Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1955

Vol. 153 No. 6

Private Deputies' Business. - Acquisition of Land for Afforestation—Motion (Resumed).

Mr. McQuillan

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.

Mr. Blowick

I will not be here then to hear them saying those things about me.

Mr. McQuillan

That is exactly the point I am trying to make—that the benefits to accrue from a forestry programme will not be seen possibly in our lifetime, but they will certainly be there for future generations. I think that enough time has been allowed to elapse in the last 30 years for all sides of this House to appreciate the urgent necessity of backing whatever Minister is in power to ensure that no further time will elapse until this real forestry drive is put into operation.

Mr. MacBride

Where is the Bill?

Mr. Blowick

I think the Deputy has got it.

Mr. MacBride

I have not got it.

Mr. Blowick

It is in the post. Perhaps the Deputy has not seen his post. I think the Deputy must have got it, he is so emphatic about it.

Mr. A. Byrne

I rise to give my encouragement to the Minister to bring in the Bill without delay. He has been assured from all sides of the House that it will be passed without delay. I think the Minister ought to feel very glad that the speeches have been very vigorous. They have been very encouraging indeed, because the vigour of the speeches and the things said are an assurance to him that the Bill will be passed, and passed very quickly.

I avail of the opportunity of congratulating the Minister on the conclusion of the many years' proceedings dealing with the purchase of Glengariff. He is to be congratulated on the purchase there, and, I hope, for the planting of trees at a very early date. Timber will be a very valuable asset in Ireland in days to come when shipping becomes almost impossible to secure and timber become dear. We will then have our own supplies giving good employment, and reducing emigration, which, regardless of what Party has been in power, we do not appear to know how to stem. This is an opportunity for the Minister to show his greatness. A few days ago I heard the Minister praised by a person very interested in afforestation for what is to be done in Glengariff, but the same person hoped that the Minister, when planning what is to be done in Glengariff, will not spoil the vista which is the beauty of that area.

I join with the other Deputies in encouraging the Minister, and with others, I would earnestly express the hope that he would accept the motion in the friendly spirit in which it has been moved.

Mr. Glynn

I am in complete sympathy with the motion, and in particular with sub-section (b) which relates to the concentration of the Department's efforts in the congested areas. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that it is quite clear that the Minister in charge of the Department is probably the most genuine worker we have had in that Department in our 30 years of self-Government. His efforts up to the moment may not have been as spectacular as we should like, but, nevertheless, he has, since he came into the Department of Lands in 1948 very substantially increased the acreage planted. The fact is, however, that despite his enthusiasm and sincerity in this matter, a substantial acreage has, quite clearly, not yet been planted. I think there are various reasons for this but I might mention one, of which I have personal experience of, in relation to plantable areas and plantable land in my own constituency in South Galway. That is that there seems to be very little genuine effort made to acquire lands which are available.

There is an approach by a Department inspector to the owner of the lands. The owner makes a reasonable proposal either in regard to price, but mostly in regard to exchange, and he never hears another word about it. The whole matter is dismissed for ever after. I know farmers, farmers who have small valuations but who have large plantable areas on their farms, who voluntarily will give up these lands to the Forestry Department at any time if they are given a small economic holding in exchange. I do not think it is an unreasonable request; I do not think the Department are approaching the matter in a constructive way if they refuse all further parley or negotiation on these lines. There are other lands which the Department expect to acquire for the ridiculous price of £2 or £3 an acre. The Minister himself comes from a western area and I need not tell him or anybody else that it is ridiculous to expect an acre of any land, no matter how bad it is, in this year of 1955, for the paltry sum of £2 an acre, a sum which, according to a reply given in this House last week, is worth about what 15/- was in 1939.

Could anything be more ridiculous than this offer? Who is responsible for fixing such a price for the acquisition of lands for afforestation purposes? Surely the capital amount expended on the purchase of the land is the least expense in the ultimate cost of afforestation. We have the cost of the trees, the cost of planting, fencing, protective measures and the maintenance of the forest and we quibble with the farmer about the price. We tender a price of £2 or £3 an acre and we never come back to negotiate further. I do not think the Department will get lands in the congested areas by that method of negotiation or by that approach.

