Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Jun 1955

Vol. 151 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Forestry.

Joseph Blowick

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,090,200 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for salaries and expenses in connection with Forestry (No. 13 of 1946), including a Grant-in-Aid for Acquisition of Land.

Since the Estimate Volume was printed prior to the introduction of the token Supplementary Estimate for Forestry which was passed last March, I propose, for the convenience of Deputies, to refer to changes in provisions in relation to the original Estimate provisions for 1954-55 which appear in the printed Estimate for the current year, mentioning alterations in last year's figures brought about by the Supplementary Estimate only where their effect was significant.

The net Estimate for 1955-56 at £1,560,300 shows an increase of £287,450 over the original Estimate for 1954-55. On the Appropriations-in-Aid sub-head (sub-head H) there is an increase of £2,050 and the increase on the gross Estimate is £289,500. There are increases on all the significant expenditure sub-heads other than sub-head C (1), the Grant-in-Aid of Acquisition of Land.

Sub-head A shows a small increase of £1,760 for Salaries, Wages and Allowances. The change here lies mainly in the replacement of various bulk provisions for additional staff made under the different heads in 1954-55, by definite provision for posts since authorised.

Sub-head B, Travelling Expenses, shows an increase of £2,000. This increase follows from the normal expansion in the number and size of forest units.

Passing over for the moment the main operational sub-heads C (1), C (2) and C (3), expenditure on sub-head D in respect of grants for afforestation purposes amounted to £3,190 last year as compared with £3,022 in 1953-54. First instalments of grants were paid in 56 cases involving 442 acres of new plantation; the corresponding figures for 1953-54 were 55 cases involving 360 acres of new plantation. It will be seen that the increase in public interest in the scheme of grants to which I referred last year is being maintained. Provision for the sub-head is being retained at £3,500 for 1955-56.

Under sub-head E (1), Forestry Education, the provision for running special courses for foresters has been reduced to a token sum of £10. Suitable facilities to run these courses have not been available in recent years and their resumption will not be possible until arrangements can be made to utilise Kinnitty Castle as a venue for the purpose and that will not be possible this year.

There is an increase of £2,280 in the forestry training centres provision. Last year's provision was based on the operation of Kinnitty Castle for only portion of the year. The first group of trainees are now in residence there and expenses for a full year's running of the school must, therefore, be provided for in 1955-56. Structural work on the construction of the new school at Shelton Abbey is still in progress and it is not anticipated that it will be possible to open that establishment before January, 1956. Provision has, accordingly, been made for running expenses for the Shelton School for the last quarter of 1955-56.

Sub-head E (2)—Exhibits at Shows— is maintained at £100 and sub-head F— Agency, Advisory and Special Services —has been increased from £50 to £100 to provide for increased cost of certain experimental work carried out by the National University on an agency basis, the cost of which is defrayed from this sub-head.

The provision under sub-head G is maintained at the same figure as for 1954-55 and requires no comment.

Reverting now to the main operational sub-heads, sub-head C (1), which provides the funds needed for the acquisition of land, comes first. This sub-head is of Grant-in-Aid character with provision for non-surrender of unspent balances and the actual amounts of the provisions in particular years are not a true reflection of the progress of acquisition of land. I sound this warning because some Deputies made the mistake, in speeches made in the recent Vote on Account debate, of presuming that the reduction in the new provision in 1955-56 as compared with 1954-55 was indicative of an anticipated decline in the acquisition rate or—more absurd—of governmental unwillingness to spend money on forestry.

Traditionally, this sub-head has been framed on the basis of allowing for a balance, over and above the anticipated expenditure level, adequate to meet any unexpectedly high incidence of expenditure on land acquisition towards the close of the year. Following the acceleration of land acquisition which I was glad to be able to bring about during my previous period in office, the annual incidence of cost rose sharply and the contingency reserve was eaten away to such an extent that late in 1952-53 relief by way of Supplementary Estimate was needed to enable immediate commitments to be faced. Greatly increased provisions in the Votes for 1953-54 and 1954-55 were intended to restore a proper balance and the unspent balance at the 31st March, 1955, stood at the unprecedentedly high figure of £95,700; a decrease in provision in 1955-56 was a natural consequence. With the new grant included in the Estimate now before the House, there will be a total of £171,000 available for expenditure on land acquisition in the current year.

The largest sum that has ever been spent in a single year on acquiring land for forestry purposes in this country was £127,000 in 1951-52. The sum now to be provided would permit of the spending this year of almost 40 per cent. more than that peak figure. Even in my most optimistic moments—and fully conscious of the efforts being made by the Department to persuade landowners to sell land which would best be devoted to State forestry—I could not hope to spend more than that—or even as much as that—this year, and it would have been a gross injustice to the taxpayer to provide more money for the sake merely of rebutting shallow criticism of a misleading nature based on a complete misrepresentation of the relationship between forestry progress and the annual provision under this sub-head.

The real progress being made with acquisition of land in recent years is evident from the fact that the acquisition rate, which averaged 7,000 productive acres a year in the 15 years ending with 1949-50, has averaged 15,300 productive acres in the past five years. The actual annual figures of productive area acquired for these five years have been:—

1950-51

10,867 acres

1951-52

15,701 acres

1952-53

16,784 acres

1953-54

17,750 acres

1954-55

15,604 acres

Lest some should make the mistake of interpreting the figures for the past two years as indicating a falling off of progress last year, I should add that the total area for which the Department successfully concluded negotiations last year was 22,800 acres compared with 18,400 acres in 1953-54 and that the area for which title was in course of clearance at the 31st March, 1955, was 26,544 acres as compared with 21,230 acres at the same date in 1954. These figures give an encouraging picture of the current year's prospects.

Turning to the plantable reserve picture, the House will be glad to learn that despite an increase in the planting programme, the reserve at the 31st March, 1955, stood at 47,260 acres, compared with 45,156 acres 12 months previously.

The overall picture of land acquisition is satisfactory only in the sense that it is one of sustained improvement. I cannot regard it as satisfactory, however, in so far as we are still not securing enough land to enable full Government policy in regard to forestry to be implemented. Land acquisition still remains the main obstacle to forestry development on the scale Deputies of all Parties would desire. There is enough suitable land in the country to sustain the optimum forest acreage, but its transfer from other uses, with the agreement of the present owners, cannot be achieved quickly. Some enthusiasts favour compulsory acquisition, but I believe it would be a disservice to forestry in this country to force any farmer to part with his land for forestry purposes without regard to his own wishes or his immediate economy. The long-term answer is the gradual infiltration of forestry into the likely development areas, thus bringing home to landholders the advantages to be derived from forestry. In this way, too, the value of afforestation as a source of employment can be demonstrated without upsetting the local economy.

In many areas we are already achieving good results on these lines and we must continue to follow that policy. Nevertheless, I must repeat what I have said already, namely, that, as the whole future of the planting programme hinges almost entirely on the acquisition of land, I feel far from satisfied with the progress to date or the prospects for the future. There was a big jump in the acquisition figure for 1950-51, but this was due to the fact that large areas which had been inspected in previous years, but found unplantable under the old methods, became available under the new technique which was established the previous year. Unfortunately, even that pool has tended to dry up.

As Deputies will readily appreciate, it is absolutely essential that by the time the Department comes in to fence, prepare and plant, no outside person must have the slightest vestige of claim on it. This means that before the Department can take possession, full title must be completely established by the former owner of the land, and this is very often a slow process over which I have no control, as it is a purely private matter between the vendor and his solicitor. This, coupled with the reluctance of farmers to part with even rough grazing land owing to good prices that obtain for live stock, wool, etc., has slowed down the acquisition of land. Regarding the title difficulty, I hope to introduce shortly a Bill, which if it becomes law, will enable a very substantial increase in the acquisition of land to be achieved.

Turning to sub-head C (2), Forest Development and Maintenance, and sub-head C (3) (1), Timber Conversion in State Forests—which between them bear the field costs in forest development and management—Deputies will find that the aggregate provision of £1,409,950 shows an increase of £343,680 or almost 30 per cent. over the original Estimate for 1954-55. Of this increase, £251,000 relates to labour heads of these sub-heads and £92,680 is the net addition to the non-labour items.

To dispose first of the non-labour items in these schemes, the first significant variation is an increase of £25,800 in the materials head of sub-head C (2) (2)—Capitals Expenditure. Of the total sum of £45,000 provided under this head, £38,000 is for additional machinery required to deal speedily and economically with the growing volume of work. The extra equipment needed includes heavy tractors for road construction; wheeled tractors for haulage and portable saw units for the conversion of material in the forests.

There is an allied increase from £23,000 to £50,000 in the provision for running expenses and repairs of machinery under the capital expenditure head. The increase is designed to cover extensive overhaul and the replacement of parts in the case of heavy machines which have been in use now for the best part of four years. Allowance is also made for the running expenses of the new plant to be purchased. A corresponding but less significant increase is necessary under the head of running expenses and repair of machinery, in sub-head C (3) (1)— Timber Conversion in State Forests.

Under sub-head C (2) (3)—Constructional Expenditure—the provision for materials is increased by £10,000 to £26,000. This will permit of the purchase this year of certain items of fencing material which were hitherto available from reserve stock. The practice of drawing on reserve stocks for the bulk of our fencing material is, however, being maintained.

Some of the Cartage heads also show apparent increases, but there are no significant changes as compared with the 1954-55 figures, as adjusted by the Supplementary Estimate for that year.

As I have indicated, however, the main portion of sub-head C (2) and sub-head C (3) (1) will be devoted to labour requirements. The increase in the aggregate provisions for labour as compared with the original Estimate figures for 1954-55 which I have already quoted is misleading in so far as it takes no account of a net addition of £32,500 for labour provided by the Supplementary Estimate for that year. On that basis the increase this year is £218,500. It is in part intended to meet higher wage levels, but in the main it arises from an increase in the amount of work to be undertaken over the whole range of forest activities. The aggregate provision of £1,187,000 for forest labour requirements will permit of an average employment for the year of about 5,000 men as compared with an average of 4,300 last year.

The proposed labour provision for nursery operation is £135,000 as against £109,500 in 1954-55. The scale of nursery operations requires no significant alteration as compared with last year, but planting plans for the year and various other factors such as the availability of increased supplies of certain seeds will result in an increased volume of work.

Under the heads of Capital Expenditure and Constructional Expenditure, allowance is being made for an increase in the planting programme. The 1954-55 programme of 13,500 acres was achieved in full and I am satisfied that the plantable reserve position will permit of the programme being increased to the 15,000 acres mark in the current year. I am giving away no secrets when I tell the House that even that programme falls far short of what I would wish it to be. But, while I am as enthusiastic as any Deputy in the House for more and more forestry development, I fully realise that development will have to be governed by the rate of acquisition of land and must be at a steady rate. A sudden jump in the planting rate could be achieved by sacrificing the plantable reserve needed for proper forest and nursery management, but lasting results cannot be achieved in forestry by spectacular plantings which cannot be maintained. With the present level of the plantable reserve and the present rate of intake of plantable land, 15,000 acres is the maximum planting programme which can justifiably be undertaken this year.

Deputies will be interested to know that almost 40 per cent. of the year's planting will be in the congested districts where the need for forestry development as a social service providing one of the answers to employment and emigration problems is most acute. The introduction in 1950-51 of new methods of cultivation of marginal lands, using heavy machinery to solve the drainage problem, has made this big expansion of forestry in these areas possible. The application of the new technique to large areas in the West was experimental in the first instance, and until the development of the plantations showed whether the new methods would produce good timber at an economic cost, the whole future of this new development had to remain in doubt.

Experimentation on blanket-bog and submarginal land types is still going ahead and results so far are sufficiently encouraging to enable me to assure the House that forestry has come to stay as an economic aid to the West. It is in this way that social forestry in its best sense can be put into operation to help the timber resources of the nation by using the man-power to be found in the under-developed areas. Already, about 5,000 acres of forest of this type can be laid down in a single year in the congested districts and a total of over 1,200 men have been given full employment in forests in these districts; this figure will rise progressively, with fresh planting and the development of the plantations already laid down.

As I have said, the increase in the planting rate accounts for the rise in labour requirements under sub-head C (2) (3)—Constructional Expenditure —and part of the increase under sub-head C (2) (2)—Capital Expenditure.

Under the Capital Expenditure head there is also a substantial increase in the provision for the construction of new forest roads. In recent years, with an increasing proportion of the State plantations coming to the thinning stage, it has been necessary to step up the road construction programme to facilitate extraction of the poles. In the year just closed over 90 miles of new road were dealt with as compared with 66 miles the previous year. Still more work of this nature will call for urgent attention this year and I have already referred to the proposed expansion of the fleet of bulldozers and tractors designed to facilitate the discharge of work of this type. The provision for labour must also be increased and the Estimate provision includes £125,000 for this work, as compared with £77,500 last year.

The provision for labour under the head Maintenance is £427,000 as against £375,000 in 1954-55. The rise, so far as not due to wage increase, reflects the growing area of plantations concerned and calls for no special comment.

The labour provision under the head of C (3) (1), Timber Conversion in State Forests, covers the cost of thinning and extraction and the proposed provision is £170,000, as compared with a figure adjusted by Supplementary Estimate to £130,000 for 1954-55. Last year the planned thinning programme of 9,000 acres was achieved and it is proposed to thin 9,500 acres in 1955-56. This is an aspect of the Department's work which will require unremitting attention in future years and which must in some forests take priority even over fresh planting.

Sub-head C (3) (2) makes provision for the operation of the Department's fixed sawmills at Cong and Dundrum. Last year's Estimate provided for the purchase of miscellaneous small items of equipment for the completion of the mill at Cong; as these have been purchased the Equipment head shows a small reduction this year.

The allowance made for Appropriations-in-Aid in sub-head H is £2,050 higher than that allowed for in the original Estimate for 1954-55, £2,000 of the increase being in the Rents head.

The provision for sales of Timber from the forests has been maintained at the same figure as in the 1954-55 Estimate namely £130,000 although it proved possible during last year to step up income under this head sufficiently to enable an additional sum of £10,500 to be taken into account in the Supplementary Estimate.

Revenue from sales of mature timber is erratic in so far as the produce comes from old woodland areas of varying quality acquired by the Department and felling has to be determined by the synchronisation of replanting with other forest work. That position will remain until the State's own plantations commence to yield a sustained output of mature timber. There is, however, a steady increase in the output of timber of boxwood and pulpwood qualities derived from thinning. Markets are being developed steadily for this material and I am hopeful that the coming year will see an even greater total revenue from timber sales than 1954-55. The Estimate allowance therefore must, however, be framed with caution, hence the confinement of the sum inserted in the Estimate to the same figure as in 1954-55.

From what I have said in explanation of the various sub-heads, Deputies will realise that the Government is determined to go ahead with the expansion of forestry development as an essential national undertaking upon which the State is justified in spending whatever money is requisite.

Thomas Derrig

Tomás Ó Deirg

Molaim-se go gcuirfear an Meastachán seo siar chun a aithbhreithnithe. In proposing that this Estimate be referred back for reconsideration, one of my objects is, as I said on the Land Commission Vote, to enable a freer and a more comprehensive discussion to take place than would be otherwise possible. The Minister has given us certain figures regarding expenditure on labour. The increase this year is £218,500. I wonder could I ask the Minister what proportion of the increase——

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Under what sub-head?

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

Unfortunately, there are no numbers on these pages but I am very grateful to the Minister for letting me have the copy. It is under sub-heads C (2) and C (3) (1). It says:—

"On that basis the increase this year is £218,500. It is in part intended to meet the higher wage levels but in the main it arises from an increase in the amount of work to be undertaken...."

I wonder could the Minister say what amount of the £218,500 is attributable to higher wage levels? Then we come to the Appropriations-in-Aid. The Minister has stated that the figure is the same as last year, though it proved possible during last year to step up income under this head from the sale of timber to enable an additional sum of £10,500 to be taken into account in the Supplementary Estimate. I do not know whether that means that the coming year will see an even greater revenue from timber sales.

The point I wanted to get from the Minister was whether he expected we will sell the same amount of timber at the same price or less timber at higher prices or how does the question of quantity versus price fall out? With regard to the sub-head in which the Minister makes reference to grants for afforestation purposes—sub-head D— though the amount is not very great, Deputies who are interested in afforestation by private persons will be glad to know that according to the Minister's statement there seems to be somewhat more interest taken in this scheme and I am sure that Deputies from all sides of the House will agree that there is everything to be said for encouraging farmers to plant shelter belts.

One of the things one notices in connection with the land project is the great number of trees—scrub timber in most cases of course—that have been dug up and I daresay that if forestry were associated primarily with agriculture we might have more awareness or a greater effort to secure more awareness by the farming community of the value of these shelter belts. One hears very little reference to the importance and value of trees for protection against frosts, against erosion and for the conservation of the soil. Reference has been made in the Cameron Report, paragraph 96, to this matter and I think the Minister should let us have some further information as to whether any progress has been made in connection with the question of research organisation. Naturally, if we are to have an agricultural institute set up, the question will arise as to whether or not our forestry services will benefit even indirectly.

It would perhaps be expecting too much that such a great and wonderful Department, with such a great and wonderful Minister, as the Department of Agriculture should make any allowances for what a great many people call the Cinderella of Irish economics— afforestation. But the question of this institute arises and because we are interested in forestry we should naturally like to know whether specific arrangements will be made for research in connection with forestry and as to what extent the facilities of this new organisation would be made to forestry. Cameron in his report on this particular matter in paragraph 96 says:

"A further assignment for the Research Organisation should be a thorough study of the possibilities of introducing hybrid poplars into Ireland. The development of hybrid poplars both in Europe and North America during the last decade or so has been phenomenal. The short rotations on which trees can be grown, and the high yields received, make cultivation of this species a paying proposition on agricultural land as a supplement to farming operations. The high wind factor which must be faced in Ireland would require special attention, but the field is so attractive as to warrant thorough investigation."

There are many other questions which arise—measurement of local weather conditions and the utility of shelter belts of trees in dealing with erosion and soil conservation—apart altogether from important questions of a practical nature such as the assessment of the value of our plantations, the keeping of records, the study of genetics and a point in which I am particularly interested personally, the question of costings in connection, for example, with labour questions. I would like if the Minister could tell me now what proportion of the 15,000 acres which were planted last year was done by mechanical methods.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Roughly two-thirds of it.

