Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Nov 1955

Vol. 153 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Forestry Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. O'Connor

I received this letter of the 30th July, 1955:—

"A Chara, —I am directed by the Minister for Lands to refer to the inspection by the Forestry Division on 24th May, 1955, of the commonage areas of Poulawaddra, Caherleheen and Skahanagh, County Kerry, comprising a total area of 1,120 acres, approximately, and to inform you that the inspection revealed the bulk of the ground to be unplantable and quite unsuitable for acquisition for State afforestation purposes.

In the circumstances, the Minister does not propose to take any further steps to acquire these lands."

Can the report be made available on which that decision was based in regard to this land, which, to my mind, is eminently suitable for forestry purposes? With a bald statement you can get the brush-off if you are prepared to accept it. "Unsuitability" covers a multitude. This particular land is shown on the ordance sheet as "The Woodlands". There is ample evidence that this land had been planted centuries ago and grew timber successfully. I do not say that that would apply to the 1,120 acres but I will say that a good proportion of that land is capable of producing trees. In my own memory and in my father's memory, this land was held by the landlords, the Blennerhassets of Ballyseedy. It grew threes then, and it was a crime to take the trees.

Now the experts of 1955 tell us this land is unsuitable for tree-growing. I wish the Minister could give us a report on the number of times this land was turned down and described as unsuitable for afforestation. Perhaps I am not sailing close enough to the Bill before the House, but there are other little grumbles I have with this Department. I have been approached by a great many of my constituents with regard to afforestation in our county. I may say at this stage that I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it or not, but, in North Kerry, there is no evidence that such a Department as his exists. A big portion of North Kerry forms a Gaeltacht area and yet the Forestry Section has not given one bit of grant or planted a single tree in this four-seat constituency.

I do not wonder at all that Deputy O'Hara wanted to have the status quo retained as regards afforestation. We all know what is happening in Mayo. It is to get a plantation scheme involving 5,000 acres. Naturally, the cry there is: “Go home you, Jack; I am all right.” Every man christens his own child first. Mayo is very lucky. They have under way a scheme for the planting of 12,500 acres. One person in Kerry asked me to make representations to the Department with regard to a hill side farm of 110 acres which, in my view, is absolutely suitable for tree growing. The man's name is Lynch and he lives at Annagh, Tralee, County Kerry. I wrote to the Department last winter to inspect this place and report as to its suitability. Apparently Mr. Lynch was communicated with and asked what price he expected. I do not know what price he asked for, but I got back a letter to say that the price was too big. There was no further indication that the Department was interested.

Of course, I knew myself that they had no interest in the area at all. That farm I have mentioned would have linked up very suitably with the neighbouring area of 1,100 acres of the Foley estate on which there is living evidence of beautiful timber. The 1914-18 war did away with a considerable amount of that and with more modern machinery, with system tractors and long hawsers, it became denuded of its timber—and that land which grew trees out of which six tons of commercial timber could be taken is now described as unsuitable. I made representations on behalf of Thomas Buckley of Banemore, Listowel, who had suitable land which had grown timber successfully. He is prepared to offer that land which adjoins another holding which would also be suitable for afforestation. There is more suitable land nearby at Kilbane, Ballymacelligott, near Glanageenty where the Earl of Desmond was beheaded. All this makes up a huge tract of suitable land which is available without any reference to this Bill. There is no necessity for this Bill at all.

Mr. McQuillan

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'Connor

There is more land available for afforestation than the Minister apparently knows, but neither himself nor his Department is interested. I am making that statement in all seriousness. I wonder if I could get a statement from the Minister when he is winding up the debate assuming me that he will interest himself in the land we have to offer. He does not have to wait until this Bill goes through before he gets this land; he can go and get it now and I guarantee him, without exaggeration, that he will get 3,000 acres of suitable land for afforestation in North Kerry.

I think it is my duty to mention in connection with all this—and I will not pull any punches in this—that an officer from the Department came to my house while I was here in Dublin. At the time I had put down a question, but I was prevented from developing it because I was new to parliamentary procedure and because the question was a hard one to frame, anyway. The officers from this Department are so sure of themselves that one dares not to question their authority or their judgment. This officer who called at my house in my absense was quite conversant with what my question was driving at. He made some disparaging reference to the question and went as far as to say that people should keep their mouths shut when they did not know what they were talking about. I say here and now that, if I were at home at the time, I would have dealt with that gentleman in the way he deserved to be dealt with. I should like the Minister to call "heel up" to these gentlemen. After all, the Oireachtas are the bosses; they are the boys who have the final say. I think the boot is on the other foot though, because they are being thwarted by anonymous civil servants.