I have been reading the Estimates and I know that the Minister has stated, when introducing the Estimates, that there is a great desire on his part to increase planting and to proceed with afforestation and the potentialities of afforestation in the congested areas. That has only transpired, as far as I can see, in the 1955 Estimates. It may be that I am being premature in making these remarks but I have noticed in the last four years in a large county like Galway, which is notably a congested area, only 2,000 acres were acquired in the four previous years.

Mr. Blowick

Where? In Galway?

Mr. Glynn

In County Galway. I would refer the Minister to the debates of the 7th June, 1955, Volume 151. I think it was Deputy Derrig mentioned that matter. In the course of his statement he referred to the congested areas and he pointed out that in County Donegal the progress made was probably the best of these counties. 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 satisfactory. The Galway figure of about 2,000 acres for such a large county, a county which included the Connemara area, could be described as a poor result.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the column please?

Mr. Glynn

Column 797 of Volume 151. The Deputy went on to give the figure for Leitrim, which was less than 2,000 acres. In other words, the figure in respect of Leitrim was comparable, almost, with the Galway figure, although Galway is the second largest county in Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that Galway County, in parts, is also one of the most congested counties in Ireland. In relation to the congested areas I would quote the Minister himself where, in column 784 of the same volume he says:—

"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."

That is very important from the point of view of my constituency, because in my constituency we have huge tracts of what the Minister describes as blanket-bog and submarginal land types. We have an area—I would not measure it in hundreds but in thousands of acres—available for afforestation in County Galway, submarginal, marginal and suitable types of land for afforestation. I sincerely hope that steps will be taken to avail of these lands in the very near future for afforestation purposes.

While we are waiting for the good results expected from the experimentation to which the Minister referred, I would suggest that there are very large areas of suitable land at present available if steps were taken to acquire them. I did mention to the Minister one area—I think it must be eight or nine months ago since I wrote either to the Minister or to the Department or the Land Commission —near Kilchreest, Loughrea, in which there was a very substantial area of over 1,000 acres available and waiting for afforestation. All that was asked was that the Land Commission should step in and apportion turf banks on a small proportion of that land for 82 or 84 tenants—I think two acres each was suggested and not more than 190 acres would be utilised for the benefit of the tenants. Over 1,000 acres besides this would be available for afforestation. As far as I can see, I have not yet got a satisfactory reply to that suggestion and I do not think that is dealing with the problem in a congested area—or in any other area for that matter—in a satisfactory way.

I have also had the experience of making several offers of exchanges of 100 acres or thereabouts of poor land of small valuation for economic holdings of 30 or 40 acres. Again, I got an acknowledgment but nothing else. I do not know if the people have even been approached to inspect the land or decide on its suitability or decide anything in the matter. These are matters about which it is not I who have the complaint, but others.

Reading the debates and the Estimates connected with this matter, I must say that the present Minister and the Land Commission or the Forestry Division in recent years have progressed steadily. I have heard Deputies complain that this progress is not sufficient and I agree it is hardly sufficient. I would suggest that a different approach might be made and, as a start, that a higher range of prices might be decided on by the Department in the light of the fact that this initial expense is by no means an expense which should be a deterrent to the acquisition of land. It is the smallest portion of the capital outlay involved and I think farmers or any owners who are giving up land for afforestation purposes should be reasonably and suitably compensated and should not be offered the poor prices which are at present being offered, having regard to the present value of money.