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

My recollection is that, when I was in charge of the Department, out of the 15,000 acres which were aimed at and which were not quite achieved—14,400 acres were planted in 1951-52—I think about 5,000 acres were attributable to mechanical methods. Of course, if we have now reached the stage where instead of one-third of the programme being mechanically prepared, we have two-thirds, it makes one feel we have switched on fairly broadly to that particular type of land preparation and that we are now, due to the development of these heavy ploughs and to the more modern drainage methods, able to plant land which had previously been regarded as unplantable.

I do not like to introduce a rather personal note here but I really feel I have to do so in connection with the Minister's statement on the Vote on Account. The Minister was objecting to a statement by Deputy de Valera which I thought the Deputy was quite within his rights in making in order to call attention to the fact that the Grant-in-Aid had been reduced by £60,000. The Minister did not make the case which he makes here to-day, that the Grant-in-Aid is carried on from year to year. Of course it is in the nature of a fund because at the back of all the discussion on forestry we have to bear in mind that it is a long-term policy. In fact, when I was introducing the Estimate in 1953, I stated that, in anticipating a continuance of the rise in the rate of acquisition, expenditure was likely to be higher than in any previous year, but the sum of over £172,000 contemplated by the Estimate should be adequate to meet foreseeable expenditure. I stated that

"any remainder will assist towards restoration of the spending balance on the Grant-in-Aid Suspense Account, which has diminished in recent years."

The point is that in 1952, according to the figures that the Minister gave in answer to a parliamentary question, the balance in hands on 31st March, 1953, was under £18,000, which was regarded as rather small; and the following year—31st March, 1954—the sum would appear to have been fairly large, £63,714. That, of course, is really largely a matter between the Department of Finance and the Minister for Lands, but I think I have reason to complain when the Minister says in column 289 of Volume 149 of the Official Report:—

"The reason we were able to reduce that by £60,000 was that my predecessor in office made me a free gift of £75,000 that was voted last year for the purchase of land and that he did not spend."

Now, according to that statement, I was responsible for the fact that the money was not spent in that financial year. The Minister came into office on 2nd June and, while I cannot blame him for anything that may have happened as a result of the situation that was there and in relation to the acquisition programme generally, I think I have a right to complain when he states:—

"The outgoing Minister for Lands, Deputy Derrig, had only made provision for the purchase of £117,000 worth of land although he came into this House and asked this House to vote him £135,000."

There is an implication there, which, perhaps, the Minister did not intend, that I came to the House and asked for money which it was not intended should be spent; in fact, the Minister in stating in his opening statement that the expenditure in 1951-1952 was the highest ever—£129,000—omitted to mention that the reason it was so high in that year was because there were two very large properties brought in; one of them cost £35,000 and the other cost, I think, £20,000. A considerable proportion of the £129,000 was attributable to two transactions which might not have come in for years; probably we shall not have another example like the £35,000 one unless we manage to acquire Lismore, for some place like that.

In 1952-1953 the expenditure was £116,000. I do not think there were any transactions in that year similar to the two that I have mentioned. In 1953-1954 the expenditure was £117,200. It remained more or less the same in those two years, but in 1953— and this was the reason why I stated I had expectations that, in fact, expenditure on the acquisition of land would be higher in that year than in the previous year—we had a new price range; it was not a wonderful improvement, but it was some improvement.

With regard to the price that is being paid for land, a great deal of the land that is coming in is, of course, whether it is described as unplantable or plantable under modern methods, really worth very little. It is not worth even the £2 per acre, I suppose, at which the forestry officials often estimate its value. As the Minister has pointed out, the pool of that type of land is gradually being used up.

We are not, however, merely interested in social or secondary forestry. We are interested, too, in commercial forestry and in getting land in larger quantities on which we can produce commercial timbed. There is no meaning at all in a forestry programme if it does not aim at producing commercial timber in the long run. One can carry on a secondary or social programme in conjunction with the main programme for commercial timber, but I take the aim upon which we are all agreed to be that the primary purpose of the forestry branch is to produce commercial timber. If we are to get a greater variety of timber and if we are to have any chance of producing a better quality we must get better land.

The acquisition figures published in Irish Oifigiúil have recently been broken down into plantable land acquired and unplantable land. Even during the past year nearly 2,000 acres of the 17,500 acquired are described as unplantable in spite of the belief that appears to exist that one can, in fact, plant a great portion of this hitherto regarded as unplantable land in the lee of mountains and so forth.

We must make up our minds, therefore, that we shall have to try to get a somewhat better quality land than we are getting. Even allowing that one does not want to trespass on agricultural or potential agricultural land, there is a general belief—and this has been confirmed by the visit of the American investigator—that on mountain altitudes a considerable amount of mountain grazing is available which would serve the purpose of the Forestry Branch very well if it could acquire that land.

My experience in the Department, at any rate, was that the technical officers were not satisfied; first and foremost, we were not getting enough land to work up a programme of even 20,000 acres per year. Any information that I have been able to discover leads me to believe that it was never suggested that we could attain to 20,000 acres let alone 25,000 acres in a short period, and it is laid down in the Cameron Report—the Minister and myself and our predecessors have emphasised this —that you must have an adequate plantable reserve. You have to have a three years' reserve in hand, and, according to that report, it must be maintained.

As our forests are wide and scattered, it means that it is not nearly as easy a proposition to build up a reserve as if we had the situation which that report aimed at, namely, aggregations of land acquisition amounting to blocks of from 3,000 to 4,000 acres. According to Mr. Cameron anything under 3,000 acres is not really economic, if you look at the cost of fencing. The cost of this very bad land is negligible, whether it be £2 or £5, in the final cost of afforestation. What is costly, of course, is the fencing and the preparation of such land. The fact is that trees have to be sown like any other crop because we have not the advantages of natural reproduction such as they have in countries with large forests.

With all these things in mind, we improved the price range. Without making any excuses for any sins of omission or commission that I may have been responsible for, I assume that either the new price range was not satisfactory in itself to bring about a great improvement in acquisition, or, seeing that it only came into operation in the latter part of the year 1953-54, it is possible that it has been benefiting acquisition since and that we are likely to get more land as a result of the improved price range as well as land of better quality. Perhaps the figures which the Minister has given to us for the increase in the acreage of land under investigation for title may be some indication that the new price range is bearing fruit, but that I cannot say. The acquisition rate in the early part of the year is never as good as in the letter part.

I think that the Minister was not fair to me, at any rate, in suggesting that

"Fianna Fáil Ministers and Governments are very fond of coming into this House and voting huge sums of money, but they take jolly good care not to spend one penny."

If that was meant to refer to me, it was not only gross misrepresentation but, really, it could, within the limits of parliamentary language, be described very much more briefly. Further, in column 292, the Minister said:—

"It was due to lack of action on the part of Fianna Fáil which left me £75,000 which they did not spend."

and so on. "I could have done" he said "exactly the same as Fianna Fáil." I would remind the Minister that he is not at the chapel gates in South Mayo when he is in this House making statements such as that about those who have just preceded him in the administration of the Department, and he will have to be a little more careful of what he says, or if he expects the House to believe his accusations he will have to produce some better proof of them.

It is not really, as I have said, a question of finance. It is the fact that you just cannot get the land. Some people who have been talking about expediting afforestation think that it is really an easy matter. We see newspaper articles telling us that there are hundreds of square miles of land, and that the Forestry Branch have only to go down to Connemara, Sligo, Donegal or Kerry and collect it almost overnight. They forget that all this mountain grazing belongs to individual tenant farmers and that prolonged negotiations have to be carried on, and, unfortunately, oral negotiations as well involving visits from the acquisition inspector to these hard headed and hard-hearted mountainy men, trying to get them to dispossess themselves. These negotiations are very often unsuccessful. Therefore, Deputies have to bear in mind that as regards the number of transactions, we have had few good transactions. I had intended to ask the Minister why he was not able to bring in the Glengariff transaction to swell the figures a little more.

Seán Collins

Mr. S. Collins

I will have something to say on that.

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

It is very unusual to get anything decent like that. We have had to depend on hundreds and hundreds of individual transactions, often only a few acres or may be 20 acres. There have to be negotiations about the house, whether the old man was going to remain in the house, the rent he was going to have to pay, whether he would be allowed use the garden or a bit of the land to till, or the use of a bit of turbary and so on. With all that in mind, it is very difficult to build up the size of acquisition programme that we would like. The acquisition of even a few acres of land involves protracted negotiations, and afterwards there is the investigation of title.

Seán Collins

Mr. S. Collins

Does the Deputy not think that the old system of acquisition could be modified?

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

I have been thinking of areas which might be considered as specially suitable for afforestation. From the point of view of commercial afforestation, you have the Comeraghs, the Galtees and the Devil's Bit. I have been wondering whether these should be scheduled or zoned as forestry areas, whether they come in for afforestation purposes in our time or in ten or 20 years' time, if there was the general feeling, and if the authorities dealing with agricultural land, afforestation, and bog exploitation all came together and made up their minds that such and such areas would be allocated to afforestation, or whatever else they might be given over to. If that were done there might be more prospects of progress.

You have, for example, in the West of Ireland the Tourmakeady area, which the Minister knows even better than I do. You have the Ox Mountains in Sligo and Slieve Aughty in Clare. I mentioned on the Land Commission Vote, but the Minister has not been good enough to oblige me by telling the House when he thinks the business of acquiring land for the relief of congestion may be in sight of the end. Apparently, he does not see the end, although he speaks of dealing with it in some period. I think one could gather from his remarks that he does not see the end of it.

With the demand that there is for employment in these areas, and the fact that a lot of the work of the Land Commission must, of necessity, taper off year after year, and that a great deal of this rearrangement does not mean very much to the tenants in question on some of the very big, congested and worst estates, I personally do not think that very much can be done to bring about the relief that will mean something substantial to the minds of the people in question. At any rate, they are making up their minds as to whether they are going to remain at home in this country and try to seek a livelihood here or to emigrate.

I had the view that there could be a greater concentration of effort. My colleagues from the congested areas on this side of the House—I am sure the same is true of Deputies on all sides of the House—feel very strongly that there should be a greater concentration of effort in these areas; that more acquisition work for afforestation should be done through the Land Commission so that we can look forward to the time when a large proportion of the outdoor staff would, perhaps, go over to the Forestry Branch altogether. I think the view of those who have been in close touch with the Land Commission and afforestation is that later on, when necessarily Land Commission acquisition proceedings will begin to fade out, if the Land Commission machine is to be kept it should really be for afforestation purposes. It is only to the extent that we can use the outdoor and indoor staff now engaged on acquisition to build up our forestry programme that we would be justified in maintaining them for a further long period of years.

I, therefore, would ask that there should be a systematic survey made of these important areas. We have been told that there are about 850,000 acres of plantable land but we have not been told anything about the availability of this land which I have already touched upon. As one who had some responsibility in the matter, I know that if you go to a mountain area it involves resettling or having to bargain with exchanges which the Forestry Branch are not prepared to give. They are not in a position to give exchanges. You have a very tedious process in some of these areas. In fact, you cannot get the land.

The Minister, in the replies which he gave me, showed that it is very difficult to get land in some of the congested counties. According to figures he gave me showing the acquisition during the past few years, we find that in the County Donegal, the one county where we seem to be making any progress among the congested areas during the past few years, nearly 4,000 acres have been acquired, 600 of which came through the Land Commission. The next best county seemed to be Sligo, which had roughly about 3,000 acres of which 750 acres came through the Land Commission. The other counties were not very satisfactory. The Galway figure of about 2,000 acres for such a large county having the Connemara area could be described as a poor result. The figure in respect of Leitrim was less than 2,000 acres. No land came in through the Land Commission in either of these counties. That is not very good either.

A surprising thing is that Kerry only figures for about 1,200 acres. If we have regard to the fact that we want to keep people in constant employment and if we acquire a few thousand acres of land in Cloosh Valley or on Nephin Mountain or wherever else it may be we do not want to plant it all up in a few years having, as was very well said by an officer of the Department, a feast or a famine. If you want to build up a consecutive programme and give regular employment over ten or 15 years, I suggest that there will be no alternative but to secure much more land either by compulsory methods or otherwise. When the Minister demurs at compulsion a great many in the House will agree with him. None of us wants compulsion if it can be avoided but we see compulsion being exercised every day in the year beside the City of Dublin.

We see the most valuable land in this country being taken over for housing purposes. The legal gentlemen who are listening to me will probably be able to speak with more effect than I can on the question of the rights of the owners but I wonder to what extent their rights are given full credence? We say that there would be something wrong about going out and acquiring these tracts of mountain grazing.

I think it is a matter that would need close consideration. If we are going to make the progress we would like there will be no alternative to scheduling these areas and seeing, experimentally at any rate, whether in some cases compulsion could not be tried.

One of the points I intended to ask the Minister for some information on was the large number of holdings that are subject to replanting conditions, the position of these in regard to their classification and whether there has been any question of taking over some of these. We know that there are not very many large estates or considerable areas among them, but, nevertheless, if they are classified into those in which the Forestry Branch may be really interested and where they think it would be worth while making an effort at acquisition and coming to terms with the owners, one feels that some advantage might be secured.

The Minister did not tell us what was the result of the expenditure of £5,000 which he told us last year was going to be utilised for manurial treatment of plants on poor soil because, in connection with the question of how trees are grown, it is admitted by forestry experts, those who are not very keen on what is called social forestry, as well as the others, that you can grown trees in these areas. What they refuse to admit is that they can grow commercial timber or that the timber will be of any value.

As those acquainted with afforestation know, a great proportion of our annual planting programme goes to what is called pinus contortus which some experts, including the one who issued the report, have serious doubts about as a tree worthy of consideration from the commercial point of view. It is probably admitted as a tree that can be grown where no other trees will grow. If you want to grow for general national purposes, for the purpose of giving shelter, protection, and incidentally, employment, well and good.

I would like the Minister to give the House more definite information as soon as he can as to what the possibilities are in those areas where social forestry, as it is called, is in operation. The Policy that I believe in is that we should do our utmost to get large tracts of land in these areas and that we should incur considerable expenditure to employ modern machinery in order to ascertain what the prospects are of successfully planting the land that hitherto has been regarded as unplantable. It is admitted that that will take some years, but it is not sufficient to depend on the reports of the inspectors and the foresters in these areas. It would be necessary to have something large done from the research and scientific point of view in order to tell the House just how far we can get with this programme of secondary afforestation.

It is satisfactory that the plantable reserve at present stands at over 47,000 acres. That means that if the Minister can distribute his planting programme over all the centres he can attain the 15,000 acre programme without straining the resources and the administration of the Forestry Branch to an extreme degree. But if we are to build up a programme to the level of 20,000 or 25,000 acres a year, we must envisage the position that each year we will have to bring into the pool 5,000 acres atleast, and perhaps 10,000 acres, more than we are getting at the moment in one particular year.

If we do not do that we will not be able to keep up our plantable reserve and it will mean that the administration of forestry which we build up, and the not inexpensive machinery which we will have to have on hand, will not be in full use. The only way in which we can get the full value out of the machinery is that this plantable reserve will be built up as speedily as possible, not alone to increase the planting programme but to make sure that there will be an adequate surplus. If it should be decided to go up by 1,000, 2,000 or 2,500 acres a year the administration should be able to do that without having the feeling that in another year or two they will have to fall back again. If we want to build up a programme that will show considerable advance above the 15,000 acre figure, and remain at that advance figure, then we will have to do more to build up a plantable reserve than we have been doing.

I think our operations are too scattered and too haphazard in so far as there is a tremendous waste of time on oral negotiations in small transactions. If a forestry board was set up to-morrow as some would think necessary, if we are going to look at the matter as a long-term project, the first thing they would have to do would be to devise some practical scheme, whether compulsory acquisition or otherwise, to get in large tracts of land. In that regard I do not see how a board would do any better than the officers of the Land Commission or the Forestry Branch. Whether a board, or any other authority, is trying to acquire the land they will have the same difficulty as we have at present unless the Government and the House make up their minds that there will have to be a step forward.

I do not agree with the Minister that afforestation can be regarded as a main solution towards the problem of emigration. As I said on the Land Commission Vote, I believe it is only industry, giving regular employment and a good wage, that will attract the people and make them stay at home. With the experience they are getting in Britain, and the wages and conditions over there, I think the Minister is over-confident in thinking that, even with a greatly accelerated planting programme, we will be able to hold these people. If you are able to set up communities, such as Bord na Móna has been trying to do, and provide them with houses, then you will be faced with the problem of giving them employment all the year round at fairly good wages. That is a scheme which will take a great deal of time to work out. I am rather inclined to the view that the Minister should evolve a scheme where these men would be able to have supplementary earnings. If it is an area where there are migratory labourers the work should be arranged so that these labourers could supplement their earnings through it.

These are the main points I have to raise. I think there are a great many others which will be mentioned in the course of the debate.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

I do not propose to detain the House long on the discussion of the Estimate this year. I feel, in a way, that the proper name for this Department should be the "Department of Wasted Opportunities". I do not know whether the last Government ever seriously examined the value of forestry to the national economy. If they did I find it very hard to understand how Deputy Derrig made the speech he has just made. In a country with little or no raw materials available it is quite obvious that the future industrial development of the western seaboard will depend on the production of timber. That is about the only raw material that can be produced in the country.

I said I did not propose to detain the House very long because I do not propose to review in any great detail the working of the Forestry Department. I merely wish to drawn the attention of the House to the fact that over six years ago it was decided that there should be an annual planting of 25,000 acres. That was decided by the Government then in office.

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

They never did.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

If Deputy Derrig knew his business he would not make that remark. Presumably Deputy Derrig did not go to the trouble of reading the reports of the Department or the White Paper supplied to the House.

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

Perhaps Deputy MacBride will tell us what technical advice he got for telling O.E.E.C. and the people of this country that we could plant 25,000 acres a year.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

Deputy MacBride did not tell O.E.E.C. any such thing. It was the Government of this country that decided upon that programme and that proposal was submitted to this House. It is obvious that Deputy Derrig has no interest in planting that 25,000 acres. For 20 years his Party had control of the Government of this country and they had no interest in forestry in that time. The first step they took in 1951, when they returned to office, was to cut over £250,000 off the Forestry Vote.

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

That is not true.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

Deputy Derrig's newspaper will now publish articles in favour of afforestation day in and day out. The truth of the matter, unfortunately, is this, that both the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government which ruled this country for ten years, and the Fianna Fáil Government which ruled this country for 20 years, have in a most shameful manner neglected one of the greatest potential assets for development we have here. An illustration of the complete disproportion which exists in our capital development programme is the fact that we spend £10,500,000 a year on roads, which is completely unproductive expenditure and which is an expenditure which has a very small labour content, whereas we only spend slightly over £1,000,000 on afforestation which is productive and which has a high labour content.

