forestry branch are quite prepared to give advice where necessary. They have an advice scheme under which private persons can always obtain the advice they need in regard to tree-growing. If the inspector has to spend a whole day or give priority to the inspection at the owner's request, we will charge a fee of £2. Otherwise, there is no fee. Where a planting grant is sought, free advice is given. So much for assistance with regard to advice and so on.

Every county committee of agriculture has horticultural instructors to give advice and if the county committees come forward with proposals to the Minister for Agriculture or to myself by which the existing schemes could be improved and more interest aroused in local schemes of afforestation in relation to farmers taking more advantage of them, we shall be very glad to go into the matter, but I must warn the House that it must not be merely a question of looking for more money. We must be satisfied that, in fact, the scheme is worth while, and that advantage will be taken of it. I am afraid that at present all the experience and knowledge I have incline me to the view that advantage is not being taken of the schemes and that farmers, apart from a very exceptional one, are not interested in afforestation. They think, as is implicit in Deputy Esmonde's remarks, that to the extent that afforestation may be claiming arable land, the interests of afforestation are perhaps directly antagonistic to theirs. I think they are wrong in that, but it is a widespread feeling and a feeling which is not confined to this country.

We have not got a tradition with regard to afforestation, of people living in forests or getting their livelihoods in forests, as in Germany and other continental countries, and we still have to do a great deal by way of educational propaganda to build up a feeling about forestry.

Deputy Blowick again referred to the 25,000 acres programme of the inter-Party Government. I mentioned on the main Estimate last year that, while there is no doubt there was discussion about a 25,000 acre programme and it may have been a Government decision to try to get such a programme, 20,000 acres were the most that was sought to be obtained. I explained to the House that I did nothing whatever to interfere with the programme that was there when I came in. The attempt was not to get 25,000 acres but to get 20,000 acres. That failed. It was not possible —with the organisation at our disposal, the reserves of land that were there and the fact that these reserves had to be spread throughout the 150 centres or so—to build up the 20,000 acres. With the forestry branch doing everything possible to the very limit of their powers, including the fact that they were able to do about 5,000 acres of preparation by mechanical means which had not been possible in former years, 15,000 was what was accomplished.

I could have said to the House last year: "We will do 15,000 acres and go up by 2,000 or 5,000 acres a year." I would like to do that but we have to get the land. We have to have a very large reserve of land and it has to be properly distributed with regard to the centres. You may be purchasing land at the present time in Donegal or Connemara which you cannot use for years. You want to start off in an experimental way with some hundreds of acres of land to see what progress you will make. If you have 2,000 or 3,000 acres in the Cloosh Valley or Gweedore are you going to plant these and let the whole thing develop—and perhaps be a failure? We want to see, with regard to these new areas where soil and exposure are limiting factors, how we are getting on.

The Cameron Report merely said that there should be a social forestry programme roughly equivalent to the programme for commercial forests but no information was given to us. It seems to be a question of how much money you are prepared to lose or— if "lose" is not a suitable term for a Minister in charge of forestry to apply to it—how much money the country is going to put into social forests. We are spending about £1,000,000. We will not get any very substantial return for a long time to come. It is quite true that we have been getting some return from thinnings. That was due to the fact that one particular factory, as the House knows, was taking these thinnings with the result that we were estimating that we would get about £170,000 in appropriations this year, and probably we shall get that amount. The fact is that there has been a decline in the market for thinnings and we do not know to what extent it will revive. I have every hope that it will revive. If it revives, it will show that employment in the utilisation of forest products will be given at a comparatively early stage, and it will show that—as various Deputies have emphasised in their speeches—we can turn our products into manufactures at a comparatively early stage. For that reason, it is a matter of great importance whether or not the wallboard factory and the paper mills will take the produce, as they have been doing up to the present. There has been some falling off. We do not sell directly to these institutions. We sell through agents.

The question has been asked by Deputy Blowick whether we should not have more saw-mills. There is a question there, I think, as to whether saw-mills which would go into the commercial business and into trade, as it were, was the intention. You can say that it was not the intention or you can say that it was the intention. To the extent that these saw-mills are ancillary and necessary to the work of thinning and forest maintenance, you can make a case for them but when you come to the disposal of the produce, and so on, you are bound to be up against the objection that you arecompeting with private firms in the same business.

I have been asked about Shelton Abbey. The adaptation of the building as a forestry school has proved a bigger job than we anticipated. The Board of Works are actively pursuing plans to make a thorough job of the adaptation and it is hoped to have the building ready by autumn of next year. There are about 40 trainees and a third group of 20 are about to take up duty. The present plans for recruitment over at least some years envisage about 20 trainees a year.

Not all of the timber at Shelton Abbey is of first-class quality. In fact, little cutting has so far taken place but exploitation of the timber stands will be pursued in the normal course as they reach full maturity. The forest could not in itself make a significant contribution towards meeting the requirements of a big saw-mill. The position is that only 20 per cent. of the timber there is regarded as commercial—possibly less. The other 80 per cent. is described as firewood. The total area is 924 acres, comprising 359 acres of woodland and 33½ acres of scrub. It was estimated that there were 750,000 cubic feet of firewood and only 170,000 cubic feet of commercial timber.