We should get away from the history and methods of the past when any Government Department was entitled to go down the country, acquire lands at confiscation prices, and, if the owner objected, he was told he could avail of arbitration machinery. Anybody with any experience of arbitration machinery, so far as compulsory acquisition of land is concerned—omitting I must say, the acquisition of land under the 1950 Act which the Minister himself introduced—knows that a farmer is offered a price and, if he is not satisfied, he is told he can avail of the arbitration machinery. I think it is adding insult to injury to tell a man he is being treated fairly and that there will be arbitration. To my mind it is not arbitration; it is another way of politely confiscating the land because arbitration is invariably used in a threatening kind of way when it is mentioned in negotiations under compulsory acquisition proceedings. The owner is told: "If you do not accept this price we offer,"—30/- an acre, perhaps—"we will let you go to arbitration."

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy will forgive me for interrupting, all forestry purchases are purely voluntary.

Mr. Glynn

Yes, but——

Mr. Blowick

But that is something that Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Blaney are blaming us for.

Mr. Glynn

I accept that it is voluntary but the point I wish to make is that the prices that are being offered for voluntary acquisition are comparable to the prices being given under compulsory acquisition. How can you acquire voluntarily while giving prices comparable to compulsory acquisition prices? That is a fact—the prices offered are not related to the value of the land to the owners at all. If they were, more land would be given for afforestation, either sold or exchanged.

I think the Minister should ensure that the Forestry Division and the Land Commission—while there appears to be some liaison between them at the moment—should work more in cooperation with each other. I understand if they are acquiring for one purpose it cannot be given for another purpose. If the Land Commission acquire land for the actual or alleged relief of congestion and if there is a little over, which is unsuitable for relieving congestion but suitable for afforestation, I understand the Land Commission cannot hand it over to the Forestry Division.

Mr. Blowick

They can hand it over to the Forestry Division—at least they are at liberty to do so.

Mr. Glynn

But do they do it?

Mr. Blowick

Yes.

Mr. Glynn

I have been told recently of a case in which a man was pointed out an exchange by a Land Commission official four or five years ago. The house is built on those lands now, the estate is divided and the holding is vacant. The house is still vacant. The man was told that the Land Commission was very sorry but he could not be given an exchange by reason of the fact that the land he would be vacating would not be suitable for the relief of congestion and that the Land Commission had no power to acquire land for any purpose other than the relief of congestion. This was stated although it was pointed out that the land could be given to the Forestry Division. It is one way or the other: either the Land Commission has power to acquire land for the Forestry Division in conjunction with the relief of congestion or they have not.

I can give the particular person's name to the Minister later, if he wishes. I gave him the facts before. I think I am quite correct in saying— I have no hesitation in saying it and no hesitation in emphasising it—that County Galway has been neglected for a long number of years, particularly in the matter of afforestation. I would urge the Government to give more serious attention to County Galway, a congested area and an area from which there is a fair amount of emigration annually. Between the 1951 General Election and the General Election of 1954, the Connacht Tribune which is the leading provincial paper in the West of Ireland, pointed out that the number of voters on the register had decreased by something like 900. That is something of which the Minister and, indeed all of us, should take cognisance.

There are people who suggest that industry is the cure for all our ills and that, if we establish industries in the West, emigration will cease. I do not think industry is the cure for all our ills. It is a cure for some ills, but industry, of itself, is practically useless because we will not have the labour to man such industry, and neither will we have what has been so often discused here, namely, the people to work the land. Remember, this is a congested area and a special Act was passed to assist this area.

The Minister may say that the acquisition of land for afforestation in this area will drive the people out of it. I cannot subscribe to that suggestion. Not only will it give immediate employment, but those who leave the area, while the forests are developing, will in the years to come return to the area to reap the benefits of afforestation to-day, industrially and otherwise, and the population will be double what it is to-day.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

This motion was tabled a short time after I informed the House last Spring that I intended to introduce legislation along the lines envisaged in part of this motion. Because of the nature of that Bill, I prophesy that some Deputies will regard it as revolutionary; for others, it will not go far enough. As a matter of fact, we have already had advance notice from Deputy McQuillan that, no matter what is in it, he will not be pleased with it.

Mr. McQuillan

I did not go that far.

Mr. Blowick

Those may not be the exact words used by the Deputy, but that is the impression he conveyed.

Mr. McQuillan

If I find it is a good Bill, I will agree with it.