However, I did not rise in order to criticise the failure of either the Fianna Fáil Government or the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government in regard to afforestation—it is quite obvious they failed, and the whole attitude to afforestation shows that. What I did rise to point out was that some six years ago, a certain programme was decided upon and that programme has not been implemented. I do not know why it has not been implemented. Both the present Minister for Lands and the previous Minister for Lands say that money is no object, that they have all the money necessary available. They say that the problem is land acquisition but, as Deputy Derrig pointed out himself, if land is required to widen a road, to cut a corner off a road, it is immediately available with no trouble at all. If land is required for a housing scheme it is available. If land is required for any other purpose it can be obtained.

Probably the simplest way of illustrating to the House how unreal is the argument in respect of land acquisition is to point out that—I have not the figures with me, but off-hand—up to 1948, I think the acquisition of land was in the neighbourhood of some 6,000 to 8,000, or perhaps 10,000 acres a year. But as a result of the change in policy which took place in 1948 under the present Minister for Lands, the annual rate of land acquisition for afforestation jumps from that 6,000 or 8,000 a year to 20,000 a year, and presumably that land was there before.

Thomas Derrig

Mr. Derrig

It was unplantable land before.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

It was not unplantable land before. I shall tell you what happened before, and what happened before, as far as I remember, was that there was one inspector for land acquisition for forestry plantation and he could not possibly cope with the work. The pressure was relieved immediately the present Minister went to the Government and got an additional staff appointed to his Department, and then 20,000 acres were acquired. So far as I know that—approximately—has been the rate since, but the sole reason for the lack of progress in land acquisition then was inefficient administration of the Department.

I am quite satisfied that if there was a will to acquire and plant the land it could be done. We can think of 101 reasons why any single proposition that can be made for development should not be proceeded with. We can think of 101 obstacles, and the speech that Deputy Derrig made now is an illustration of the kind of pettifogging arguments that can be put up. I am not interested in those arguments; I know there are difficulties, but there are difficulties in doing anything worth doing in this world. I am interested only in getting the work done. My difficulty is to make up my mind as to what is holding up the expansion of afforestation, whether it is purely the incapacity of the Department which is in control of it to handle a large scheme of that kind: whether it is— shall I say?—departmental inertia or inefficiency, or whether there is bad will and so on. Be that as it may, I merely rose to say this to-day in the House that I am not going to sit in this House next year and support the present Government unless there is a radical change in their attitude to afforestation and unless more progress is made.

I am not blaming the Minister. I am not going to review the work of his Department. He is familiar with my views in regard to a certain number of questions in the Department but he has not been long enough in it to be able to deal with the position there, but, as far as I am concerned, and as far as my Party is concerned, unless there is a radical change before this Estimate comes before this House next year I shall be compelled, irrespective of any political consequences, to vote against this Estimate—not against the Minister. I feel that the time has come when decisions will have to be taken in order that the wishes of the majority of the people of this country and of this House should be given effect to, because it is the will of the people on all sides that afforestation should be pushed ahead and not merely tied up in a bundle of green or red tape.

Thomas O'Hara

Mr. O'Hara

Having listened to the three speakers who have already contributed to this debate, the Minister, his predecessor, Deputy Derrig, and now Deputy MacBride, I must say that the debate up to date is rather enlightened. I propose to refer, first of all, to the brief remarks of Deputy MacBride when he says that he does not propose to support the present Government or their forestry programme or policy next year if a big change is not brought about.

That might seem to give the impression that nobody in this country at any time interested itself in forestry except the Party to which Deputy MacBride belongs. I would now suggest to Deputy MacBride that he should go into the Dáil Library and look up the records of the speeches that have been made here over a number of years. I could guarantee to him that he would find on those records that on the first occasion on which members of our Party entered this House back in 1943 the very same things were said and the same arguments that were advanced here this evening were then put forward—and remember, I was not then a member of the House. The same case that Deputy MacBride has been making for a long number of years was made years ago by members of our Party.

The records are there. They are available and the Deputy need only leave this House and go into the Dáil Library to find them. He will find them there. Many Deputies in the House will remember members of our Party making that case—in particular, one man who is not now a member of this House but who was then—Dominick Cafferky of South Mayo. I do not say that in any spirit of ill-will towards Deputy MacBride or the members of his Party. I am glad to hear Deputy MacBride speaking with such emphasis on the importance of forestry, because, as he pointed out, it affects the people in the West of Ireland in a very serious way. At the same time, it is hardly fair for any member of the House to get up here and suggest that he and he alone was the father of forestry in this country.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

Who suggested that? Did I say one word to suggest that?

Thomas O'Hara

Mr. O'Hara

I got the impression from Deputy MacBride's speech—I hope I am wrong—that he and he alone had advocated forestry for a long number of years. I merely want very politely to remind him that it is quite a long number of years since members of my Party, and quite possibly members of other Parties as well, spoke along these lines. It is just as well to clear the air with regard to it, to say that the records are there and that anybody can go into the Library and check on them.

Getting away from that controversial note, if I may so describe it, and coming down to the realities of things, Deputy Derrig referred to the hard-headed mountainy farmers in the West of Ireland, in Donegal and in other counties. That is a proper description of these men. They had to be hard-headed men to live on these mountainy holdings and remember that they had to live there when it was not possible to get £3 10s. and £4 for mountain sheep and lambs. They had to stay there when they were able to get only 3/6 and 4/- for them. Times have changed a lot and the value of these mountain holdings has changed a lot. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Minister to acquire land in these areas.

People in districts like Bangor Erris, Achill and Keel in my constituency can go in to the fairs in Bangor Erris or Achill and collect £80, £100 and up to £150 for mountain lambs and sheep. The price of wool has also increased substantially, and, that being the trend of things, due to wars and war conditions, it is increasingly difficult to acquire land at present. It may well happen that, with the passage of time, there will be a fall in these prices and I could visualise a situation then in which there would be a great inflow of land into the Forestry Department.

There seems to be agreement on at least one point between the Minister and the former Minister, that any forestry plan or programme should not be an erratic programme, and I can well agree with this view. In other walks of life, it is bad business to run things in an erratic fashion, and, in the case of forestry, it would be a very bad policy indeed. That being so, there must be a long-term plan and a long-term programme and things must be examined carefully, not in the light of what may happen to-day but in the light of what might happen in three, five and ten years' time, and perhaps a longer length of time. In these circumstances, it is sheer nonsense for anybody to suggest here that, by pressing a button somewhere, you can acquire thousands of acres of land and can rush out the following morning and plant them.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

Thirty years is a long time, you know.

Thomas O'Hara

Mr. O'Hara

I agree, and I am at one with Deputy MacBride on this, that we have not made sufficient progress in the past. I am far from satisfied that former Governments pulled their weight to the extent to which I should have liked in this matter. As a founder-member of the Party to which I belong, I am aware that our Party agitated for these things many years ago and they did that in the knowledge and the realisation of the many difficulties to be faced. It will be appreciated, however, that the inter-Party groups who had control from 1948-1951 lost control from 1951-1954, and Deputy MacBride has expressed appreciation of the efforts being made by the present Minister. I know that were it not for the efforts of Deputy MacBride when he was Minister for External Affairs during the previous term of office of the Minister, forestry work in this country would almost have had to close down. I am one of those who like to give credit where credit is due and that expression of thanks was voiced by the Minister who is responsible for forestry.

The question of a forestry board something on the lines of Bord na Móna was referred to on a previous occasion and a statement of mine in this regard—whether misquoted or misrepresented—seems to have been misunderstood by some people outside. Personally, at this stage I do not favour the idea of setting up a board and I agree with Deputy Derrig when he says that anything that can be achieved by the setting up of any board can be achieved by the Minister and the staffs in the Forestry Department with goodwill and co-operation.

To me, it seems that the bottleneck in forestry is in acquisition and I have already stated that I can well understand that, having regard to present day circumstances and prices, that is where a bottleneck would be, because of the prices of mountain sheep and lambs and cattle that can be reared on these holdings, even if to do so does take an extra year or year and a half. That is one of the reasons why we have this holdup in forestry work. I have never had a great lot of contact with the Forestry Department, but on the few times I have had contact with them, I was satisfied that the forestry people I met in the Department, inspectors and others, knew more about my own county—and I have travelled it from one corner to another, as I have travelled the country from one corner to another—and knew more about the classes of land which were suitable for plantation than I did.

I was amazed by what they knew about patches of land in the Foxford area and the Bangor Erris area. I had contacted people in these areas with a view to encouraging them to surrender their land to the Forestry Department and had seen and had walked their holdings. I thought I knew quite a lot about them until I met these officials, and I am quite satisfied that the fact that the forestry programme is not progressing as well as it might is not due to laziness on the part of the officials or to lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Minister, or anybody else concerned.

I agree with quite a number of points made by Deputy Derrig. I agree with what he said regarding the setting up of a board and I agree that, having regard to the circumstances with which we are now confronted in the matter of high prices for cattle and other animals, a bottleneck has arisen, due to the fact that people are not now prepared to surrender their land as freely as they were some years ago.

We will, therefore, have to face facts and realise that the Forestry Department should increase as far as possible the sums of money being made available for the purpose of acquiring land. In view of the facts which I have given the House—and nobody dare contradict them—it must be obvious to everybody that it will be necessary to pay substantially increased sums of money to individual landowners, whether they live on the mountain side or in the plains, in order to acquire their lands, having regard to the increased prices which are now payable for land. That would be one way of relieving the situation.

I was speaking to a man at ten or 11 o'clock last night—I was in an area where land is available for forestry provided we can iron out some of the difficulties—who, on his own, could surrender about 1,200 acres of land. Then there were three other people who, between them, had another 900 acres. Roughly, that represents about 2,000 acres of land. However, here again there are certain difficulties. The first question I was asked by that individual was: "Can you people give me an exchange holding out of where I am? If so, I would be prepared to surrender this land for forestry". That man is an ordinary layman. I do not know whether he appreciated that he was confusing two things—it is possible that he knew the position as well as I do—but at least he put that point of view. Deputy Derrig has described these people as "hard men" but who could blame that man for trying to strike the best bargain he could? However, that man was confusing the Forestry Department and the Land Commission.

I realise it might well happen that if this man applied for an exchange holding he might get it, but I could not answer his question. How could I assure him, on behalf of the Irish Land Commission—unless I wanted to fool the man—that he would get an exchange from such a holding to the Midlands or some other place? I just could not do that. However, I asked him if he would accept a cash price for his holding—and it was there we began to part company. I know that man well. He is a good, decent, honest-to-God countryman. He did not want to accept cash for his holding because he felt—as any hard-headed businessman would feel—that he would be far better off with a new holding of perhaps 35 or 40 acres, with a new house, barns and so forth, and a guaranteed way of living.

That man appreciated the fact that, even if he did get a couple of thousand pounds for his holding, by the time he had bought a new holding and stocked it, and so forth, he would have very little money left to go on with. This is an individual case and I was talking to the man in question within the past 17 or 18 hours. I have been confronted with this type of case more than once. As a matter of fact, I meet it day in day out, week in week out. I can well understand the viewpoint of that man.

I know the people in my constituency. I live among them and I meet them every day. I have addressed them outside the church gates and I have spoken to them in the hall or at house meetings. I know the people individually. Because I know them, I have a very good idea of what will happen when a group of people come down from the Forestry Department in Dublin and visit the area. I appreciate that these people do their utmost to weigh up and study the mentality of the people in the area but they have a hard task before them. They have to try and coax the people and persuade them that it is in their own interests to give up their lands.

As a Deputy, I am frequently confronted with these difficulties and I can appreciate the difficulties which forestry inspectors and others will be confronted with. Sometimes people feel that, because they are dealing with officials of a Government Department, the officials have blank cheques which they can hand over for particular tracts of land. Sometimes these officials are addressed in this way by people: "Oh, sure, Mr., if you like you can give me an exchange holding or you can do this, that or the other." Anybody who faces up to the reality of the problem must appreciate that these difficulties are there—and these difficulties confront the whole forestry programme in this country.

With all due respect to the Fianna Fáil Governments which we have had, they could have made wonderful progress in forestry during their terms of office as many of the difficulties I have mentioned did not exist then. I cannot understand why they did not make full use of the situation that existed in their time. I will not dwell on the economic war. I will pass over that as quickly as I can lest any reference to it should give rise to heated arguments. We all know, however, that cattle prices and sheep prices, and so forth, were very low during the period of the economic war. That being so, I fail to understand why the Fianna Fáil Government of the time did not avail of the opportunity to intensify the forestry programme. If they had done so, we should now be reaping the benefit of some of the work which would have been embarked upon.

If I interpreted his speech correctly, Deputy Derrig does not seem to appreciate to the fullest extent the importance of a good, sound forestry programme so far as the people in our western areas are concerned. A sound forestry programme is of importance from the point of view of preventing migration, the flight from the land, emigration and other evils which are talked about every day in this country. I am well aware that in many parts of my constituency—and the same could be said of Donegal, Clare, Kerry and other counties—there are people who may have £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 as a result of savings accumulated by reason of some members of these families going over to Britain and working there for a number of years and running the risk of being blown to pieces in cities such as Birmingham and London during the war years.

These people earned large sums of money which, in many cases, they saved. However, they appreciated that if they settled down on an uneconomic holding here in Ireland then in five or ten years they would be faced with the very same problem as faced their forefathers and that they, too, would have to emigrate to Britain. They appreciated, furthermore, that if the younger generation married and settled down and had a small family they might not then be in a position to go over to Britain or elsewhere, having regard to their added responsibilities, and, again, they would find themselves in the very distressing circumstances as their fathers or grandfathers before them. However, if these people had a guarantee of long-term employment even at much lower rates of pay than operate in Britain or America they would be happy to stay on the land. If these people knew that they could keep their little nest-egg of £500 or £1,000 or £2,000 without touching it and that one member of the family would have, say, a regular income of £5 a week at home, so that the housewife would be able to go to her grocer and pay for her groceries, then believe me they would not be in half the hurry to emigrate or to migrate.

These people realise that when a road is to be tarred in their area the work will last only a week or two. The same can be said in relation to minor drainage schemes, and so forth. However, when it comes to forestry, there is the prospect of long-term employment. The work is attractive and it is not hard. People in the country are most anxious to join the forestry squads. Furthermore, they take a pride in their work and in the fact that they are attached to the Forestry Department. They are prepared to go to the local dance hall and boast that they work in the Forestry Department.

Recently, I was in Belmullet and I came through Bangor Erris and on to Crossmolina. I met a man there who owned a public-house. He heard me address a meeting at a fair in Belmullet, when I stressed the importance of the Bangor Erris turf scheme and spoke of how useful these schemes would be. He told me on the roadside between Bangor Erris and Crossmolina: "Do not over-emphasise turf, because when these young fellows go to the dances they can hardly get a girl to dance, because they are ‘bogmen'; it is different with forestry because it is a higher class of job and a man has no difficulty in the world in getting a wife; do not be agitating, if you want to get votes, for bog schemes or turf schemes for you are a ‘bogman' if you work on the bog." Therefore, I would seriously say that forestry schemes are popular.

I know the Minister is enthusiastic and I have had lots of proof of his sincerity and of the enthusiasm of the officials he has behind him. I sincerely hope that, with all the enthusiasm we know of in him, it will not be necessary for Deputy MacBride to adopt the measures he said he would adopt next year, that he would walk across the floor of the House and leave us here. I sincerely hope that will not happen. I believe that with the passage of time and having regard to the fact that we have now an enthusiastic Minister, we will make progress in the time that lies ahead and it will not be necessary for Deputy MacBride to resort to the measures to which he suggested he might have to resort.

I have no extraordinary suggestions to make in connection with the forestry programme. I have certain ideas and have put some of them forward here. One of them is that we should increase substantially the price payable to farmers who have tracts of suitable land for sale. That is one way of increasing the pool of land for planting purposes. It seems to be generally agreed that you must have three years' reserve of land on hands in order to go ahead with a satisfactory programme. I would urge the Minister this evening to increase the pool of land as quickly as possible and the method I suggest to him is that the price to individual farmers for it be increased.

There is the question of individual farmers undertaking to plant land. I have always felt it to be important in any country to have individuals pulling together and helping the Government, even if the amount of work undertaken is not very great or even if, as in this case, the acreage of land they propose to plant is very small. The important thing is the individual effort, assisting in any effort the Government may be undertaking. I am very dissatisfied with the amount of grant payable to individuals who are prepared to plant a certain acreage, even an acre or two.

We need to make our people forestry-minded, we need to stress the importance of forestry in our economy; and even though the acre or two may not be a wonderful thing from the point of view of the national income it can be made a wonderful thing from the point of view of its educational value in a neighbourhood. The sum of £10 to-day to encourage a farmer is entirely inadequate, in my opinion, and it should be doubled, or trebled if necessary. Some progress has been made in that direction but we are not satisfied that enough progress has been made. I would urges the Minister to increase the amount substantially, to twice or three times the present amount, at the earliest possible date. Furthermore, I would ask him to make the best technical advice of his officials available to those people, from an educational point of view.

Emphasis seems to be laid on two types of forestry programme: the commercial scheme and the social scheme referred to in the report of Mr. D. Roy Cameron, the F.A.O. technical adviser. Speaking as a layman, and despite the fact that I have read a little about forestry though I must admit I was not able to digest a lot of it, I am convinced from the various reports I have read about forestry schemes in different parts of the world, that our forestry experts here are a little bit shaky about any land they may regard as a bit doubtful. Naturally, when one gets ill and sends for the doctor, he advises you to stay in bed for a few days. We have often known cases where a man is told to stay in bed for a week or a fortnight and gets up a few days ahead of the time and he might be all right if he is a little careful. You cannot blame the doctor for being over-careful and for having advised that man to take it easy, not to rush and to stay in bed for some time.

I think that the forestry people, in their honest and earnest desire to help the Minister and the Department and to help the country, are inclined to be a bit over-cautious. In the case of certain tracts of land they may advise that it is a bit risky to go in there as the quality of the timber would be poor. The Minister would be well-advised to say to those gentlemen: "I know you are very honest and sincere and that you are giving me very good advice, but so far as I am concerned I have the goodwill of the members of the Government behind me and also the goodwill of the Deputies and they, like me, are prepared to take certain chances."

If I interpret Deputy MacBride's speech properly, he feels, as I do, that in many parts of the country which he and I know in Achill, Erris and around Keel you have vast areas that appear to have been planted. I have seen with my own eyes the remains of a forest in those areas. The logs of timber are still in the ground and I can point them out to any forestry inspector or official or to the Minister or anyone else. If it were so that a generation or two ago, or even 1,000 years ago, it were possible to grow timber in those places, I fail to see why it is not possible to grow it there now. I think the Department officials should be more courageous and should be prepared to take risks and say to the Minister: "There is a certain amount of danger, but as we proceed further we will meet with success."