Deputy S. Collins asked me about materials and cartage. The position is that, under the original Estimate, we spent £10,000 on materials—to which we are now adding £1,000, making £11,000. The original Estimate in respect of cartage was £6,000—to which we are now adding £2,500, making £8,500 for cartage. The high cartage costs, I am informed, arise from the expansion of road-making in preparation for thinning. Expansion in road-making is over twice last year's rate. Having emphasised the importance of thinning and having taken steps to accelerate the work as far as I could, in the visits I have made to the forests where thinning is in progress, I was pleased to find that we had made very great strides with regard to roads. But there are forests —and some of the earliest plantations, sown back nearly as far as the beginning of the first world war—wherenot alone had thinning not been maintained properly but where even roads had not been constructed to get the thinnings out. Since, in any case, these will presumably be permanent centres, we have to get roads—and a considerable amount of our Budget will have to go on road-making. The foresters and inspectors deserve congratulation on having done so well with regard to the construction of roads. Even where they are being done by manual labour, it seems to me that the results are very satisfactory indeed. But a great deal more has to be done.

Deputy McQuillan raised the question of further development in the West of Ireland. The Land Commission is doing a great deal in Roscommon, Mayo and other counties on the work of land rearrangement. I feel that we cannot do both things in the same area. We have also the land project: a certain amount is being done under that scheme. There are hopes that bog reclamation may be undertaken actually for agricultural purposes—and the forestry branch have had to have that in mind. One of the matters mentioned in the Cameron Report was that the future use of land, even bogland, should be a matter for consultation between the Departments concerned.

With regard to acquisitions in Kiltullagh or in any other area, there is first the point that these commonages, which belong traditionally to the smallholdings, are not easy to acquire. The advantage of going out, even into the mountains where the forestry branch will have full freedom of development, is that this question of accessibility and the question of local rights are not so serious. You have to wait until you get the agreement of all the persons affected in the commonage, and it might take generations, even though you get part of the commonage rights, before you had secured the whole of them.

There is also the question of local reserve. If it is obvious, since the area is a small farming area, that no very large amount of land is likely to come in eventually for forestry purposes— nothing in the nature of 1,000 acres ormore—the question is whether we are justified in giving our attention to these areas; but if, as has been suggested by the Deputy, there are, contiguous to these smallholdings which are more or less derelict, substantial areas which are suitable for afforestation, we can have them inspected if he will take the trouble of putting us in touch with the owners concerned.

Deputy Morrissey also referred to the outcry about taking land. We have examples of that. We heard Deputy Esmonde on it to-day, and recently the case down in Kinnitty, in which several Deputies are interested, on which the local county council passed a resolution condemning the forestry branch for taking land which would have been useful for agricultural purposes.

According to the local forester, any of the people who are looking for land in Kinnitty would have been glad to get it but there was one thing they were certain of. It was this: that the land which the Offaly County Council thought should be taken for division they did not want—they did not want it under any circumstances, because a previous owner had ploughed it up and had got practically no return from it. It is quite obvious that there were no grounds—only pure mischief—for suggesting that the Forestry Department were taking land away from people in that or in any other case.

Might I remind Deputies that there is a Department—I am sure Deputy Esmonde knows it—the Land Commission, which has very formidable powers for taking land for the relief of local congestion or for bringing in migrants? How it could happen then that the forestry people could take land, while there is another Department there for the purpose of settling families on such land, rather defeats me.

There may have been one or two such cases in Wexford, but the general position is that, as regards a large amount of the land which is eventually acquired, it comes to the forestry branch through the Land Commission, and, as in the case of the Kinnitty land,it is land that we are assured by the Land Commission is over and above their requirements for the purpose of relieving local smallholders or others.

With regard to Castletownbere, or any other area, if Deputy Collins will send up particulars of the areas to which, in his opinion, more attention might be given with the probability of progress from the acquisition point of view, I shall be glad to have them examined. As regards his point about seeds, I think we have more than enough seeds for our needs. Where we are short of a particular species, then, by means of an exchange arrangement with other countries we can generally make up our programme.

With regard to the West of Ireland, the important point is that for many years, as Deputies who are interested in the matter know, the complaint was that the prospects of afforestation there were damaged by the failure, either deliberate or through carelessness, of a planting done some 40 years ago. We had an example of that at Ballyhoura, North Cork, where we had to replant a plantation that had been a failure, about which high hopes were entertained when it was originally planted. I would ask Deputies, therefore, who are pressing for the utmost possible planting acreage in the West of Ireland to remember that, from our experience in the past, we do not want to plant the whole of what we have and then leave ourselves without any rotation as regards employment. We would like at least to be able to keep the men we have—not to take men on for a season or two and then have to let them go again.

I think I have covered most of the points that were raised in the debate. I can promise Deputies that the matters which they mentioned and to which I have not referred in my reply, will be gone into in the Department. I shall ask the forestry branch to try to consider them.

I would like to say a word in conclusion, arising out of my reply to Deputy Blowick yesterday when he asked me for the present position about the land acquired during the past year. I told him that we have acquired some 15,000 acres of which nearly 14,000 acres wereconsidered to be plantable. I also told him that there were over 47,000 acres not yet inspected, and that the area for which offers had been made, but not yet accepted, was 37,000 acres. There is a further figure which he did not ask me to give but which may interest him. It is that there are 25,000 acres on which price agreements have been reached. These agreements are now in the hands of the Chief State Solicitor.

Mr. Blowick

I would be interested to know whether there is any difficulty in getting sale for all the thinnings that are going out of the Department at the moment.

Mr. Derrig

There is.

Mr. Blowick

In other words, thinnings are being left unsold?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.