Mr. Blowick

I have been listening to Deputy McQuillan for a long time and I know that he has never yet been pleased with what any Minister has done. If he wants the members of the Government to fall over backwards in a faint some day, all he need do is get up here and say he is pleased with what the Government is doing; he can expect 13 faints straight away.

The Bill to which I referred is in the post to-night. Now, Deputy MacBride waxed very eloquent. He asked: "Where is the Bill?" He waxed so eloquent that I had a shrewd suspicion he had been down to his post box in the hall and got a copy of the Bill.

Mr. Blaney

It is not there.

Mr. Blowick

If it is not, it ought to be. It would not surprise me if Deputies had received it between six and seven o'clock this evening. Actually, I did not expect this motion to come on to-night. I do not think that the Deputies who tabled the motion expected it to be taken to-night. No one anticipated that business would conclude as expeditiously as it did and no one expected that the first motion would conclude so rapidly. I am sorry that the motion has come on to-night, because, had it been deferred until next week, in all probability, I would have asked the House to discuss the Bill and the motion together, thereby saving a double debate. Sufficient for the Bill. Deputies will have it in their hands to-morrow morning.

The second part of this motion asks the Government to increase the planting of forests in the congested areas at a much greater pace. In making that request, the movers of this motion are pushing a door which is already wide open. During the last inter-Party Government, I think it was Deputy Moran from South Mayo who chided me for doing too much in the West, particularly in County Mayo. It is a strange turn of the wheel to find him now as a signatory to this motion stating we are not doing enough.

I am a little perplexed. I do not know whether we are doing too much or too little. If I give the House some figures, perhaps it may help to clear the air. Personlly, I like the motion. I like a discussion of forestry because, to use the words of Deputy Seán Collins, forestry has been neglected. When I say that, I am not blaming anybody, because it is just as foolish to regret the past as to soliloquise about the wonderful forests and factories we shall have 50 years hence. We are living to-day. Let us take stock of to-day and do our best to improve things to-day. Moaning about the past or prophesying about the future is a somewhat useless proceeding. Prophesying about our forests may be a pleasant occupation but it is, at the same time, a somewhat futile one.

To come now to the figures: at 31st March, 1955, the total area of land held for forestry purposes in the congested districts was 95,000 acres. In March, 1943, the area was 36,000; therefore, over a period of 12 years, we have practically trebled the area of land devoted to forestry in these regions.

Mr. Derrig

Planted land?

Mr. Blowick

Plantable land. That figure does not include the unplantable land we have on hands.

Mr. Glynn

Could the Minister say how much of that is in County Galway?

Mr. Blowick

Since 1949, 12,000 acres have been acquired in County Galway.

Mr. Glynn

In Connemara?

Mr. Blowick

I have not the particular areas, but, at a rough guess, I would say that 8,000 or 9,000 acres have been acquired in Connemara—at least that.

Mr. O'Connor

Could the Minister give us the figure for County Kerry?

Mr. Blowick

I will come to that. The remainder of County Galway consists largely of limestone arable land; some areas are quite rich and others consist mainly of tillage and grazing. It is not likely that forestry will ever develop to any great extent in those parts of Galway where the land is of that particular type. Personally, I think it would be a bad thing from the national point of view if we were ever to encourage afforestation on good arable or semi-arable land. As a nation, we want to make the best use we can of our land, the same use as a farmer makes of his holding and, from that point of view, we must devote it to what is most suitable for it.

The first aspect we have to consider is the position of our own citizens. I admit trees are grand. There is no greater fanatic in this House or outside it than I am in, so far as forestry is concerned. There is no one as interested in it as I am. Nevertheless, we have to consider our people first. We have to grow food for them and, from that point of view, arable and semi-arable land is of prime importance.

I am concerned now with areas which do not rank so highly from the agricultural food production point of view. In 1943, there were 27 forest centres in the congested districts. There are now 57 and, of these, 24 were established in the past five years. Take the congested districts as divided broadly into three separate regions: Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim as the northern block; a central block comprising Mayo, Roscommon and Galway, Clare, Kerry and portion of West Cork as the southern block.