Do not be so anxious about the financial aspect of it and do not be so anxious about commercial timber. There are many things that trees and timber can do for this country if we embark on it in a proper way. Anyone who has left this country even for a short period must appreciate that we are very much behind in that regard. For the short time I was out of Ireland I was convinced that we are over-careful regarding certain classes of land in the areas to which I have referred. Having these areas planted would provide employment, tend to bring more tourists there and, over a long period, would help our country in a big way. If it has the effect of stemming the tide of emigration, if it has the effect of guaranteeing to the uneconomic holder on the mountainside a sum of £4, £5 or £10 a week, it is worth while. In spite of what Deputy Derrig thinks about it, it is that type of long term scheme, a forestry scheme, not road work or minor drainage schemes, which is the answer.

Seán Collins

Mr. S. Collins

I think we have had a very clear indication over the period of self-Government that the present system in relation to forestry has, to put it mildly, been a miserable failure. We find, at a period when we might reasonably have expected to see maturing forests, arguments going on as to the rate of acquisition of land, as to the suitability of land for planting, and that we are still embroiled in much technical conflict.

I am giving to the Minister credit for all his enthusiasm; I am prepared to give the Minister credit for all the efforts he intends to make, but I want to warn him in advance that, with all the will in the world, the machine he has at his disposal is not the machine that will give to this country the extension of forestry that we badly need. When I address the House this evening I hope to do it in an objective spirit, facing the problem as we know it to exist and realising the manner in which we have not been able to succeed; having finished, I hope to have set some kind of an alternative possibility before the Government.

I have only to traverse my own constituency, which once abounded in forests, forests that were cut down at the whim, and exploited for the benefit, of a previous conqueror or occupier of this State, to see what remains of those forests. I can see the barren land that the Forestry Department, of course, will tell you is unsuitable for planting. I do not believe a great deal of the poppycock that is going on about land suitable for planting or otherwise. I believe myself that we only have to analyse the position, particularly in Norway and Sweden, with climates even more severe than this and with altitudes much higher than our own altitudes here at home, to know that if we really have the will to get down to the problem, much of the land so long and continually described in this country as unplantable, is completely plantable and can produce not only this social type of forestry referred to by Deputy Derrig but can be the source of supply of very valuable commercial timber.

Speaking for myself in this discussion on forestry, I say the whole approach to forestry has been completely wrong. It has lacked vision, it has lacked courage and it has certainly lacked imagination. We must face once and for all the question: Is forestry worth while or not? I am convinced it is something really worth while and I shall give my reasons why. I do not suppose there is any source of investment in this country with a more positive ultimate return and a greater continuing employment content than forestry. Let us face reality. From the seeding to the thinning and ultimately to the cutting down and processing of the trees in a forest, we have a continuous cycle of useful employment. As year succeeds year we can actually see in the production of the timber itself the amelioration and the aggrandisement of the asset to the State.

I am taking it as axiomatic that timber is worth while in the nation's interest. Leaving for a moment the position of the continuous and enlarging employment within the State forestry service itself, let us face the possibility of having the raw materials source to establish industries such as wood pulping, box making and for the manufacture of various other types of timber by-products, and see how we can set about realising those potentialities.

We have heard a great deal of talk about money being no object for the development of forestry. I hope we can take that as the literal truth in relation to the Government's attitude. We have heard it as common case in this House over the years that in the final analysis the price per acre paid for the land is a comparatively insignificant portion of the ultimate cost per acre of the forest. We have heard here to-day reference being made to difficulties that exist in the acquisition of land, particularly in relation to the type of mountain-grazing owner who seeks an exchange-holding.

To digress for a moment before I come to my main argument, I would say that that to me presents a problem which should never have been a problem. It is only high-lighting the complete lack of co-ordination that exists in State Departments. Here are twin relations under the same Ministry—the Land Commission and the Forestry Department. We have in the Forestry Section now men who were very experienced officials in the Land Commission. They are under the same Minister, they are side by side virtually in the same building, and how it has not been possible to get some effective liaison over all this period of years that could have surmounted these difficulties I cannot understand.

I cannot see why, under this single administrative unit, it has not been possible for the Land Commission to have some sort of liaison with the Forestry Section whereby exchange of holdings might have taken place, as was suggested by the last speaker, to the extent of thousands of acres of land. It is this lack of co-ordination between different sections of this Department, this technical wall that has been built up, this series of ever mounting departmental objections that has stultified and stifled any real effort to get forests planted.

Words are easy, and what I shall urge on the Minister before I finish is that we should forget the words and see that the seedlings and the saplings are planted throughout the country and that the prolonged opposition to this plan by members of this House will be got rid of. I believe that 30 years have proved ineffective towards solving the problem. But conditions are changing and one must advance with the times and if one really wants to face the question of getting down to putting trees in the ground and of putting Irishmen throughout the land to work on that job, one will have to get down to a bold imaginative scheme. I am about to suggest one that I believe is practicable. I believe it would be quite simple to convince the Irish people of the real value of forests to this nation and I believe that we could obviate our financial worries by seeking from the Irish people, by way of a specific flotation for that purpose, all the money we require for a national drive at reafforestation.

I believe we could get that on the basis that the money would be directed into something that the people themselves could see, as year succeeded year, maturing into a worth-while disposable asset. The people could see an ultimate swelling of the national income when that asset was realised in the various ways that State forests are ultimately realised commercially. Having arrived at that situation, we could scrap most of the archaic methods that have arisen in relation to land acquisition and, if Governments are sincere—and former Ministers have said that the question of the price per acre of land at the acquisition stage is only an infinitesimal part of the ultimate cost of State forests— let us face this reality. In the light of these facts we would be able to get infinitely more land far more readily throughout the State.

I do not for a moment believe some of the poppycock being ventilated round this House on this question. I believe that if we can acquire land fast enough and can put sufficient people into employment in its preparation there is no need for all this nonsense about requiring to have a three years' supply of land in a pool for planting purposes. Apparently the Department have never considered the possibility of planting away on one side and of taking in land and recruiting labour on the other side. Those schemes that appear in black and white on Government files always lack reality in my view. I think we are trying to stultify ourselves by making our planning too definite and without sufficient elasticity. I would rather see a Government making limited mistakes rather than to see them conceiving these plans that are allowing no margin of error and that are putting into the future things that could be tackled now. I have said, not with any disregard to our technical knowledge but with a great deal of deliberation, that I do not believe a lot of the talk about unplantable land because we can look at certain areas, the far-flung fastnesses of Kilcrohane in the wildest mountainside of West Cork, and no matter what forestry experts will tell me I can see in visual fact trees growing there. People may say that such trees would not be of much commercial value but I say they would be of some value even if they were to be prepared only for the pulping machine so that they would reduce to some extent the hundreds of thousands of tons of wood pulp that arrive at the Dublin port to keep going some of our more progressive industries.

We have a capacity among the Irish people for doing their own job very well and I want to see in the technical experts of the Forestry Section the courage of being individualistic and the courage even to make a mistake or a failure in an effort to go ahead with the job of getting trees planted in this country. It is not such ancient history now that the Department would not be able to know where huge oak and beech forests, some of the best forests in Europe, abounded in this country some 100 to 150 years ago.

It is pitiful to drive through areas of South Kerry and wide areas of West Cork and find wild sweeps of hillside completely bare, some of is, it is true, in present economic conditions, supporting people, but all of it land more than suitable for producing timber.

I am sincere when I say that one will not make any progress in a forestry drive merely by nibbling at the problem. We talk about emigration. We talk about employment and the lack of employment. I firmly believe that if we go about it in the proper way, with the kind of imagination and drive that was behind the conception of the land reclamation scheme, and sink all the capital necessary in afforestation, which is something that we all know will give a good return, we will in time encourage many of the young people who are fleeing the land to stay at home. The beauty about afforestation is that if the Department goes about it in the right way they will be able to recruit on the holding they acquire all the labour available either for laying out the ground or for planting the actual trees.

That is an aspect of forestry the Government will have to consider. If the Government is anxious to keep at home the second and the third and the fourth sons of the small farmer and give them some occupation which has an appeal for them and which keeps them in touch with their own essential environment, then there is an easy way open to them; all that abounds in the land that can be planted. The employment potential there will be an ever-increasing one as the forest grows and comes to maturity. Not only will there remain the basic employment first offered but there will be as the years go by an ever-increasing intake.

There is no doubt that the Department is in some way simultaneously hidebound and cock-eyed in relation to the amount of land required for afforestation. I agree that a substantial amount of land may be necessary to establish a centre as such. Nevertheless, I cannot see any reason why they should not be more realistic about actual plantations. If there is sufficient land to establish a centre there should be no difficulty in seeding and setting out smaller plantations around that centre.

I have had practical experience of this situation. People are offering land around the Goosaun Gap, and because there are a few fields between X's 40 acres and Y's 60 acres it is not touched. In the peninsula of Castletownbere there have been generous offers of land; again, because there is something in between and a single unit cannot be achieved, nothing is done. I think that is defeating and killing forestry development.

I have talked here on several occasions about forestry. This is the last occasion on which I shall talk. In future I shall look for action. I believe a successful forestry programme only requires a bit of initiative and some sincerity of purpose to evolve a system which will give us trees. Aiming at targets of 25,000 acres per year does not interest me now. Emigration has become such a haemorrhage, particularly in rural Ireland, that the time has come when we must grapple boldly with the problem of reafforestation because of its employment potential. Ten years hence it will be no good looking for the young men of 20, 21 and 22 years of age in the Beara Peninsula, the Goleen Peninsula or the Kilcrohane Peninsula. Let an inspector from the Department of Lands go down now into Kilcrohane and have a look at the land on which pinus and cypress were grown and then go back and consider what land is plantable.

I am not criticising Ministers or Governments. I am talking of the stark realities. At best in 1955 we can only say that some puny effort has been made at reafforestation. No Government can boast about what has been done up to this. Not only is there a tremendous employment potential ready to be tapped with a subsequent enhancement of the land as year succeeds year but there is also the prospect of an improved investment as time goes on. If we look far enough ahead we can see a source of raw material for many of our industries within the present industrially starved area of the West and in South-West Munster.

Let us approach this problem in a realistic way despite the difficulties that confront us. This country has overcome many difficulties. The very people upon whom we must rely for the success of our reafforestation programme have themselves successfully emerged out of the grip of a landlord tyranny which it was thought could never be loosened. The Government is mad that has not got the courage to invest all the money necessary in afforestation, sweeping away all the difficulties. I would prefer to see trees planted and failing to reach maturity rather than have people saying the land is unplantable. I think there is very little land that will not grow some variety of tree. I think, by and large, there is some effective use to which every tree that is grown can be put. The time has come for an expansion in our programme. The time has come for the exercise of vision and imagination in co-ordinating all sections of our community in the drive to get land and, having got it, planting trees in it.

I make this appeal to the Government because I see year follow year and parliamentary question follow parliamentary question but I cannot see any forestry centre being established in Glengariff after eight years of constant pressure here. The land is there. Certain difficulties have arisen. A lot of the difficulties are more technical than real.

If the present system of land acquisition is not suitable, and if there are all kinds of technical difficulties in the way of getting land, then let the Minister and his advisers come in here with a simplified code to enable acquisition to be carried out. If he can give us a guarantee that it is going to speed up the getting of land and the putting of people into employment on that land planting trees, he can be assured that his Bill will get a more expeditious passage through this House than any other Bill ever got. What we want to see now is that all those difficulties are overcome and the job undertaken— Chum glóire Dé agus onóra na hEireann.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

I am going to be very brief in my remarks on this Estimate, and for a number of reasons. The first is that I have spoken on this Estimate on every occasion since I came into the House in 1948, and I feel that I could not add anything new to what I have already put on record in connection with the importance of forestry to our economy. That is the main reason why I feel that my contribution should be short. The other reason, of course, has to do with the attitude of the present Minister for Lands and Forestry.

Before speaking on the Estimate for the Department of Lands, I went to a good deal of trouble to secure facts and figures in connection with that Estimate. I found, when the Minister came to reply, that he came into the House with a long rigmarole of a prepared statement, handed to him, I presume, by some official of his Department. I am very sorry that the Minister should have been foolish enough to act as the mouthpiece for people who sit in the back.

Cormac Breslin

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the Minister who is responsible for the Department.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

That is why I feel that, in the debate on the Forestry Estimate, it would be very foolish for me to dwell at any great length on the faults of the Department in connection with forestry because it would mean that we would have the Minister coming here with another long statement to refute the facts put before him.

Deputy S. Collins has stated that the time for talk has ended and that he wants action taken. From my experience of Deputy Collins, I can say this for him, that I have always heard him speak here as an ardent advocate of forestry. I suppose that he, and others like myself, can be described as amateurs. Very little heed has been paid to us, and we have made no progress as regards impressing any Government of the importance of tackling forestry in an inspiring way. It is most depressing to have to come here year after year urging on Governments the desirability of going ahead courageously with forestry, and then in finding, as each year goes by, that little or nothing is being done in the way of expansion. One is reminded of the words of the famous song: "Only God can make a tree." I think that He will have to come down here and plant trees, as far as this country is concerned.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

And even if He did, the Deputy would find fault with Him.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

There is hardly enough being planted at the moment to make a decent coffin for the Minister. We can see from this Estimate the little in the way of expansion that is to take place in the coming year in the forestry programme, despite the fact that on both sides of the House we seem to have reached agreement on the desirability of expanding afforestation. Despite that, we see that no major effort is being made.

I have a very distinct recollection of hearing the objections and the difficulties that were outlined to us in the past. We were told that one of the major difficulties holding up affiorestation in the past was equipment. I have heard it trotted out up and down the country and in this House that there was a shortage of wire netting, and that because of that the rabbits were doing terrible depredations. Consequently, the difficulty of procuring sufficient supplies of wire netting acted, we were told, as a means of holding up forestry. That was before the present Minister came into office. In recent years, a gentleman called "Myxo" fixed up the rabbit situation so that the particular difficulty with regard to wire netting can never be trotted out again. That was one good job that myxomatosis did anyway.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

The hares are left, you know.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Another difficulty that came along immediately after that relating to the wire netting was that of acquiring land. I think it was in March, 1951, that I questioned the present Minister as to whether he would be in a position to implement a 25,000 acre programme in 1952, and if he was not, would he give the reasons why. At that time, the Minister said that he did not see any great difficulty with regard to the acquisition of land for afforestation. To-day, we find the Minister pointing out that his main difficulty is in regard to the acquisition of land. He has changed his mind from what it was in 1951 and 1952 as regards land acquisition, and says it is the biggest problem that faces him now.

Perhaps I should congratulate the Minister, a thing I seldom or ever do, on his statement that he proposes to bring a Bill before the House to help to speed up the acquisition of land. I hope to see that measure before this House very soon. The sooner it is brought before the House the better. It will afford proof of the sincerity of the Minister in getting the programme under way. If there is the hold-up that has been referred to, and if there is this desire to expand afforestation, surely there is nothing to prevent the Government to-morrow morning from giving priority to such essential legislation so that an expansion in the forestry programme may take place immediately.

May I ask, what hope have we that this Bill will see the light of day between now and the end of the present session? I want to ask the Minister if that measure will be passed through this House before the Dáil rises for the summer recess. I want that as a test from the Minister. Let us have the introduction of the Bill soon, so that it can be passed through all its stages and be brought into effect when the House rises for the summer recess. If the Minister gives me a promise now that he will have that Bill passed before the end of July, then I will not delay him very much longer on this Estimate. Can we have that promise from the Minister?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

I cannot give that promise. I will bring the Bill into the House as soon as possible. It will then be for the House to say what it will do with it. That is the business of the House, not mine.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Speaking as one lonely individual in this House, the Minister can be assured that if the Bill he is to introduce will in any way speed up this problem, and will help to get the forestry programme under way, there will be no difficulty put up to the Minister.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

How does the Deputy know that? The Deputy may agree with the Bill, but every other Deputy may oppose it bitterly. Who knows?

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

What is the use of bringing in legislation to speed up the acquisition of land if you are now telling the House before hand that it is liable to meet with opposition?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

I did not say that. I said "who knows".

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Surely the Minister and his own Party and the other Government groups at the present time will be prepared to support this Bill which he intends to introduce? Surely the Minister has not come in here and declared in his opening statement that he was about to bring in a Bill to deal with this problem without having consulted his colleagues and without having their approval in connection with this measure? If there is Government approval of this proposed measure the Government have a substantial majority in this House to pass that legislation without any trouble and I do not believe for one second that there would be the slightest opposition from the opposite side of the House if this measure would help to speed up the acquisition of land.

Seán Moylan

Mr. Moylan

It depends on its nature.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

May I put it this way so? The sooner we see the Bill the better. I am sure that if the Bill meets with the approval of the Opposition it can be put through this House inside the next three weeks. I urge on the Minister to let us see the Bill within the next fortnight. Let us see the terms of it. If the terms meet with the approval of all Parties in this House special time can be made available in the House to ensure that the Bill is passed through all its stages with the utmost speed. Will the Minister promise that?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

It will come the very moment it is drafted.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Can the Minister tell us when it will be drafted?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

That is a matter for the parliamentary draftsman.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

There we go again!

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

I am sure the Deputy's heart is broken with all the slow-coaches he has to meet.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

There are ways of dealing with that, but I will restrain myself at the moment. It is one series of excuses after another when the question of afforestation comes up. The Minister stated that he will bring in a Bill. I will not pursue that any further except to repeat: let us have the Bill so that legislation can be enacted before the Dáil rises at the end of July or the beginning of August. If the measure is not before the House then I will look on the Minister's statement in opening this debate as an excuse to get him past this House on this occasion. We will not see the Bill until this time 12 months if he gets away without introducing it before the end of July.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Why does the Deputy make remarks like that? I told him that the very moment I get the Bill I will bring it in. I hope to be able to introduce it before the Dáil goes into recess.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Collins rightly stated that there seems to be no courage or inspiration in regard to the methods by which afforestation is tackled. There has been no vision on the part of the various Governments in office in this connection. This is not a personal criticism. I am not levelling it at any particular holder of the office of Minister. I level it at the mentality which seems to have prevailed here for the past 30 years.

If we compare the progress, or lack of progress, in afforestation here with what has been accomplished in other countries, then we can have a true picture of the situation here. I know that Deputies will criticise the fact that we draw comparisons with other countries. It will be stated that conditions are different in New Zealand, Scotland or elsewhere, but when it comes down to afforestation, conditions are not so different at all. As a matter of fact, the climatic conditions in Ireland are much more suitable for the growing of certain types of timber than the conditions in Scotland and New Zealand.

