Like the other speakers who have contributed to this debate, I propose to be very brief in my remarks. I do not intend to embark on a statement dealing with the tremendous advantages that would accrue to the country generally by the development of a large-scale forestry programme. I prefer to confine myself to probing the Minister's mind with regard to what he has in this Bill that can be discussed properly under this particular motion. There is an old saying: "By their deeds ye shall know them." This Bill that will come before the House in a very short time will clarify for many people whether or not this Minister is tackling seriously the difficulties that beset the Department in its attempts to embark on a large-scale forestry programme.
Deputy MacBride has dealt briefly with the reasons given in the past, with the excuses made by the various Ministers for the delay involved, with the difficulties that were met when the forestry programme was being undertaken. As Deputy MacBride said, the question of wire netting was trotted out as a big difficulty. The question of the rabbits was brought up, but of course, myxomatosis has dealt with that. There is a question, the most important of all, which has not been referred to here, the question of finance, the question of the money being made available. We have discovered now that the main difficulty, the main thing preventing the Department from going ahead on a forestry scheme of large proportions, is the difficulty of obtaining land. Now, I am not convinced personally that that is the main difficulty. I believe—and I may be proved wrong in 12 months' or two years' time—that, in spite of the fact that the Minister is going to bring in legislation to simplify the acquisition of land by the forestry section, and in spite of that simplification, we will still be just as far off as Deputy MacBride said we are to-day from the minimum target wished for and hoped for six years ago, namely, 25,000 acres.
I believe that, while the Forestry Department is so closely associated with a body like the Land Commission, we will not see the progress we all desire. Perhaps certain improvements may take place as a result of this new measure, but I believe that, until that Forestry Department is set up on its own, somewhat on the lines of the E.S.B. or Bord na Móna, free from the red tape which besets it at the moment and free of day to day interference in this House, and given funds and powers of acquisition, we will not see the action we all desire. Rather than see a Ministry for the Gaeltacht established, I would prefer a special Ministry for Afforestation set up by this House—in preference to talking in airy terms about the benefits going to accrue in the near future to the few inhabitants left of the Gaeltacht areas.
Two of the difficulties that beset the Forestry Department at the present time, we are told, are internal ones. If to-morrow morning a man down the country offers a substantial amount of land to the forestry people, there is an immediate difficulty, perhaps about the question of title. We find that that person, the occupant of the land, will have to go back to the time of his grandfather who died, perhaps, intestate and an examination has to be carried out which will cost quite an amount of money. The cost of that examination must be borne by the unfortunate person who is aiming to sell the land to the Forestry Department. We will put it this way, that a Mr. Murphy offers so much land to the Land Commission and the price is £120. We find that the search involved and the legal difficulties in clarifying the title, and the cost of examination, will amount to £30 or £40, and that £30 or £40 has to come out of the £120 offered to this individual. How can you expect that man to be willing to co-operate with the Department in a forestry scheme?
We know that at present the State Solicitor's Office is the body charged with responsibility for handling the legal end for the Forestry Department. Can anyone think of anything more ridiculous than to see the Forestry Department, which is supposed to purchase land having its legal work done by the State Solicitor? If it is a question of the acquisition of land by the Land Commission, that body has its own legal section and its own experts and inspectors. I maintain that, unless the new legislation which the Minister brings before the House meets the points I am going to make, it will not be satisfactory. First of all, he must set up an examiner's branch in the Forestry Department, and, secondly, he must have established a proper legal section within that Department, corresponding with the one at present in the Land Commission. If these two matters are not included in the new legislation, I want to warn Deputies that the difficulties that are present at the moment with regard to the purchase of land for forestry will not be remedied, and no matter what smoke-screen is put up with regard to the new Bill, unless these two points are covered by it, we will not see any progress made.
I suppose the Minister and I do not see eye to eye on these things, but my own viewpoint is that the biggest difficulty he will be up against as a member of this or any other Government is the question of finance. I will have to be convinced that it is otherwise. I know that members of various Governments have stated that money is no object, that there is no shortage of money at all when it comes to afforestation. It is very easy to say that, but it is a different thing when the particular Minister for Lands or for forestry moves into the Minister for Finance's office and says: "I want so much this year for afforestation." I can presume very well the type of answer the unfortunate Minister for Lands is going to get from a Minister for Finance put to the pin of his collar to meet other commitments by strong Ministers in other Departments. That is a difficulty the Minister can get over when he hears an expression of opinion from all sides of this House and can see how serious all Deputies are in backing him in his demands on a tightfisted Minister for Finance. The natural feeling of any Minister for Finance or Government is to express his generosity in terms of words, to say that all in the Government are interested in afforestation, but when it comes down to the practical implementation of that, it is a horse of a different colour.
Human nature, of course, is such that any Government will have to plan on a short-term basis. Elections in this country come with such frequency, or have done so in the past, at any rate, that we do not know where we are exactly with regard to Governments. The benefits to a Government of embarking on an afforestation scheme do not become apparent within the lifetime of that Government, or even the next, so that consequently it is not a great vote-catching business to introduce a forestry programme. That is why I say all the more credit will accrue to the present Minister, if, with the backing of this House, he goes ahead with a forestry programme that may not bring him kudos in his lifetime as a Minister in the present Government period; but in time to come, when the spruce and other trees planted during his administration are tall and majestic, the children of this generation will point out to their offspring: "It was Mr. Blowick, from Mayo, who was responsible for those large trees that are now facing our front door." That will be a glorious day for the Minister. When he is in heaven, he can look down to see them.