Up to 1952 in County Donegal only six State forests had been established and these lay mainly in the eastern half of the country where congestion is not such a pressing problem. Since then, centres have been opened at Gweedore and Gweebara—a total of 1,629 acres; at Kilcar—1,805 acres; and in four other areas—Meenirroy, Raphoe, Lough Eske and Mulroy—a total of 4,652 acres.

Out of the central block, take Connemara, where up to 1951 only one State forest, Ross, had been established and that only at the threshold of Connemara. Since then, we have made a start at three other centres— Cloosh Valley, 8,504 acres, Maam Valley—700 acres; Ballinahinch—1,305 acres, and I am expecting to get over soon a substantial area at Kilkieran Bay, where it is expected, with favourable conditions of shelter, that the plantations will run right down almost to the coastline.

Take my own county, Mayo. Since 1951, we have made a start on forestry in such areas as Doolough—1,377 acres, Nephin Beg and Nephin More—a total of 6,053 acres, at Lough Carra and at Tourmakeady. Here, too, we have commenced planting preparations on the new area at Glenamoy and I hope shortly to take over some 1,400 acres at Shanettra, as the nucleus of still another centre in the Bangor Erris region.

The southern block I mentioned has not the same potential for spectacular expansion, but here too we have added new forests at Killorglin—1,000 acres and Brosna—520 acres.

These facts point clearly to the expansion which has taken place in western areas. An even stronger indication is afforded by an examination of the trend of planting in recent years. In 1938-39, planting in the congested areas came to 1,662 acres or 22 per cent. of the total area planted in that year. I am about to give figures now which ought to interest Deputies, particularly those from the West of Ireland. The area in 1951-52 was 3,975 acres or 26.5 per cent. of that year's planting; in 1952-53 4,480 acres were planted, 36 per cent. of the total for that year and in 1953-54 and 1954-55 the areas planted were 4,740 acres and 5,095 acres respectively, about 38 per cent. of the total area planted in the respective years.

If Deputies would just ponder for a moment on those figures, they will see a very steady but determined expansion in planting in the western areas. I would like Deputies also to take into account that the area planted each year was not static. It was not the same each year, 5,000 6,000 12,000 acres. The total area each year was increasing all over the country and, at the same time, the percentage of that increasing total was increasing in the West, according to the figures I have given. Therefore, the Deputies who have put down the motion and who have supported it will see quite clearly that it is unnecessary and that actually we have been taking steps since 1948-49 along the lines I have just indicated.

In the current planting season, 1955-56, we propose to plant in the area of the congested districts a total of 6,500 acres, approximately 43 per cent. of our programme for the country as a whole. Deputies will note the manner in which the percentage of western planting advanced so spectacularly in 1952-53 and has continued to climb inexorably since.

Further support for my contention is afforded by examination of the employment figures in recent years. In March, 1949, there were 470 men employed in forests in the congested districts and the number rose to 700 in 1951. In March, 1955, the number employed was 1190 and the figure at present is 1360. Now have Deputies any doubt about the expansion in the congested counties.

Mr. Blaney

It is far too low.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, that goes without saying. That is not very helpful because there is no one more painfully aware of that fact than I am. At the very least, that is a very nice increase. It shows that, whatever other Government Department may be accused of slacking, the Forestry Department cannot because they are doing their utmost to improve the position. I will give other figures to-night which will set Deputies thinking.

Deputies will recognise that the majority of these forests are at the formative stage and the employment potential of such areas is much lower than that of a forest which has reached the later stages of development. It follows that, without taking account of the inevitable expansion which is in progress, there is in our forests as they stand at present a rapidly expanding source of employment which will be of very real benefit to the congested districts.