What has happened in New Zealand? Here is a quotation taken from the Irish Farmers' Journal, dated 12th February, 1955:—

"In June next, the largest man made forests in the world will begin to yield their first big dividend, when the £28,000,000 pulp and paper mill goes into production in New Zealand. When the world economic depression was on between 1920 and 1924, New Zealand decided to plant the forest. Now, some 30 years later, the payoff is at hand. This month felling operations began and thus was launched an enterprise which will save the country millions of dollars a year for timber and paper products previously imported from Canada and the United States. Overnight, as it were, the country's timber industry, hitherto virtually nonexistent, will jump to fourth place in the nation's economy, beaten only by the meat, butter, and wool-producing industries."

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Is there anything there about a great number of forests going to waste because they were not thinned at the right time?

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

That is a picture of what has happened in New Zealand. Only a few months ago in New Zealand a £28,000,000 pulp and paper mill went into production. The afforestation programme that led up to the opening of that pulp and paper factory started between 1920 and 1924. The fruits are being reaped to-day with tremendous benefits economically, socially and every other way for the people of New Zealand.

What is the position in Ireland? I do not think there is any need to elaborate on it. Deputies are sick and tired listening to a description of the puny efforts that have been made during the past 30 years to expand the programme. It was men with courage and inspiration who were responsible for the programme in New Zealand. When I make that statement I am not casting aspersions on the men of courage and inspiration who were responsible for achieving the amount of freedom we have here to-day but it would appear that their courage, strength and virility were sapped as a result of the physical efforts they had to put into achieving that freedom. When it came to an expansion of afforestation these men felt the task was too big for them. At any rate, the results to-day show that New Zealand have us well beaten when it comes to the question of planting and the development of the nation.

We have fallen behind at the stage when the younger generations are born. I think we should now plan to leave something behind us in the way of a legacy for development for the next generation and the generations to follow. That is the picture so far as New Zealand is concerned. What is the picture with regard to our nextdoor neighbour—Scotland? We had a description from Deputy Derrig and I think the Minister himself about the great efforts being made in experimental work in Ireland to utilise land that up to the present was not considered suitable for planting—land which nobody thought could grow trees for commercial purposes.

That experimental work has been going on in Scotland for many years. In Scotland they believe that with afforestation and hydro-electric development they will be able to increase the population and give employment to four times the number of people at the moment in Scotland. They have tackled the problem in a big way. What is the position in England? It was a proud boast in this House that in spite of the lack of netting wire we were able to plant 4,000 acres each year during the war. Our neighbour, undergoing bombing and all the horrors and hardships of a war, kept up a minimum programme of 30,000 acres of afforestation per year.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

During the war?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

No, no. In the year 1948, when I was there, they had not reached 5,000 out of the 100,000 acres target they had aimed at.

Seán Moylan

Mr. Moylan

Were they planting trees in 1940 and 1941? They must have been damn fools.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

I repeat that all during the war years the planting programme of 30,000 acres was kept up by the British. I do not care what the Minister or the ex-Minister think. Let them produce proof. The Minister states he visited Scotland or England in 1948 and saw with his own eyes what happened.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

It was the heads of the Forestry Commission who told me.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Will the Minister produce evidence that I am wrong in stating that 30,000 acres were planted annually?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

The Forestry Commissioners told me.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Let us see the evidence here in this House. Having criticised the situation and the lack of progress that is being made, it is only right that I should now repeat what I have said on other occasions as to what should be done. I believe that the forestry section of the Department is too closely associated with the Department of Lands. That may sound strange, but where you have such a slow-coach as the Land Commission functioning in this country and having a grip on forestry they are bound to slow up progress in that section. The Minister can do very little about the programme, because, as far as I can see, in all this business of forestry and land division, he is acting as a mouthpiece for the Department.

Cormac Breslin

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And takes full responsibility.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

I cannot see how the Minister can take full responsibility for matters over which he says he has no control.

Cormac Breslin

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In this House a Minister takes full responsibility for the Department.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy is inclined to mix forestry and lands.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

They are both under the Minister and the Department of Lands is deeply concerned in the question of forestry. One of the difficulties in which the Forestry Department finds itself involved has already been described by Deputy Collins. Where a suitable tract of land has been offered in one area and another suitable tract offered a short distance away, in between we find a couple of individuals who are not prepared to give their land so that one compact scheme can be put into operation. We are told that that is one of the biggest difficulties and the Minister has stated that he is not prepared to use compulsory powers in order to acquire land in a case like that.

On a previous occasion when I mentioned the use of compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for forestry purposes the Minister as much as suggested that there was something outrageous in advocating the use of compulsory powers. I do not think that there is. I think that there are certain circumstances where compulsion is necessary as far as the acquisition of land for forestry purposes is concerned. Of course if you antagonise people in a locality you may be building up a dangerous situation when a forestry programme gets under way but where you have one or two individuals alone who are tying up the Forestry Department I think the right should be there for the Minister to acquire that land in the interests of the nation.

We have at the present time the powers vested in the E.S.B. to take over 10,000 or 15,000 acres of land, including villages, and flood the whole countryside in the interests of the community generally. There is no criticism of the powers vested in a State body to do that. Nobody can interfere with them. The Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot do so. That power is vested in the E.S.B. and they are entitled to acquire land whenever they need it for the good of the nation. As far as the Minister for Lands is concerned, it is little use for him to say that that power might be used in an outrageous way.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

And the board would not use it.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

I do not think the Minister has got me correctly.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

I have you correctly all right and whatever hopes we had of a forestry board the Deputy has slaughtered it now.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

I am dealing with the question of compulsory powers of land acquisition for forestry purposes. If it is right to give such powers to a State body like the E.S.B. what is wrong with similar powers being made available to the Forestry Section for national purposes? That is the only comparison I had to draw. Of course if a crank is entitled to hold up a scheme in any particular area no money can be expended in that area and it is so much money saved to go back into the kitty for whatever Government is in power. It is only natural for any Minister for Finance to keep a tight grip on the purse and if he can take back £10,000 or £15,000 which is not being spent for the purpose for which it is intended he will take that money back and use it for something else.

I am amazed at times at the way in which the present Minister ties himself up in knots when he talks about the dangers that arise in giving too much power to acquire land. He came in here an hour ago and waved the big stick at the bucko down the country who holds up a resettlement programme on the land. He threatened all kinds on the man who would not agree to the decision of the Land Commission inspector and he said: "I will fix that fellow". Within the next minute he comes along and says it would be wrong to acquire power to get land compulsorily for forestry. It seems to me that one is tinged with the Molotov mentality immediately one suggests that power should be taken for that purpose.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

This is another trip to Moscow.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister should realise what happened to the other fellow over there. He is now looking after fire stations. I do not know what kind of a job we will give the Minister. The last one was the Pigs and Bacon Commission.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy will have to put up with me as I am.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

I can put up with him all right but by putting up with the Minister here the people down the country are being strained to the utmost.

The test of our sincerity in expanding forestry can be judged by the amount of money now being made available. As far as this Estimate is concerned the Minister is very careful to point out that if more money is needed it will be made available. In other words, if he gets a tremendous offer of land, all of a sudden, in any part of the country and if he is not covered in the Estimate for the necessary amount for the purchase of that land, then money will be made available for the purpose. That is no way to go about a programme of this kind.

Four or five years ago—it is five, now, actually—the Minister, with a great flourish of trumpets, came along and said the minimum target in future years would be 25,000 acres per annum. I was one of the Deputies in the House in 1948 who advocated a lot more than 25,000 acres per annum and we were sneered at and laughed at by Deputies in this House for suggesting doubling or trebling that figure. We felt that if we could get the 25,000 as a start it would not be too bad. What is the position now after four or five years have gone by? In the coming year we will be lucky if we get 15,000 acres.

By means of Dáil questions over the last two or three years I have been trying to extract from the Minister when we may expect to see the 25,000-acre programme in operation. It is impossible to get that out of him. At times he is a very good-hearted, jolly man, but in spite of all that generous approach, it is very hard to extract from him when we can expect to see the 25,000 acres being planted. He is able to cover that up with a nice, kindhearted front——

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

I can harden up now and again.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

It is all very fine for the Minister to say that, but I would like him, in replying, to tell us if he has thrown that promise overboard, the promise that 25,000 acres of forest would be planted each year. There is no good in making statements to the public by means of daily papers, the wireless and this House that it is intended to get a minimum programme of 25,000 acres per annum if we are not going to get that programme. Let us stick to our words. The 15,000 acres that we will get in the coming year are a long way off 25,000 acres. The public can only judge political Parties by their statements and if we are going to judge the programmes in future for afforestation and other things by the statements of Ministers, and if we find it is so much hot air what confidence can the public have in institutions such as this and what confidence can they have in statements made by Ministers or Taoiseachs or anybody else?

I want the Minister to let us know when he will be in a position to carry out that specific promise made four years ago that the minimum acreage planted per year would be 25,000 acres. That is number one, and number two, I want him to tell us if he will ensure that this new Bill he has mentioned will be drafted with the utmost speed, within the next week, so that it can come before the House, get all stages through, and become law before the Dáil rises? If necessary, I would suggest to the Minister that the parliamentary draftsmen be taken off whatever other Bills they are on—in view of the importance of this, as the Minister himself has pointed out—and that priority be given to the drafting of this Bill so that we can leave this House at the end of July and rest fully convinced that between July and next March the Department will be geared up to the highest pitch for the acquisition of land so that this minimum acreage of 25,000 will be achieved in the following year at the latest.

I hope the Minister will clarify the position with regard to those two points when replying to this debate.

Seán Moylan

Mr. Moylan

I listened to the Minister replying to the Lands debate and introducing the Estimate for Forestry and it seemed to me that since the conversion of Saul there was no greater miracle than the change of opinion that has come about in the Minister's mind. But his past pursues him. The Minister came in here and he was not talking about a minimum of 25,000 acres of land—it was 60,000 the Minister wanted when he came in first. Of course that was inexperience. Then, an acreage of 25,000 was decided on and is not yet achieved. The Minister may be quite happy where he is but I think he should be very unhappy—he should be over here because all his colleagues who were so enthusiastic about forestry when he was enthusiastic are now attacking him. Deputy McQuillan dislikes him intensely——

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

Not personally.

Seán Moylan

Mr. Moylan

Not personally, but from the point of view of afforestation. Deputy MacBride abhors him, and his colleague, Deputy O'Hara, has not the slightest use for him. I think he should get out and come over here.

We are, none of us, forestry experts, none of us has any practical training and we have no technical knowledge but as a result of our experience, reading and observation and association with public life we have convinced ourselves of the need for and the value of forestry and we are all anxious that there should be the biggest annual planting programme possible, and while it may vary in different years it should be as extensive as is consonant with a proper system of silviculture.

If I have one complaint to make about the Forestry Department it is that it still retains its membership of the dark brotherhood—it does not advertise. There is money for exhibition purposes included in the Estimate. There is a little exhibition every year in the Horse Show in Dublin, something like Titania's Palace and very pretty and it is shown only in Dublin. One of the reasons why forestry is not popular in the country —and it is not popular—is because the general public believe that Irish wood cannot compete with foreign wood. We have saw mills in our forests, we have drying kilns, we have apparently the most modern machinery, and I think one very effective exhibition that forestry could make, and not merely in Dublin but in Cork and other cities as well, is a stack of kiln-dried timber, sawn and dried in our own factories. That would be a more convincing exhibit than the miniature trees shown in geranium pots in the Dublin exhibition.

Again, about popularising forestry— I can get no estimate from the Minister as to the value of the plantations we already have. I was told by the Minister on April 27th that such an estimate could not be made because of the difficulties of volumetric assessment. The polysyllabic expression supplied to the Minister for the puzzlement of Deputies serves only to evoke from me a very rude monosyllable. Public opinion is a force and some attention should be paid to arousing public interest in forestry. Any knowledge or interest in forestry is a purely urban matter while the land suitable for forestry is the private property of the rural population, the people we want to interest. If the people of the rural districts can be taught an appreciation of the value of forestry, if they can be assured that it is a help and not a hindrance to agriculture, it will be much easier to secure their co-operation and without that co-operation, we cannot go ahead.

Up to the present, as Deputies have heard to-night, our main difficulty has been that of land acquisition. It still remains our main difficulty and, no matter what legislation we pass, it will be our main difficulty. The main portion of the land on which we must depend for forestry will be mountain land held in common and it is not premature on the part of the Minister to introduce legislation for acquisition, but the legislation should be as suggested in that section of the American Forestry Commission's Report. Compulsion is never a commendable course and particularly so in regard to land for forestry.

The Minister should know that much of the land that has to be acquired is subject to ancient equities and burdens and the result is sometimes that, when mountain land is acquired from a landowner, he has to pay as much for the clearing of these equities and burdens as he gets from the Land Commission. I do not know where the money goes because very often the people whom the burden should benefit are people untraceable and unknown. Possibly some legal gentleman may instruct us on where the money goes.

I think that, in view of the pats on the back which the Minister gives himself, we ought to have some definite information from year to year in regard to this question of land acquisition. "Following the acceleration of land acquisition," says the Minister, "which I was glad to be able to bring about during my previous period in office...." Rubbish! Deputies and the public should be told how land is acquired and in what manner it is acquired and each year the Minister, if he is in earnest, should publish a list of the lands acquired, of the individual acquisitions and of the time that passed from the time when negotiations were entered into for acquisition and the time the Forestry Division was placed in full title. Then we would know who it was took action to get the land and who it was not, and we would have less patting on the back by the Minister.

I mention this matter because I notice that, in reply to a Dáil question on November 10th, 1954, the Minister said that 25½ acres had been acquired in Laois and that negotiations were in progress regarding five adjoining areas totalling 50 acres. Given the information I suggest, Deputies and the public would realise the difficulties associated with this piecemeal but necessary method of acquisition of land. It has been repeated on a number of occasions that one factor of delay has been lack of money and I heard it suggested a few times in this House that a forestry loan should be floated and the enthusiasts outside the Dáil have been harping regularly on the need for a forestry loan. I think that in his reply the Minister should clear up this question once and for all. As far as I know, every Government has willingly apportioned sufficient money to deal with forestry every year. There is never a rejection of any demand for money for forestry and if there is any difficulty about the money, all the Minister needs to do is to come into the Dáil and get the money voted.

I have read recently again the triennial report of the Department of Forestry and it seemed to me as I read it that it set out forestry objectives very clearly, indicating difficulties and obstructions and showed how these had been overcome, and I regarded that report as a complete answer to all the criticism directed to forestry policy in this country. I was the more surprised then to read on Saturday, May 21st, of this year, an article in the Farmers' Journal. The Farmers' Journal is a very valuable paper, and, being a paper catering for the rural people, its help in regard to forestry should be expected by the Minister and would be most valuable to him; but this article was written by a past president of the Macra Na Feirme organisation. The article has no constructive value and it need not be considered, except for two charges contained in it.

One charge is that the Forestry Division had been acquiring and planting land that could be better used for agricultural purposes, that it had an unwholesome enthusiasm to extend the foresty area at the expense of the agricultural area. To my knowledge, it has never been the policy of any Irish Government to utilise for forestry any land that could be used for agricultural purposes and, to my knowledge, much of the land acquired by the Forestry Division could not be used for forestry or any other purpose until the rather recent advent of the power plough. Therefore, I feel that the charge made in the Farmers' Journal, which should be helping forestry, by an ex-president of Macra Na Feirme, an organisation that should be helping forestry, could not be sustained. But there was a second charge that the forest plantation at Kilworth, County Cork, was a failure and indicative of the general results of forest policy. I made a number of inquiries here and there and on the spot into the charge. I found it unbelievable, but I was sub-appalled to discover that it was substantially, if not wholly, true, and it is clear to me that these plantations had been grossly neglected.

The Minister must face the responsibility for that neglect. I realise, of course, that we must make allowance for a percentage of failure in forestry— that is unavoidable; but in view of what I know about Kilworth, I am disturbed about the general condition of forestry and I think the Minister should be perturbed about it. I think the Minister should immediately undertake an investigation into the whole forestry position as it exists, without bothering too much about progress at the moment. If Kilworth is an example of a forestry operation then there is grave need for a change and urgent need for ministerial intervention. I attack no blame to the Minister. He may have been deceived, as I was, by the reports of the experts and by his confidence, which is natural, in them.

When I see an increase of £2,000 in travelling expenses in the Minister's statement, I begin to wonder if that has anything to do with our experts. Where are they? Are they operating in the forest areas, as they should be, cognisant of everything that is happening there, ready on the spot to repair error or to meet any difficulty that arises, or are they, as I suspect, sitting in offices in Dublin, file-perfect and without any information as to what is going on in the forest areas? The Minister will tell us how many officers are working outside and how much of the ministerial staff is sitting in offices in Dublin where it is of very little use.

I heard it said at a recent meeting of Dublin University graduates here in Dublin that our forestry programme was adversely affected by antagonism between the administrative and the ministerial staffs. Surely both groups have their specific responsibility, in regard to which there should be no need for clash or antagonism? Dr. James Deeney in the autumn, 1953, Number of a magazine called Administration wrote of the psychological hyper-sensitivity of the professional civil servant. That condition does apparently exist inside the Forestry Division, with evil results to our forests and its remedy may not be a purge or any blood-letting but a determined effort by the Minister, supported by every Party in the Dáil.

There has been, in recent years, a demand for the substitution of a board for the Forestry Division and the demand had a certain support inside the Fianna Fáil Party as well as amongst the various Parties forming the Coalition, as they existed: I am not including the Minister personally. It is claimed that such a board could make revolutionary changes, could develop planting on a much larger scale and create and supply a market for Irish timber much earlier than is possible under existing conditions.

Any method whereby we can secure better results is worthy of consideration but trees are not cabbages and there is a limit to what can be accomplished in relation to forest growth and development. The Minister should not permit himself to be rushed into any decision about this board. He might consider whether the demand is not a product of this psychological hyper-sensitivity of the technical expert. Some years ago, the Minister will remember, there was a demand for a housing board. Its merits and its virtues were proclaimed from the house-tops. If such a board had been created and had the success that has been achieved by the ordinary routine methods we would be tipping our hats to the supermen who had been successful.

I am not opposed to the creation of a board when conditions are such that that type of control and organisation can function effectively but our immediate problem is the acquisition of land and the planting of trees. If I discover, as in Kilworth, that we have not been as successful in the latter efforts as I believed we had been, I am still certain that we can be successful and that our best chance of meeting success is under the existing system, effectively undertaken and properly controlled. I know that the Minister, once he got away from the 60,000 acres per annum, has shown a deep personal interest in the Forestry Department, but I feel now that his interest must be transmuted into a critical and aggressive attitude towards the problems of the forestry organisation, if that organisation is to function as it should.

The time will come when the question of land acquisition and planting will no longer be the main and urgent problem. Other problems will present themselves such as the sale, utilisation and disposal of forest products, but while that time and those problems lie in the future it is not too soon to investigate possibilities and probabilities. There are 4,000 articles in daily use in the U.S.A. that derive from forest products and information on matters affecting or arising from forest development should be compiled in the Forestry Division as part of a research laboratory, which I hope has been created.

I want now to deal with a few points which were raised by Deputies. Deputy O'Hara invited Deputy McQuillan to go into the Dáil Library and read the speeches—I suppose by the Clann na Talmhan Party only. He should remember that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The people read away back into the days should read away back into the days even before Fianna Fáil first took office and see what the attitude of mind then was towards forestry. I am not saying it was a dishonest attitude. I am not saying there was not at the time some justification for that attitude. However, if Deputies will read what was said in 1928, 1929 and 1930 and compare the attitude of mind in regard to forestry in those years to the general attitude towards forestry to-day they will have to admit that, like the Minister's opinion, there has been a tremendous change.

Again, Deputy O'Hara spoke about the exchange of holdings and Deputy McQuillan complained about the too-close association of the Land Commission and the Forestry Division. I think that that close association could be made very valuable. There are rich resources in the mountains here and there are vast tracts of land of low valuation and little value on which a farmer makes a comfortable living. If land is acquired from him at the forestry price it is not sufficient to give him the same living in any other farm. If the Minister will get for 50 acres of reasonable land 300 or 400 acres of mountain land capable of growing trees, then he should get the Land Commission to make an exchange of that nature. I think Deputy O'Hara is in the right in that.

I am worried about this legislation of the Minister's. Compulsion, again, is a very dangerous thing—compulsion for forestry—because forestry is such a delicate matter. It can be injured so easily and if you create resentment by compulsion you will have no forestry. The Minister would be ill-advised to introduce legislation other than that suggested in the American Forestry Commission Report.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

The Bill will not take that shape at all—that is, it will not take the shape the Deputy fears.

Seán Moylan

Mr. Moylan

What about Deputy McQuillan?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Do not mind him.

Seán Moylan

Mr. Moylan

Deputy McQuillan is dismissed.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

I do not mean that in any derogatory way. The Deputy gave his own ideas of what he thought right, but they are far from being given effect to.

Seán Moylan

Mr. Moylan

I do not think the Minister would be justified in encroaching on land that can be utilised for reasonable agricultural use. That would merely intensify the attack, the unjustifiable attack, which was made in the Farmers' Journal, on any efforts to provide forestry. That type of compulsion is not valuable. Compulsion can be used only on a very marginal basis.

I have grave doubts about boards. If a statutory board is to be more successful than the Forestry Division in the acquisition of land, it must be given wide powers; and boards have a habit of utilising their powers to the fullest extent. Not once but many times was that brought to my notice in my constituency—and possibly that is the experience of other Cork Deputies—in regard to the Lee electrification scheme. I have no personal knowledge of it, not being involved in the matter at all, and I speak only from report. The report I got from those affected by the Lee electricity scheme is this. A gentleman approaches the farmer whose land is to be acquired and in spite of all his suavity and courtesy he has beneath that veneer all the capacities of a tangler at a fair and he offers the farmer the lowest bargaining price he can think of. Then he argues and goes up a bit, hoping the farmer will come down a bit.

Eventually, when he has got the farmer softened up—because the farmer has got to go, anyhow—he will suggest arbitration. Then the arbitrator comes along. I do not know what form of arbitration takes place, but judging by the reactions from the farmers in County Cork the arbitration board is concerned with acquiring the land at the lowest possible price and has no concern about and probably no knowledge of market values and no realisation of what it means to the farmer to be disturbed in his holding and no realisation that money is no good to the farmer if he has been deprived of his means of livelihood. That is what boards do. I do not want a forestry board to be appointed with powers like that, which will have no concern for the people who are, after all, like the Minister's congests, the backbone of the country.

I think the Minister should come over here. We will give him all the help on a sensible basis that we can give him and he will not be arguing with people who have not learned anything. I congratulate the Minister on what he has learned and I say that he has gone a long way.

James Tully

Mr. James Tully

This debate has brought home very forcibly how futile it can be to discuss such an important matter as forestry here. We have been debating it for hours and there seemed to be agreement between all Parties that forestry was terribly important and nothing but the best was good enough for those engaged in it; and yet absolutely nothing can come out of the whole thing, because the Minister and those in charge will go on in their own sweet way when the debate is over.

John McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

It is like the Irish language—lip-service.

James Tully

Mr. James Tully

There are some points which affect my own constituency that I would like to touch on. The first is the size of the forest, the amount of land required before the Forestry Section will set up a centre. Unlike Deputies from the South or West, we have no huge tracts of land which are absolutely useless for agriculture in Country Meath, but we have small areas of scrub, cutaway bog and swamp which could be utilised for forestry. The big trouble is that even if those who own these places were anxious to sell, as I believe many of them would be, the sites would be turned down as there is a minimum requirement of above 70 acres, I think. I understand that in certain circumsances 50 acres may be accepted, but I am not sure if that information is correct.

The Forestry Department should encourage the growing of trees in much smaller acreages. If they do, I am sure they could easily increase the acreage under trees, particularly in the Midlands, and increase it very quickly. If they are not prepared to take over control themselves, I suggest some encouragement be given to farmers to grow trees on their own land. I know there is an arrangement by which shelter belts can be grown, but even the Minister will agree that the type of shelter belt that is being encouraged in order to have the assistance of the nearest forester is far too large for any reasonably-sized farmer or small farmer. The Minister should consider a scheme whereby such middle-sized and small farmers would be encouraged to grow trees on part of their land which is not suitable for agriculture. Then they would have an interest in the growing of trees in the Midlands and that would serve a very useful purpose.

I am glad to hear the Minister say he will introduce legislation to take over some of the land which has been held from the Department by reason of legal tangles. Outside my own constituency, in Country Louth there is an enormous amount of mountain land which would be suitable. Many of the people there are only too anxious to sell, but there are people who live as far away as Australia. New Zealand and South America, who do not know that that particular piece of common land exists, who have a share in the land because their forefathers owned portion of it and as a result the land is being held up. I hope that in his new Bill the Minister will find some way of getting around that legal tangle, so as to allow land like that to be taken over for forestry purposes.

On the question of pulp mills, I do not know what the approach of the Department is. I would suggest that they should consider having small pulp mills utilised in the larger forests of the country where the trees are mature. Somebody told me recently—I do not know how true it may be—that there are parts of the country where these trees have become mature and are not being properly handled at the present time. I would hate to think that should happen but if it is so, no time can be lost in dealing with this matter. I think that using it both for pulp and also for ordinary boards and timber is the ideal way of dealing with this mature timber.

Unlike the previous Minister, I think that the best way to deal with this question of forestry is to set up a forestry board. Despite what he may say I do not believe that turf cutting or electricity would have reached the stage it has reached but for the fact that an outside board with no ties to it had control of its operations. I believe that a forestry board set up much on the same lines as the two concerns I have named, would do a great deal towards bringing forestry into its own.

We have heard a great deal about the employment forestry might give. Deputy Collins was perfectly correct when he said that if areas down in Cork and Kerry were planted they would give a lot of much needed employment, and the same would be true of the West. The only thing I am afraid of is that if we wait much longer all the people will have been sent over to County Meath to farms there—the Minister might do that—and the result will be that there will be nobody to work the forests when the time arrives. However, I suppose we will have to take a chance on that. I suggest that when we speak about employment in the forests we should remember that, if for no other reason than to give employment, forestry should get much more consideration than it is receiving or has received over the past number of years.

Many people do not seem to realise that for the last 20 years the roadways of this country have carried a big volume of rural employment and it cannot continue for ever. If something is not done to replace rural employment on roads by county councils inside the next ten years, there will be, in my opinion, either mass emigration or at least mass unemployment in rural districts, much worse than we have at the present time. The ideal solution to that is afforestation and I think it should receive the urgent consideration of the Minister.

When we speak of employment on forestry and say that it is, as somebody said here to-night, the coming industry of this country—and we know that work on forestry does give much more employment per £ spent than anything else in rural Ireland—we should consider the people who are employed in the State forest. I do not think that the men who are employed at the present time as forestry labourers are suffering from what the previous Minister said the civil servant might be suffering from, psychological hyper-sensitivity, because they have much more to worry them than their nerves. A man who is working in a forest in supposed to be in a reasonably good job and if we ask a question from the Minister in the House he will tell us he has much better conditions than the county council workers.

What are the facts? Labourers employed in the forests are paid the same rate of wages as that paid to the county council employees in the particular country in which the forest is, but unlike the county council road worker, the man employed in the forest often has to travel a long journey to where the forest is, maybe cycle six or seven miles—I know some of them who cycle further—and then travel perhaps two or three miles into the heart of the forest before he reaches where he must work. The result is that very often a couple of hours extra are added to that man's toil, because the hardest work anybody can do is trying to break his way through a wet forest on a bad morning. I have seen men do it; I have been round the forest many times with these men and I know it is a terrible hardship that they have to travel so far and are paid such miserly wages as they receive.

There is also the question of shelters. We are told that if the shelters are bad in a forest all the trade union concerned has to do is report the matter to the Forestry Department and the shelter will appear almost by magic. I saw some of the shelters which were erected as a result of complaints made by my trade union and some of them were so bad that I saw the men sitting outside on a wet day rather than go inside. I saw a tarpaulin tied between two trees as a shelter. We were told it was a temporary shelter; I would like to see either the Minister or some of his senior officials sitting under that on a wet day and to see how they would like it. The people who had to do that were human beings, just as we are.

There is another point. In North Louth, in the Ravensdale Park forest, there is a big crib. The crib is widespread as a matter of fact, but in that area it is particularly bitter. When a church holiday occurs the men there get a couple of hours off for Mass. They must work the rest of the day, while across the border in Northern Ireland under a foreign Government the men are allowed off on the Church holiday. That is a sad reflection on a Christian State and it is something to which the Minister should give his attention immediately.

The Minister is well aware that my trade union, the Federation of Rural Workers, interviewed his Department's officials on the 23rd October last on that and a number of other matters. The three important matters we raised were this question of church holidays, the question of payment for a half-day on Saturday and a tea break. After seven months we got a decision on the tea break. The Minister was generous enough to allow that as in the case of county council employees. He has still not reached a decision on the question of the church holidays nor has he reached a decision on the other matter. If a man works the whole week and does not turn in on Saturday morning he only misses a half day's work but he loses a full day's pay.

I do not know why it should take eight months to decide matters like that. We are told that the Department of Finance it holding it up, that the Minister for Finance must have a say in these things and that where extra money is being spent it is an important matter that Finance should take a decision. However, we heard here to-night from all sides of the House that where forestry is concerned there will be no strings on the cash, that if more money is required it can be found. Surely there is no better way to spend money than to try to build up a contented community of forestry workers. I do not see how they can be contented so long as the things I have mentioned remain there as bones of contention. I have not very much more to add except to ask the Minister when he is replying to try and give us some line as to what his attitude now is towards the forestry workers. This will be a bigger problem now than it has been in view of the suggestions that there will be a bigger number of workers engaged on forestry.

Fintan Coogan

Mr. Coogan

One must realise the percentage of arable land under afforestation in this country in comparison with other countries. For example, in Germany it is 29 per cent., in France and Belgium 18 per cent., while in this country there is a mere 1 per cent. One will realise from that the leeway we have to make up here. Affiorestation is not a get-rich-quick undertaking; it is a long-term policy, a policy that will not show any great results within the lifetime of any Government. Of course at election times people like to have quicker results to show, but people must be encouraged to become tree-minded. I say that not alone should city schools have arbor days but these occasions should exist in every school throughout the country.

In Great Britain they have a target of 5,000,000 acres of afforestation and they hope to realise that at a rate of 100,000 acres per annum. I think it is a ridiculous situation that we should have to import at great cost timber from other countries that find it more difficult to grow that timber than we would in this country under certain conditions. Personally, I do not think any place lends itself so much to afforestation as does Connemara but in my opinion the first approach to the problem should be a survey which would include an analysis of the soil and an examination of aspect for planting and so forth. I think the greatest example of afforestation in Connemara is at Kylemore where the trees were actually grown from the seed. Another great example can be seen at Ballinahinch. The bogs of the West bear testimony to the fact that great forests existed there in the past as they should in the future.

It is a noteworthy fact that land which is dedicated to waste in this country has definitely proved to be a source of wealth in Germany. The West, with its toll of emigration, with its treeless valleys and mountains and the low value of its land, absolutely calls out for afforestation and I think the Minister would be well advised to focus his attention on it. It has been said here that only God can make a tree and I should like to add that God helps only those who help themselves. I do not think any form of economy lends itself so much to good results as afforestation and I would ask the Minister to redouble his efforts in this respect, even if it means that he has to come into this House and ask for extra powers. All sides of this House will be willing to give him these powers if necessary.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

Hear, hear!

Fintan Coogan

Mr. Coogan

Desperate diseases require desperate remedies, and I am in agreement with Deputy Derrig in connection with compulsory acquisition of the waste lands of the West for afforestation purposes. Finally, I would appeal again to the Minister to redouble his efforts for a greater measure of offorestation. It has been said that afforestation is the Cinderella of his Department and I would appeal to the Minister to wave a wand over the area I am referring to and carry out more extensive afforestation there.

Patrick Brennan

Mr. P. Brennan

This Estimate is a very important one. It is particularly important as far as my constituency is concerned and that is why I am anxious to contribute to the debate. I think I would be right in saying that of the total amount of afforestation in this country something like one-fifth or one-sixth is in Wicklow. That bears out the fact that afforestation is an important part of the economy of my constituency. Many of the speakers here this evening have pointed out that an all-out drive should be made on the western seaboard in order that emigration might be reduced to some extent. I should like to say that I have no opposition to that plan provided Wicklow does not suffer as a result.

We have always played our part in this activity and I hope we will continue to play that part. I would ask the Minister, therefore, as far as Wicklow is concerned, to allow us to continue there as we have been over the years—planting 1,000 to 1,500 acres annually. The land is available there and I am sure that when the Minister introduces these new measures about which he informed us this evening in regard to land acquisition he will be in a better position to acquire more land in Wicklow.

One or two other points occur to me. I would appeal to the Minister to keep to the mountainous parts of the county. It has been brought to my notice since I became a member of the Dáil that the Department have on a number of occasions planted trees on land which, in the opinion of the local people, was suitable for agricultural production. I think that in an area where you have almost 30,000 acres of forests and 100,000 more acres of land available and suitable for afforestation the Department should lay off any lands which would be likely to be of more value from the agricultural viewpoint.

I asked a question here quite recently concerning an estate of which the Department had washed their hands, so to speak; they were satisfied that there were no local uneconomic holdings in the area. That is wrong because there was one man whose lands adjoined that particular estate and who certainly could have done with ten or 15 or 20 acres of that land. I think it was unreasonable of the Department to plant that estate when it contained land that would have been suitable for agricultural production. We have some hung forestry centres in Wicklow. There is Glenmalure and I believe the trouble there at the moment is that it is difficult to find labour. I think that is the fault of the Department.

I think the Department could do a lot in that respect. They could encourage their employees who have long distances to travel to work by giving them some compensation for having to travel such long distances. It was brought to my notice recently that men have to travel eight, ten and 12 miles to the assembly point. A man who has to travel that distance to work is certainly not in a position to give a reasonably good day's work after such a journey. Worse still, when he arrives at the assembly point, he is not finished with his travelling because he has to travel another two or three miles to work through rough forest.

The question of the transportation of workers needs to be examined very carefully. I understand that from the time they set out to the time they reach the point of work very often a period of two hours elapses. That represents something like 4/- per hour per man. If there are 30 men in a gang it represents £6 per day or £36 per week. Surely the Forestry Branch ought to be able to provide alternative means of transport rather than expect the men to walk to their working points. Should the Forestry Branch find it an economic proposition to provide transport of some kind the men would reach their work in a more fit condition. The present loss of time and money cannot be afforded. It is an important factor particularly in a thinly populated area where it is difficult to get men. There should be some form of transport to get the men to the job as early as possible. Trucks or jeeps might be provided. If the men arrive in a fit condition they will do a better days work.

I can understand that difficulties might present themselves in relation to the provision of transportation for the workers to the assembly point. At the same time I think it is too much to expect a man to cycle eight, nine, ten or 12 miles before 8 o'clock in the morning. In some cases these men have to ride uphill and they are compelled to leave their homes at half past six or seven o'clock. They should be compensated by way of a travelling allowance of 1½d. or 2d. per mile. They might then in time find themselves in a position to purchase motor cycles or scooters or something of that kind. The Forestry Branch should consider that point.

Deputy James Tully referred to the question of church holidays. That is something which concerns forestry workers in Wicklow to a great extent. In an industry in which there are 800 or 900 men employed it is important that they should be happy and contented in their work. It is very hard to expect them to be contented and happy when their co-workers in the Wicklow County Council have better conditions of employment inasmuch as Wicklow County Council pays its staff for church holidays. The county, too, is divided into two dioceses. I come from the diocese of Ferns where church holidays are observed and the workers in that diocese are bound not to work on church holidays. The result is that the situation is a bit mixed. The solution would be to give all workers church holidays and put them on a par with their co-workers under the Wicklow County Council.

I understand that a sum of £35,000 was expended on the purchase of Shelton Abbey and I understand that a further sum is being spent on putting it into proper repair. I do not know whether or not that is an economic proposition.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Is it not worth it?

Patrick Brennan

Mr. P. Brennan

I am sure the Forestry Branch knows best whether or not a school could have been built cheaper than it will cost to put the present building into a proper state of repair.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

A new school would cost £120,000. Shelton Abbey will cost less than half that, plus 1,000 acres of land.

Patrick Brennan

Mr. P. Brennan

If that is so, it is a good proposition. I would like to know if the Forestry Branch is doing anything as far as Avondale is concerned. Is anything being done to preserve it?

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

It will be preserved all right.