I hope Deputies will now realise what has been taking place in the congested districts. From a planting rate all over the country of approximately 6,000 acres six or seven years ago, we have risen to 15,000 acres a year. Deputy MacBride to-night threatened to bring down the Government—I think that was the term he used—if the planting rate was not increased. Perhaps at this stage, a few words to Deputies who may not be quite familiar with the set-up of forestry generally will not be out of place. I want to make one clear and emphatic statement, that the planting of 25,000 acres is easily within the competence of the Forestry Department, provided they have the land. There is no trouble about labour or about money. It will only take a short time to get the nurseries here to turn out the necessary number of transplants for 25,000 or 35,000 acres per year. The whole thing hinges on the acquisition of land. Deputy MacBride seemed to make fun of what happened in the past, during the war years; there was no barbed wire, not enough foresters and there was a shortage of hatchets.

Mr. Derrig

Axes.

Mr. Blowick

Yes. Some people do not seem to be short of axes to grind. Perhaps these things did happen during the war years, but I am not sufficiently familiar with that to speak offhand. There was a shortage of skilled foresters. I remember, when Deputy MacBride was Minister for External Affairs, having a very serious talk one day about it. He told me as far as he was concerned we could go ahead and increase the number of forest trainees. At the time, I think I doubled the number from ten to 20 per year. This gives the Department a sufficient number at the present time.

As I said, the whole question hinges on the acquisition of land. I would like Deputies to clear the air and tell us what ground they stand on about the acquisition of land. It is most remarkable that the Deputies who come from the western seaboard, from the rural areas, are just as cautious about the question of the acquisition of land as I am, coming from a farming district and a farming family myself. We can get plenty of land if we adopt Hitler's methods, but I am not going to do that. If it means bringing down the Government, I will help to bring down the Government that will attempt to adopt any dictatorial methods, grabbing from the farmers what they have won so hard in the past. If this State wants land for forestry, this State will purchase it and it will purchase it according to law, and not by any other method while I have responsibility. I want everyone to know where this Government stands on this question. There will be no confiscation of land because it is to the smallest and poorest of our farmers that the Forestry Department, if given compulsory powers of acquisition, would have to turn, and it is the poorest of our famers that the State machine would be used to crush down.

I am having introduced a Bill which is going as far as humanly possible to go under the Constitution and as far as I am determined to go at the moment. Both myself and every other member of the Government will oppose any attempt to acquire land compulsorily for forestry. We have a body which acquires land compulsorily for the relief of congestion, but that is a different matter from going into a farmer's house and telling him: "You get out of your farm and go where you like as we want it for growing trees." If there is to be anything of that nature, I, for one, will head men with guns to defeat it. It is for the good of everybody to know what a red hot question this is.

Mr. Blaney

It is you who are making it red hot.

Mr. Blowick

It is red hot. There are people who do not own a perch of land and who have no stake in the country, and they are the first to demand that land should be confiscated for forestry in this country. I want to tell these people that if they want trouble through the taking of land, let them try and they will get more than they bargain for.

Deputy Blaney mentioned that, in the case of commonage, the number of owners who ask to have their land acquired should be allowed to go ahead. I take that as dealing with cases where the big majority of the owners are willing to sell. But there are the one, two or three who are nearest to the common and who may have the capital to stock the common. These are the two or three people who are stocking the common and getting the grazing of 300, 400 or 1,000 sheep, because their neighbours cannot afford to pay the rent and rates. Such people are actually stealing the other people's grazing. As things are, we cannot establish a scheme whereby the 15, 16 or 18 people who are willing to sell out straight and fair can sell and at the same time despoil the other two or three who also have a share in the common.

The Bill I propose will deal with that matter. I intend to leave them their share in the common, but only their share. Say, for instance, that we have 18 shareholders in the common, and there are 15 or 16 of these who are willing to sell. What I propose to do is to buy these out. I have taken the power to partition the common and leave the other two or three there. If they find themselves left there with their own little bit, they will soon come around all right. That is one of the clauses which I hope to put in the Bill.

Deputy Glynn mentioned the question of the price paid for land for forestry. I think he does not understand what happens and that he was mixing land purchase procedure with forestry. We do not acquire land compulsorily for forestry. In each case where land is acquired, it is a purely voluntary offer.