Patrick Brennan

Mr. P. Brennan

I hope it will not be allowed to go derelict or anything like that. I think the Minister could do something for private planters. I understand there is a grant of £10 per acre for private planters. I do not think that provides sufficient encouragement for the farmers. The farmers in Wicklow are tree-minded and if they get a substantial grant they would be prepared to plant certain portions of their land; nearly every farmer has portions that he cannot use for agricultural purposes and it would be a good thing if such land were used as small shelter belts. The Minister should consider doubling the present grant to encourage farmers to plant trees.

There is another matter I would like to raise in connection with the establishment of wood pulp factories. If there is any county suitable for a wood pulp factory it is County Wicklow. Every day there are lorry loads of timber leaving the county for the wood pulp factory in Kildare.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

There is no labour. The Deputy has said that labour is scarce.

Patrick Brennan

Mr. P. Brennan

Labour is scare in the forest areas.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Then it would be scare for a mill.

Patrick Brennan

Mr. P. Brennan

The Forestry Branch has 7,000 acres on the top of Glenmalure and one has to travel to Rathdrum or Ballinaclash to get workers for the forest centres. The town of Wicklow is ten or 15 miles away. There are plenty of unemployed there. There are plenty of unemployed in Rathdrum. I think the Department of Lands should consider the establishment of a small wood pulp industry in County Wicklow instead of taking the raw material from Wicklow in order to provide employment for people in Kildare.

Tadhg Manley

Mr. Manley

There is no field of development that opens up before us so many possibilities at the present time as afforestation. It is strange that we seem to be utterly unconscious of the possibilities in that direction; and our failure, in that respect is all the more significant when we realise that every bog in the country is fundamental proof of the extent to which our country was afforested generations ago. The fact is that our people are not tree-minded. It is a pity that forestry was not undertaken 30 years ago. Had it been undertaken then on an intensive scale we would to-day have a very valuable raw material, a raw material which would save us millions of pounds and at the same time increase our wealth by millions of pounds.

The Minister must be congratulated on having set a target of 15,000 acres to be planted in the coming year. That is a big advance on an average of 7,000 acres previous to 1949, but it is still a very modest target. At that rate of planting, it will take over 60 years to plant 1,000,000 acres. Deputy MacBride mentioned this afternoon that the inter-Party Government had set a target of 25,000 acres, and even at that modest rate the planting of 1,000,000 acres would take over 40 years.

Deputy Moylan was quite right when he said that our people do not realise the value of native timber. It is because of the prejudice the people have towards native timber that they will not choose it for the manufacture of farm carts and farm implements. They are very slow to do so and appear to have not confidence in native timber. I sometimes think that publicity would be very helpful in showing them the value of native timber. Apart from the commercial value of native timber, there is possibly no better means of beautifying this country than through the creation of forests. Travelling, through the country, there is no sight so entrancing as that of a forest developing into maturity. It is a pity that we have not more of them. We are all anxious to bring tourists here, and we know what a pride the tourists who come here take in seeing a forest. Apart from their beauty, forest are great purifiers of our atmosphere and are great absorbers of moisture. I believe myself that trees are as valuable in the case of land subject to flooding as drainage is.

The value of land seems to be the handicap in the extension of forestry. There should be some means of surmounting that difficulty. If the Forestry Department could get the goodwill of the people in the rural parts of the country I believe myself that there would be no difficulty about acquiring land. Farmers are suspicious when the Forestry inspectors call on them. I do not know why that should be, but in many instance that is so. That should not be the case. The forestry staffs have been increased very much. If they had not the technical knowledge 20 years ago, the Department must have trained staffs now, and this experience should be availed of and passed on to the more junior members to be recruited into the Forestry Division.

Some Deputies spoke about shelter belts which I think should be encouraged. There should be more planting of them. I myself would respectfully suggest to the Minister the revival of Arbor Day so as to focus attention on what could be done here in the way of afforestation. Some years ago, when we were under the British régime, there was great interest taken in Arbor Day. Every school boy and school girl of five years and upwards in the rural parts of Ireland should be enticed to make some effort to plant one tree each on Arbor Day. I think that effort alone would help to popularise the value of afforestation and would encourage the idea of it in our young people. That idea and that aim should be encouraged amongst them so that in future years they would translate their aim and idea into practice.

I think myself that if the Minister got the co-operation of the Department of Education suitable articles on afforestation could be inserted in our school books. I think that would be very helpful. I would suggest, further, that the poem of the late Mr. Joyce Kilmer should be in every school book in rural Ireland. I think it is a thing of beauty, and is something that would leave an indelible impression on the minds of our youth.

The Minister is to be congratulated in going so far, but his target is still a very modest one. Even the target mentioned by Deputy MacBride is a modest one, if we are to make any headway in this generation. In my opinion, there will have to be a more intensive campaign in the acquisition of land and in the planting of forests whether through State effort or through private enterprise.

Liam Cunningham

Mr. Cunningham

I think that anyone who can find a use for the land in the West of Ireland and is able to put that land to the production of something useful, thereby giving employment in the West, will be doing a very good job for this country. It is popular at the moment to consider what use can be made of the land along the west coasts from Donegal to Kerry. Many suggestions have been made and ways and means have been mooted whereby bog land and cutaway bog could be put to some productive use. If that could be done on a large scale it would solve a number of problems in the West. It would solve the problem of emigration, it would solve the unemployment problem and, more important still, it would be one of the greatest fillips we could have towards the development of the Irish language.

I think that those people who write and speak of means for developing the land in the West completely forget about afforestation. It is the simplest method there is of developing bog and mountain land and what is regarded as non-productive land along the west coast. I suggest it is a readymade solution. If there was an emergency in this or any other country a Government would be able to find, for some particular purpose, a large sum of, say, £5,000,000, £10,000,000 £20,000,000 or £100,000,000, if it were needed, and the purpose might not be such a good one either. I think that if any Minister came in here and said to the House and to the people of the country that he regarded the position in the West as an emergency, that he wanted money and was going to tax some article or a number of articles in order to raise £5,000,000, £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 for the further speeding up of afforestation and promoting it on a large scale in all the western counties, he would get the support of the House, the country and of all those interested. I think that would be much better than considering the uses which are now being put forth.

There is not a county in the West where land is not suitable for planting. Anyone travelling through those rural areas will see vast stretches of land which are suitable for planting. No one would object to taxation if the purpose of it were a doubling up of afforestation. A number of Deputies have enumerated the other advantages which arise from afforestation. Certainly, in my opinion, there is no place where those advantages are so much needed as they are in our western counties. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider some bold steps in that direction even should that require, as it will require, very substantial sums of money. I have no hesitation in saying that if the Minister came in here with a big scheme and outlined what he had in mind and gave us proposals the money would be voted and the scheme would get the sanction of the House.

Seán MacBride

Mr. MacBride

Hear, hear!

Liam Cunningham

Mr. Cunningham

The planting of trees at the moment is left to the Land Commission and to the farmers themselves. The Department of Agriculture has a scheme whereby small grants are made available for the planting of shelter belts. There is a vast gap between that scheme and the scheme which has been operated by the Land Commission. There is no half way stage and I think there should be. There should be something in between the Land Commission's shelter belt scheme for planting trees and the Land Commission's afforestation scheme.

I cannot off-hand suggest what would be the solution or what could be done to entice the farmer to cover with trees the few acres of rough land which the never uses. I cannot suggest off-hand what could be done to enable the small farmers who have large areas of common which are useless and unfenced to plant 20 or 30 acres on that land. The difficulty in most places in Donegal is that persons, in some cases individuals, owners of commonages and those who have rights on commonages, have plots of, say, 20 acres to offer to the Forestry Section. They may be plots of 20, 30 or 40 acres but invariably the reply is: "We are not interested."

Somebody should be interested in the planting of 20 acres here, 20 acres there, and ten acres elsewhere. I think the Land Commission should have an intermediate scheme to cover all these small pacels of land here and there. It is not necessary that they should themselves plant the trees on a five or ten acre plot but they could make available grants for the planting of those trees to people who are interested. Apart from the farmers, there are very many people who are interested in getting trees planted but the facilities are not available. For instance, I think that in every school playground there should be along the avenue or pathway or in some part of the school playground, trees planted. Yet there is no facility for either the teacher or the manager to get trees to plant there. The same applies to other public buildings in the country districts, where there are bare plots and no trees planted near them.

My second point, then, is that it is important to bridge the gap between the scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture and that operated at the moment by the Minister's Department. It is true that in parts of my county a good deal of progress has been made. Over the past few years new centers have been opened. That has enabled steady progress to be made with the result that we have afforestation going ahead at a fair rate at the moment but there are many parts of our county which are neglected.

I am sure the Minister is aware that in the Inishowen peninsula which contains a very big acreage of plantable land you have offers of suitable land coming in. So far as I know Plantations have not been undertaken there yet. It is true to say that negotiations are in progress and that one place which would be regarded as a centre failed to materialise. I think that an all-out effort should be made to have that section of our county as a forestry centre.

I did not hear the Minister's explanation with regard to the reduction in the sum available for the purchase of land by £60,000. When one sees a reduction in the sum available for the purchase of land, one feels that it will mean a reduction in the acreage purchased. I would like to see a doubling of the figure available. It would be a good thing to see twice the figure available for the purchase of land because the purchase of land is the key to future progress. It has to be done a good while in advance and no slowing down of land acquisition should be allowed for this important industry because that is what it is.

I should like the Minister to consider those few points and I should like to see some bold steps being taken to at least double our present output. Apart from the money difficulty, there are other difficulties I know but the other difficulties are not insumountable ones. You have, of course, to get land and that is a slow process. You have to prepare that land for planting. You have to get trees. Whilst many of the difficulties which existed during the war years are now non-existent, I think the biggest snag is the lack of money. I would go so far as to suggest that extra taxation be imposed, if necessary —and it would be necessary—in order to raise a sum of money which would in a short time double the rate of progress we are now making.

Thaddeus Lynch

Mr. T. Lynch

I know that the Minister is sincere in his effort as regards forestry. For myself, I am like a good number of Deputies here, I am not an expert on forestry and anything that I know about it I read in a classic written by a county man of mine, the late John Mackay—The Rape of Ireland. In that book he described how Ireland lost her forests and how we were plundered of our forests as we were plundered of our wealth. He describes how our forests were given to Castle hacks and how the great forest that used to run from Fermoy to Kerry was cut down to build England's armadas in the early years of the last century.

I welcome a stand like that made by Deputy Cunningham when he said that he would not mind if extra taxation was levied on the people for forestry purposes, but would not the Opposition take advantage of that and how to the high heavens that the people were being taxed out of existence? They would not care for what purpose the money was being levied. I listened to the speeches on the Budget and they were reckless.

Liam Cunningham

Mr. Cunningham

You were not here during the 1952 Budget. Some of your back-benchers would teach you a lesson.

Thaddeus Lynch

Mr. T. Lynch

Do not draw me on you. Deputy Cunningham spoke of the West as if there was no other part of Ireland but the West, but we have bad land in the South and the East as well. I think this matter should be approached, not for the sake of the West, but in the national interest. As the Land Commission at present exists it is criticised from all sides of the House as being too slow. The best manner in which I consider that it could be speeded up is, not to decentralise the Land Commission, but to take some of the chief officers and send them on tour, and to have advertisements issued in the national papers saying that they would be in such a district over such a period and that they were willing and able to purchase land suitable for forestry. If land was available, instead of the slow process of inspectors being sent down and having to report back, the whole business should be finalised there and then. Even if mistakes are made what harm if the land is bought.

Several Deputies mentioned that the Department of Education should be consulted in the matter of educating children and the youth of the country. I would go so far as to say that, apart from the practical end of it, there should be quotations and paragraphs from the great writers on forestry that have been mentioned here such as John Mackay incorporated in our school books.

As Deputies always mention their own constituencies in debates of this kind I will be pardoned for mentioning mine. The estuary of the Waterford river is magnificent in parts where trees have been planted by private individuals but there are some great stretches along it which are bare and burned, as often as not, and they are suitable for planting, as I have ascertained. I think that planting in that area would be worth while and I would draw the attention of the Minister and his officials to that portion of the river from the Port of Waterford down to the mouth of the river.

Deputy Manley mentioned Joyce Kilmer's famous poem. It is poems like this and slogans like this that ought to be pursued. Our great problem at the present time is unemployment, and if we make forestry a great national effort it will do much to relieve unemployment and keep our people at home in Ireland. As well as that it would lay down wealth for the generations to come.

Gerald Bartley

Mr. Bartley

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to what I regard as a very special problem in relation to forestry. The case is often made that forestry is one of the most effective means of relieving the position in the Gaeltacht, but those of us who represent Gaeltacht areas know that the land which the Department looks for in those areas is the land which is hardest to get. It is very difficult to convince a sheep farmer that trees are more valuable to the nation than sheep and he can hardly be blamed for not seeing the problem through the national spectacles. If he decides that, from his personal point of view, he should not give up his ancestral land and go to the Midlands so that we may have his land for tree planting, it is easy enough to understand his point of view.

So far, I do not think that the Forestry Department has had any occasion to bring pressure to bear upon people who own suitable land in the poorer areas. I would like that some investigation should be made of the possibility of having plantations in places like Connemara, Donegal, and South Mayo and other of these areas of a smaller size than the standard minimum which the Forestry Department has laid down as being necessary to constitute a unit. I think smaller plantations would be more suitable in such areas.

If one travels the road from Crossmolina to Bangor-Erris or from Oughterard to Clifden or any other of the main roads of the West the absence of trees and the shelter which they would provide is quite obvious. In those areas, the people would be as tree-minded as they are in the limestone districts if the question of fencing was not so much more of a problem than it is in the better-off territory. It should be possible, with co-operation between the Department of Forestry, the Land commission and, possibly, Bord na Móna, to select stretches where the problem of fencing would not arise.

When I say stretches, I know I am raising the problem of fencing, which must be a bogey to the Forestry Department in these places; but I think that the Tourist Board is interested in adding to what nature has done for those districts and that the Forestry Department in collaboration with them could do a good deal to beautify these places and give a few desirable amenities to those bare, barren, shelterless roads by providing trees, for the owners cannot possibly be expected to plant them. The planting of the trees would be done by the local people if the almost insurmountable obstacle of adequate fencing did not arise. I do not think the people themselves on those small holdings would be equal to the task of fencing these small lots of land. I know that in so far as public spirit and a proper civic attitude to any operations carried out by the Forestry Department are concerned, these would be forthcoming from the poorest of the people in these areas who would give the fullest co-operation.

My suggestion, therefore, is that the Minister should not insist on the minimum acreage of 300 which the Department has been working on heretofore, but that they should pick out small areas, and if they can get—as I am sure they will—the 300 acre minimum within a reasonable distance, one patch from another, I think that the uneconomic aspect of doing the work in this way would be considerably reduced.

The question of shelter belts for farmhouses raises the same difficulty of adequate fencing and it seems to me that if the Forestry Department could extend its operation in the direction which I have indicated it might be possible for them to co-ordinate the efforts of the local county committees of agriculture and the local landholders and give some additional help in seeing that these plantation schemes which are fostered by the committees would in fact be taken up with more enthusiasm and that a bigger area of planting would in this way be achieved.

I put my name to a motion asking the Dáil to give better attention to this question of afforestation. I do not want to be taken—and I do not think any signatory of the motion wants to be taken—as making a political football of forestry. The Minister on the occasion of a recent debate here did provoke some interruptions from this side of the House by making comparisons of acreages when he brought in the war years. I think that was inadvisable. I do not want to say now that all the fault was on the Minister's side, but I think this particular question of tree-planting is above and beyond all others, and one in respect of which, it can be said that comparisons are odious and could possibly be quite harmful. I do not want to say anything that would introduce that spirit into this debate on forestry.

I know how difficult it is to get land for forestry that the Department would be willing to take in my constituency. I know the problem has been made easier by modern machines which are the products of war. I have seen in my own area territory planted which could have not been planted before these machines became available. I am referring very largely to virgin bog —machines are not required for the patchwork planting about which I have been speaking. In that case fencing would be the main job, but as I have now referred to virgin bog I would again ask—I know I am not asking in vain, that the Forestry Department, the Land Commission and Bord na Móna have been co-operating in this matter—that virgin bogs in western areas where the depth is a good deal less than that found in the central plain will be planted so that as far as possible a sufficient acreage of turbary will be retained by the Land Commission and made available for anybody in those districts willing to use and provide hand-won turf for the generation of electricity.

There has been brought to my notice one instance in the Oughterard area of virgin bog having been planted. I did not go to the district myself and I am not therefore in a position to express the personal opinion as to whether there is any substance in the complaint. I think I did communicate with the Forestry Department or the Land Commission at the time I got the complaint and as far as I can recollect what was done was by way of experiment.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

Where was that—at Cloosh?

Gerald Bartley

Mr. Bartley

In the Cloosh Valley district. I do not recollect the exact name of the townland, but it is on that road running south from Oughterard through the Cloosh Valley. It is a place that was planted formerly but was cut down during the first World War and came again under notice within the past ten or 15 years. The Forestry Department did, in fact, plant a considerable area there on land that is not virgin bog. I do not know the location of the particular place to which I was asked to draw the attention of the Forestry Department but I believe from what I have been told it was something in the nature of an experiment.

What I have said in regard to turbary and forestry completes the picture of difficulty in my constituency which I know is not easy of solution. We have shallow bogs. I suppose the average depth would be about four spits and that is very small in comparison with bogs in the centre of the country. It necessitates more extensive road-making because bogs get cut out more quickly. But the method of cutting of the bogs as the Forestry Department and the Land Commission know, is one, I would say, of the first importance.

If the leath-phortach is left in proper condition after the turf is cut, reclamation and tree-planting may be made a great deal easier than if the cutting is not properly done. The Land Commission has power, I know, to ensure that in cutting turf a certain area of bog is left on the gravel or rock, but when one talks to a Land Commission official he tells you quite frankly that it would be next to impossible for the Land Commission to enforce a rule of that sort. The landlords did it on their own estates, but they had a power which we have not got and it would be desirable if the people could be induced to leave something on the rock, either for trees or for reclamation and the production of potato ground.

That, I take it, is a matter which might receive the serious attention of the Forestry Department and the Land Commission in relation to the allocation of turbary for hand-won turf for supply to the electricity station at Rosmuc. I have not examined the Minister's statistics anyway closely. I read them in a very cursory fashion and I do not want to base my remarks on any close or minute examination of his statistical information in the Book of Estimates. I have this one point to bring before the Minister. I do not know whether any other speakers have a similar problem but I should imagine that the representatives of other congested districts will have this problem too.

I know that what I am asking the Minister to do will be much more expensive to carry out than their ordinary type of operation, but a double objective would be achieved, in that shelter would be provided both for the local resident and the tourist along these long stretches of barren and windswept roads and the landscape beautified, at the same time. Where the Department can get their minimum acreage, I know that they are after it continuously, but where they do get their minimum acreage and where they are carrying out an operation according to their established practice, perhaps they would look around and see if there are not any places or spots such as I am now recommending that might be taken into their scheme of operations in that district and so enlarge the total planting basis of their central unit.

The cumulative effect of a large number of very small plots, particularly in hilly country, can be very beautiful indeed, as well as giving useful shelter. I commend this suggestion to the Minister and while I am not going to advocate, as some Deputies on my side did extra taxation for the purpose, I hope he will be able to see that some of the money voted by the House for afforestation generally might be set aside and applied in an experimental way in a few areas on the western seaboard to achieve this very desirable objective.

Neil T.C. Blaney

Mr. Blaney

This matter of forestry generally is one which I consider has arrived at the stage at which much more consideration should be given to it by our Government and by the Department of Lands. In advocating the speeding up of forestry, it may be trotted out that so much was not done in such a year and so much not done in another year. The real point is whether or not we are doing enough at the moment and whether or not in doing any forestry work, that work is worth doing. If it is worth doing, as I believe it is, and as apparently the Department and our Governments over a number of years have felt it was, it is something which, if it is good in a small way, should be even better in a bigger way. If it is a profitable and useful thing to plant forests and to have an afforestation programme in the small way which we now have it—and it is a relatively small way—a much extended scheme of things would be much more beneficial and would in the long run provide a much better outlet for some of our workers, some of our labour, and would in itself give a profit to the country generally in the years to come.

I feel that in regard to the West and the congested districts generally in the West, this matter of reafforestation can play a very major part in solving the unemployment problem and the problem of emigration. It is true that many efforts have been made over the years to try, through the industrialisation of our western towns, to stem that unemployment and emigration and much money has been set aside on various occasions for this purpose. I feel that in forestry we have something which is a certainty; it is not an experiment by and large to plant forests in the west of the country. It is an experiment in many cases to establish certain types of factories and yet we have been satisfied and are satisfied— and rightly so, I believe—to take a chance in establishing different industries in the West, and if we are satisfied to take a chance and to spend public money in taking a chance, surely in this case, where we have something that appears to be a certainty, we should back it for all and everything we are worth.

I think that, with that in view, the time has now come when the Department of Lands and our Government should shake themselves up in regard to this matter and do more planting, and do it more speedily. The suggestion by any Department or Minister that land is difficult to get is something I will not agree to accept. My own experience of the manner in which forestry is initiated is this, that if some person—some person, mark you— is sufficiently interested or is, as we describe a person on other occasions, of a cranky nature—if there is somebody of a cranky nature in a district or a person with a genuine interest in forestry who brings the matter to the attention of the Department and gives them details as to certain landowners who are agreeable to sell, we may find that some day or another an official will be sent from the Forestry Department and, arising from that certain agreements may be reached under which land will be acquired by agreement. That land in due course, together with other lands so acquired, will form the nucleus of a new forestry centre.

All I want to ask in that regard is: is that a business-like way of doing the job? I think it is ridiculous to leave the matter to anybody. If we have somebody doing this job, why do they not do it? Why do they not initiate things and kick off by going down the country and finding out where the land is rather than waiting for the land to be offered to them in Dublin? They can do very much more than is being done at the moment— and when I say "very much more" I mean very much more in the west of the country where it is so badly needed, where it can give employment and where in the future it may be the basis of a new industry. These are the things we have to look at in this matter and not how thousands of pounds extra in taxation it may cost us next year or the year after.

I feel, in regard to forestry, that we should really set out right away with a view to acquiring land in every possible part we can get—land that is not used in the ordinary sense for tillage and land which could, with drainage and fencing, be made suitable for planting. I feel that, in their approach in the past, our Forestry Division have been too critical. They have been rather hard to please in regard to the land they have been taking over. I do not blame them for that because the amount of land they require in any one year is relatively small and they can be choosy because they do not want so much. However, land has been turned down in the past that could be used with benefit and a chance should be taken on it, in addition to the good land and the land they feel is a definite proposition in going into. We should not be so choosy about the matter.

If, as we may find, part of the land which we take over in the future does not produce the very good timber we would like to see produced, I think there are other beneficial effects which should not be overlooked. It could enhance a countryside already beautiful and give much-needed shelter on the hillsides of the western counties, especially in my own county of Donegal. Furthermore, I believe that the trees, although they might not be commercial timber at any stage—trees on the hillsides of my country, for instance —would do a very big job in preventing the quick seepage of water when we have rains which eventually causes flooding in the lowlands—flooding which, in many cases, may be the cause of the ruin of the total crop of some of our small farmers who are tilling very extensively the small patches of land between the mountains and the hills.

These trees, and their roots, would serve that purpose of slowing-up the seepage and would prevent the quick flooding that can occur after heavy rains. They would also give that slow downfall of water in the weeks following rain that would enhance the value of land in the valleys and lowlands. These are advantages whose value we cannot calculate here and now. I feel quite sure they are advantages which are not really the main purpose of afforestation though they might well repay us just as much as the production of commercial timber in the years to come. The very satisfying thing about it all is that we can have both. We can have our commercial timber. We can even go further and try for more commercial timber and, if it does not prove successful, it will not be a loss. We will have all the advantages I have mentioned and that, in itself, is something that it would be very hard to calculate what value it would have to our country.

I have touched, at the start, on a matter which I believe is of paramount importance if we are to go ahead with forestry—the question of doing a little bit each year and doing it scattered out. This little bit is divided up into many little bits and the many little bits are done here and there and elsewhere. My conception of this matter is that in breaking up the small amount we plant each year into smaller parts spread all over the country we are, in fact, if anything, being rather wasteful. If we are to have any prosperity arising from plantations in this country and if we are to have any factories or industries built up as a result of forests in the country in the future, surely it is terribly obvious at the moment that we should endeavour to do this afforestation work on a really big scale in certain places and in specific areas. If we cannot go in for it on a big scale throughout the Twenty-Six Counties then let us make up our minds that we will do it on a very big scale in some part of the Twenty-Six Counties—and I feel that that part should be the West where afforestation would have many benefits as well as the commercial benefits in the future.

If we are to go ahead in any manner that will give satisfaction to all concerned, I am afraid we will have to change our method and our approach to the whole thing. We need to change our system of initiating schemes because some Deputy or some local councillor or some person interested in the locality writes to the Department about the matter. That is not the way to go about it. That is all very desirable and may be very useful in many cases but surely it should not be left to public-spirited people to start off this matter. We should have, and I believe we have, some survey or other —some way in which, if you get on to the Forestry Division, you can be told that certain stretches of land have already been surveyed with a view to planting.

I wonder if all the land of the country has been so surveyed and, if it has, whether there is a proper index of it and, if so, what was the original purpose of that survey, where it rests now and for what purpose is it resting. Was it a survey, initially, with a view to planting every part of the country that is plantable, or what? If there is a general survey, the results of which are available in the Department, then so much the better. Let the Minister and his Department and his Government take their courage in their hands in regard to this matter. Let them pour into it some few millions that, in the midst of many other millions being poured in many other directions, would scarcely be missed at the present day. Let them try this as something that would be of benefit to the West, to the congested districts, to those who are emigrating, to those who are unemployed and to the tourist value of our country.

I do not think that the Forestry Division as it is now constituted is doing its job. I do not believe it is— and when I say that I am not casting any reflections on the personnel of the Department. I do not believe they have the freedom that would be necessary to go out and do this job in a big way. I believe you would need something similar to Bord na Móna or the E.S.B. who are responsible to this House but who, at the same time, are independent in the manner and the methods in which they approach the problem and the job given to them to do. I believe that if the present personnel in our Forestry Division were sorted out and if the very best we have there were got together as the nucleus of a new Forest Board and were put out to do that job and given the necessary finances and the necessary approval of this House, those men who have been working on forestry in this small way over the years, with the experience they gained in those years, would do a very useful and a much more speedy job in the immediate future.

I think this is a matter that should be seriously considered by the Government and the Government should not be baulked in doing this job by the prospect of enormous cost. This is something which will pay for itself eventually and in the meantime it will give much-needed employment. Surely with those projects held up, reafforestation on a far greater scale than presently being done is something that should appeal to any Government that looks at it squarely and fairly. Our present Government and present Minister should deal with the matter some what on the lines I suggest. They should sit down and get a scheme that means more plantations, more quickly, in larger and greater areas, concentrating primarily in the West. Even though the cost may be high initially, I believe that this House will receive their proposals sympathetically, and though they will be, and should be, criticised, the criticism will be made in a constructive way. I would ask the Minister to consider these suggestions together with the many others that have been made.

I cannot repeat too often that we want more forests and more afforestation and that we want these things done more quickly. We want them done in a way that will show our people that we are alive to the prospects of reafforestation, that we really believe in reafforestation, not only for its value in timber in the future but for its present and early-year value in beautifying our countryside, helping the climate generally, helping to stem the flooding of our lowlands and small patches of land between the hills and mountains. These things can all be done by reafforestation. On top of all that, to those barren and rather desolate regions and to the congested districts where we now have unemployment rampant and where migrants are leaving every day, we can bring the prosperity and happiness that those in the western counties and congested districts have come to regard as something to dream about but that will never come true.

I believe forestry can be the basis of that prosperity and that with it can be built up those industries that we have been trying to build up. We should not forget that forestry is a certainty for prosperity in the West and that any money we put into it is well spent. We should not count the cost in this respect. We should go ahead and go ahead immediately. I would ask the Minister and the Department to view these things in that light. If they come to the House, I believe the Deputies will meet them in a very fair manner and will be helpful rather than destructive in their criticism of any proposals they may make.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

There has been a very helpful debate on the Forestry Estimate this time and the emphasis was largely on speed and on an expansion of the planting programme. Different solutions were put forward as to how best to achieve that end— the principal suggestions being in regard to better means of acquiring land. I regret to say that none of the suggestions towards aiding acquisition were helpful. The truth is that we have at present the poorest of our farmers living on the very land that the Forestry Department most wants. We must make up our minds one way or the other. Some Deputies here to-night were all for compulsion; some were for other methods but did not define them clearly. Those are small farmers, mostly mountain farmers, and we have to make up our minds whether we wish to squash them out of existence for the sake of trees in their place, or treat them as citizens of the State with the same rights as anyone in this House. I plump for the latter course.

I want to see acquisition speeded up to the very utmost, but I cannot subscribe to some of the suggestions made here. In fairness, I must say I think they were made without due consideration. It would appear from them as if the Forestry Section and the Minister were making no effort to get the necessary land—that it was there for the taking. Some Deputies talked in a grand and pleasant mood, about stretches of waving forest from Donegal on to Kerry. Every inch of that ground is owned by farmers and they are the very poorest farmers in the country. Rough and poor as some of the land is, these farmers could ill afford to lose it unless they saw some reasonable prospect of supplementing their income after they had lost the land.

There was a suggestion that a board of some kind could be set up which would do what the present Forestry Section is not doing. I think that is a slur on the officials and I take it in that way. I can vouch to the House that the Forestry Division, particularly the acquisition section, is doing a fair and honest job of work. There are two huge difficulties—one of them is the reluctance of farmers to sell land and, even in the case of those willing to sell, the title difficulties stand greatly in the way. My opposite numbers, Deputy Derrig and Deputy Moylan, must be keenly aware of that.

As I said in my opening remarks, by the time the Department takes over land and goes in to spend public money on it, no one outside the Department must have the slightest claim on the land—because it would be a desperate thing if after five or ten years someone should come home from the United States or England or elsewhere and say: "I have a claim to that plantation." There would be a howl and a public outcry against us, from which forestry in general would never recover. In order to be careful with the tax-payer's money, a certain amount of delay must take place. We must be absolutely certain that no person outside the Department has any claim on the land.

There was no sound argument put up here to-night that a board could do what the present Department is not doing. A few Deputies said in a vague way that a board could do big things. Deputy McQuillan scared me most by saying what a good thing it would be if we had a board like the Lee Valley Electrification Board. It flooded 12,000 acres of land and turned the people out of their homes like rats. I would oppose boards like that. Any power for the taking of land should be in control of the House and not in charge of a board not responsible to this House. From time to time Deputies grumble that C.I.E., the E.S.B., the Sugar Company, Bord na Móna and others are not responsible to this House and that all the Minister can say in reply to parliamentary questions here is that he has been informed by one of those boards that such and such is the case. There is no comparison between those boards and the Forestry Department which will be taking over the very livelihood of hundreds and perhaps thousands of citizens, particularly small farmers.

Bord na Móna only takes up bog on which the owners settle very little value. The E.S.B. merely sticks down poles to your land and even in that case there is a certain amount of hesitancy on the part of the House to grant that power. To hand over the power and privilege of acquiring 20,000 or 40,000 acres per year, these officials not being answerable to the House through the Minister, is something that the House would never agree to do. It would mean handing over a section of the people to the mercy of a handful of privileged officials who could do what they liked. They might even tell the Minister to mind his own business. If any suggestions were available that a board could do things faster than the present Forestry Division, I would be very glad to hear them.

Deputy McQuillan gave a comparison about the planting done in England during the war years. He said that they planted 30,000 acres in the war years. I have here the 34th Annual Report of the Forestry Commissioners of Great Britain, for the year 1953. During the seven years which included 1940 to 1946 they planted 110,000 acres. I interrupted the Deputy at the time purely from memory. The British forestry officials told me what happened in the winter of 1950 and for the records of the House I want to get things correct.

I want to apologise to Deputy Derrig. During the course of his remarks he asked me what percentage of the 13,000 acres planted last year was treated mechanically. I told him at the time two-thirds; it should have been one-third. About 4,000 acres were treated with ploughs last year.

Some Deputies asked how many acres were on offer at the present time. Roughly there is about 75,000 acres on offer, a great deal of which I suspect is in the unplantable category. Some people seem to think that it is only a matter of buying land and that it is all plantable. Unfortunately it is not. Even with the new technique the forestry officials have to be very careful of the ground they purchase. A great deal of land is not plantable.

I think it was Deputy Bartley who mentioned about planting in virgin bog. Experiments have been carried out in Cloosh on a very poor type of bog, not for the purpose of planting virgin bog but to try to find out once and for all can it be planted with safety. There are in Galway, Mayo, Donegal and certain parts of Kerry these areas with a very poor type of ground and although I want to see forestry going ahead, there is one thing I do not want to see us doing and that is plunging wildly into a project of planting a huge acreage on a type of ground which we have no guarantee will ever even make a fair cover for the land, much less produce commercial timber. Deputy Moylan and Deputy Derrig said that sooner or later commercial timber will be grown there. I agree fully. Even on the poorest ground once we get the first crop off, the falling foliage and branches will produce a condition which will ensure a reasonably good crop on the second rotation. But the trouble is to grow the first crop successfully.

Deputy Moylan mentioned Kilworth. There has been considerable failure in the planting that went on in the twenties in Kilworth Forest and a considerable area had to be cut out and replanted. That is one example, and while certain experiments were carried out on some of the poorest type of peat ground in the west of Ireland in the last period I was Minister for Lands and these experimental plots appear to be doing well—they are now five or six years old and about five feet high— we have no guarantee that when they reach the 15, 20 or 25 years stage they might not come to a standstill and they might have to be cut down again. While it is all very fine to talk of having beautiful trees growing, we cannot spend public money foolishly. I want to say to Deputy Derrig that while he was Minister for Lands in the pervious period he did not subscribe to any wild rush of planting.

My attention was drawn by Deputy Moylan to an article by an ex-president of Macre na Feirme in which he slashed at the Forestry Division and suggested that they are planting agricultural land. That is not true. I read that article. I do not think there is a great deal in it and I do not think the writer gave it much thought. He made the charge Deputy Moylan mentioned. One was the failure in Kilworth, and that is perfectly true. There are failures in many forests here and there; there are patches in which failures occur but they are nothing serious to worry about. There was considerable failure in Kilworth, but then I do not think any of the present forestry staff were in the Department at the time the Kilworth plantations were put in.

However, I can easily understand that the forestry people had very little experience then of any kind of ground except the best arable ground. It has not been a dead loss; a certain amount has been salvaged from the wreckage and it has been worth a good deal from the point of view of experience gained for the future. Kilworth is of the type of ground to which Deputy Bartley referred, around Oughterard and Maam Cross and that part of the country which is very poor. There is some bog there and the wisdom of planting on that type of ground is very doubtful because bog, in my opinion, is running out rapidly and in Deputy Bartley's constituency bog is not as plentiful as it would appear to be.

Gerald Bartley

Mr. Bartley

The Minister knows I do not want virgin bog planted.

Joseph Blowick

Mr. Blowick

I would like to see the very areas Deputy Bartley mentioned clothed with timber and even though it might be covered by a certain amount of peat, I do not mind provided it is not on a huge scale. Inevitably there would be small pockets of it but I want to introduce a note of caution. It is all very well to look at heather ground, bog, and so on, and to say that it would grow timber. It might grow and flourish beautifully for the first three, four or five years but then it might go yellow and fade.

Do not let us forget that not alone in this country but in countries like the United States, Canada and countries well advanced in forestry, research is only in the infant stages, and we do not know as much about disease and checks that occur as we would like to know. For that reason I do not propose to follow the suggestion of Deputy McQuillan and rush out wildly, stamping out farms and planting trees, whether they have a prospect of growing or not just for the sake of putting them down. I do not intend to adopt wild, madcap schemes such as that and I think I would have the backing of the sensible Deputies of the House in that.

We should remember that we get the privilege from one general election to another to tax the people of this country but we have a moral responsibility to spend money to the best advantage, to husband it and safeguard it as much as we can and give the nation the best return for it. I think that goes without saying but if one were to follow some of the suggestions that were made here, God knows where we would finish up and what would happen to forestry.

Deputy Coogan is anxious to spread forestry in Galway. Quite a number of new forests are established in Galway; one of them is Cloosh. If I remember rightly, the area is around 10,000 acres and with very careful work on the part of the Forestry Division and the application of fertilisers in small and medium quantities, an ounce per tree and two ounces in some cases, the results have been astonishingly good. However, I would not like if the Department were lulled into a sense of false security and to go planting wildly because of that. Things might go very well for five, ten or 25 years but then some check might set in or a disease might spread which would upset the whole thing. We have established forests in Ballinahinch, Kylemore, and Cloosh and there is a forest in Oughterard which was established away back in Deputy Moylan's time. Forestry in Galway is going on very well. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8th June, 1955.
Top
Share