Mr. Glynn

The point I made is that the prices offered for voluntary acquisitions are totally inadequate. The farmers will not accept them. I brought in the question of the price paid in the case of compulsory acquisition in comparison with the price paid in the case of voluntary negotiations. The prices offered in the case of voluntary acquisition are almost the same as those paid in the case of compulsory acquisition and are completely inadequate.

Mr. Blowick

My information is that our prices compare very favourably with the price of land in the locality. The land acquired for forestry is in most cases of low quality, but if there is a portion of good land in the lot we are buying for forestry, we buy it at a good high price. In practically all cases, our prices are as good as, if not better, than prices in the locality.

Deputy Alfred Byrne mentioned a point which I am anxious to reply to. He said that somebody had mentioned to him that it would be a pity if the Forestry Division interfered with the scenic beauties of Glengarriff. Such is not the case. Steps have been taken to go into the whole matter, so that, instead of interfering with the beauty, the operations will enhance it, if anything. I can give the Deputy that assurance. I would be long sorry if anything like that should happen. Just as in the case of other beauty spots, such as Cong, Killarney, pains will be taken to see that no destruction of the beauty will take place and they plan to do the work so that the beauty will be enhanced.

I have not a whole lot more to say on this motion because I was practically certain that the Bill would have been in the hands of Deputies before the motion was reached. I have given Deputy Blaney and others who have spoken an idea of some of the things which I hope the Bill will do. There are other powers in it as well, and I will ask Deputies to peruse it very carefully between now and the time of the Second Reading.

The Minister for Lands is taking power in the Bill to go further than ever before. Some of these things may shock some ex-Ministers particularly when they look back on their own relations with the Minister for Finance in times gone by.

Deputy Derrig mentioned Mr. Cameron's report of some years ago and referred to the plantable area. The plantable, or survey, area is not a hard and fast matter. He described it as a rough shot at the approximate area. It is a rough shot, and can only be a rough shot, because the land project and the arterial drainage schemes, and the work of the farmers themselves, are constantly changing the non-arable area of our country, but not to any outstanding extent.

Early in May of this year, a Deputy put down a question to elicit information in regard to my attitude on the recommendation of the F.A.O. Forestry Adviser that a special programme should be initiated. In my reply, I stated clearly my attitude to the adviser's proposals and to the whole question of forestry in the West and the congested districts. Mr. Cameron's recommendation was that the forestry programme should be confined to a rate estimated to meet half the country's requirements of commercial timber and that a social forestry programme of like dimensions should be inaugurated to promote employment without regard to the quality of the timber which might be produced. I stated at that time that this recommendation was unacceptable and that the Department's policy must continue to aim at the expansion of commercial forestry operations to a level adequate to meet any foreseeable demand for timber in the country.

I said, too, that I had encouraged my Department actively to pursue the development of submarginal lands for forestry purposes with the assistance of new techniques and that these advances would provide the solution to the problem of unemployment and emigration in these undeveloped areas. The objectives of the social forestry programme can thus be attained while still preserving all the fundamentals of good forestry practice. This still remains my firm belief and there is adequate proof of the soundness of this belief in the data which I have furnished. I see in this motion a support from the proposers for the policy which I am already pursuing in this whole matter.

Most Deputies take a sane, levelheaded view of the whole question of forestry. I am glad to see that. Some Deputies are inclined to paint the picture to the country, that the Forestry Division is doing nothing. I have no word to described that, except to say that it is cowardly black guardism in relation to officials who are doing one of the best jobs of work being done by civil servants. No credit is reflected on anyone who indulges in that type of propaganda.

It should not be forgotten that approximately 20,000 acres are being acquired per year. We should be thankful that we have 50,000 acres of plantable reserve. We are fast approaching the day, I hope, when we will attain a 20,000 acre programme. There will be nobody to clap louder than I will clap the day some Minister gets up in this House and says that they have passed the 25,000 acres target. The root of the trouble is the acquisition of land. The acquisition of land must be done according to the law that this House makes. If anybody thinks that he can drive me to use ruthlessly the compulsory powers of acquisition contained in the 1946 Act, he has another guess coming. I will not do any such thing.

I am very proud of the progress the forestry branch has made. A figure of 15,000 acres is a very easy figure to mention in a debate in the House or on a public platform. To the average person, who does not think, 1,500 or 50 is pretty much the same thing. Let us consider what 15,000 acres really means. It represents approximately 23½ square miles of country. Fifteen thousand acres planted this year means that 23½ square miles of Mother Ireland will be covered with young forest. Just reflect on that. That acreage would make a belt of forest one-quarter mile wide from Nelson Pillar in Dublin to the town of Loughrea in Galway, right across the Shannon. That is exactly what will be put down this year. That is what is being done by foresters all over the country. That is another way to bring home to those who are talking glibly, through their hats, about planting what exactly is being done.

Let us not forget that this is an agricultural country and that we are depending for our livelihood on agriculture, not on forestry. Let us not forget that every 15,000 acres planted means approximately 20,000 acres taken from agricultural production, even if it is low production. Let us not forget that if these 15,000 acres were not utilised for forestry purposes, they could be divided into economic holdings, enough to support 450 families a year. These are just ways to look at exactly what we are doing and Deputies who look at it in that way will have food for reflection. I recommend that consideration to those Deputies who never planted a tree and who never stood in a forest. They may, perhaps, have driven along the road and have seen a forest on each side and remarked what a lovely thing it was to look at, but they did not know the amount of labour it represented from the day the owner of the land was first approached to sell it.

If I am a bit harsh in my language, it is merely for the purpose of trying to keep the debate on a sane level. I must thank Deputies on all sides of the House for the sane view they took.

I am proud of what the Forestry Division are doing. They are doing a magnificent job of work. The new Bill, I hope, will make acquisition easier. Once the land comes in, there is no trouble in planting. There is no shortage of money. Deputy McQuillan seems to think that the Minister for Lands has to go for every penny he spends to the Department of Finance. He has not. He goes to the Government and has put into the Estimate whatever he wants and, if the Government cuts it down, that is the responsibility of the Government, not of the Department of Finance. There again, it is making a cockshot of officials who cannot come in here to defend themselves.

On the question of compulsory acquisition, I will have none of it and will be the very first to oppose it. I would not like to see the day that any Government or any Deputy would come into this House to re-establish the ruthless monster and to let it loose on the farmers to root them out of the holdings that Dillon, Davitt and Parnell secured for their forefathers not many generations ago, for the sake of gratifying those who would wish to put trees in their place. I would like to see trees in this country, but we must go about it in the proper way and have first regard for the citizens. They may be poor citizens, in the habit of going around with torn clothes, not very presentable in some cases; but there is just as good Irish blood in their veins as there is in the veins of many of their critics.

When I say that the Bill is already circulated and when I have regard to the figures that I have given, in describing the rapid expansion of planting in the West, I am not being too ambitious when I say that the day should not be far off when 50 per cent. of the total planting of the country will take place in the nine congested counties. I am not misleading the House by saying that and Deputies will not be able to accuse me in three or four years' time of being overambitious when I expressed that hope, here to-night, that 50 per cent. of the planting will take place west of the Shannon.

I find myself in the position that I cannot reject the motion and am forced to accept it, because the Deputies put down the motion knowing what was happening. Deputy Derrig was Minister for Lands and must be well aware of the expansion taking place in the congested districts.

Mr. Bartley

We did not know anything about the Bill when the motion was put down. I am one of the signatories and I knew nothing about the Bill.

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps the Deputy might not have known or perhaps any of the signatories might not have known. I am not saying that they did, but I did give public warning in this House and, I think outside, that I intended to bring in such a Bill. The Deputy may not have known about it.

Mr. Bartley

There was reference to it on the 8th June.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 23rd November, 1955.