What is our approach to forestry at all? I can tell you that I am interested in it not since I came into Leinster House. I can produce evidence where away back in 1931 I made puny efforts, if you wish to describe them as such, to do something about trees; and if we had a Government then that would treat afforestation as it should be treated, if we had statement instead of politicians, we probably would not be in the sorry plight we are in to-day. If we had a Government who would take it seriously, what raw materials we would have to-day to establish our newsprint factory and all the other subsidiary factories which would accrue from a reasonable effort at the time it should be made! Surely we can leave something to posterity. If men went out and gave their lives and died in the effort, they had nothing to gain; we have nothing to gain, and we are not asked to give our lives, but to give our time and reasonable thought to afforestation and leave something tangible to posterity which they can use and be thankful for. I must quote the Minister's statement: "We are now planting at a rate sufficient to meet our commercial timber needs in 45 to 50 years' time and there is nothing more we can do on that from except to ensure that the Forestry Division is given a proper opportunity to maintain and develop the plantations in the proper way. I want to say on that score that when I first took office as Minister for Lands, I did not fully appreciate the extent to which a rapid increase in fresh planting could detract attention from the requirements of the existing plantations. That fact did not become apparent until 1951 and the Minister who took over from me in that year announced to this House in introducing the Forestry Estimate for 1952-53 (Volume 132, columns 1966-68, debate of 1st. July, 1952) that it would be necessary to reduce the planting rate for that year to 12,500 acres in order to make sure that arrears of work in the existing plantations received attention. We cannot quarrel with him for that, as every Deputy must realise that the care of existing plantations must take precedence over fresh planting."

Does it require an expert to look after trees at the different stages? Surely it is a labourer's job, with a skilled man to every dozen. Was it necessary to suspend operations to take care of the younger flock coming up while we exported manpower day after day, year in year out, from the country? We will have to have a more realistic approach to that problem than we have had heretofore. That should never be offered as an excuse, that shortage of labour prevented you from pursuing your programme or policy with regard to afforestation. Caution should never be the watchword with regard to it. If we are over-anxious, if we have to have an assurance that every effort of ours will be 100 per cent., then we will get nowhere. There should be a little element of chance, and sacrifice this caution for a bit of speed.

I am parochial in my outlook in regard to this thing, as I stated at the outset. This Department, as far as North Kerry is concerned, might not exist. There is no activity there; there is no tree planting there. They have never gone there, as far as I am aware, except in my limited experience to turn down an offer of suitable land. I forgot to mention that—an area west, but an area stretching for ten miles long and any depth you like. It is hilly land, but I would say without fear of contradiction that you would get 6,000 acres of suitable land for afforestation in that territory without reference to the proposed Bill.

I am going to make it my business to hear the Minister's reply. I would like an assurance from him that there will be an even distribution of the benefits accruing from the policy of afforestation. We are entitled to some consideration—a four-seat constituency in a Gaeltacht area and no appearance by the Forestry Department in that area yet. This thing is under way since 1930, since when I would say there is some talk about afforestation. I made up my mind when I was elected to Dáil Éireann —this is not hysteria about trees at all as I am not a bit hysterical —to make myself a nuisance as long as I was in this House with regard to that and to fight for what I call our rights. Our claims to a fair proportion of the expenditure and of the wealth that will accrue from afforestation are just. I intend to make myself, as I said before, a nuisance, and if I never did anything else in my sojourn in Leinster House, if I succeed in getting at least that I will say that I have justified my existence to my constituents.

Mr. Allen

I gathered from the Minister that the object of this Bill is to make it easier to acquire land for forestry, especially land held in commonage. I have just a doubt in my mind about the provisions of the Bill in that respect. While I am with the Minister about getting more land, and getting it as easily as he can, nevertheless he is aware, and all Deputies are aware, that there are many people who have commonages on mountains at the moment with small uneconomic farms in the foothills of those mountains. A big portion of their livelihood is drawn from sheep grazing on the mountains. Without the commonage on the mountain, many of them could not exist in their present holdings. That is a well-known fact.

I want to suggest to the Minister that if this Bill gives him further far-reaching powers in respect of acquiring large areas of commonage, he should take into consideration what the loss of that commonage may be to many of the small farmers living in the foothills, and some arrangement should be made to provide other land for them. That is of the greatest possible importance. I can think of a fair number of farmers with small acreages of arable land, having a large commonage on the hills, whose livelihood is derived principally from sheep on the hills and who could not possibly get a fair standard of living from the arable land they are living on. I hope that it will be the concern of the Minister and his Department in acquiring lands not to force out many of these people on the commonages.

Mr. Blowick

The purchases will be voluntary.

Mr. Allen

There is more than "voluntary" concerned in it. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Blowick

There is no element of compulsion.

Mr. Allen

I agree, but notwithstanding that, there is provision made. Assuming that, there are ten owners of a 1,000 acre commonage and assuming for the moment that eight of them are prepared to hand over their interest, but there are two objectors, then these two objectors will be limited to 100 or 200 acres of the thousand.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, of course, they will be.

Mr. Allen

They will be confined to 200 acres of the commonage?

Mr. Blowick

Yes, that is right.

Mr. Allen

The effect of that is evidently to force them out.

Mr. Blowick

No, it does not assume that. If the Deputy thinks I am going to compensate them for their free rights over the whole area, I am not going to do that.

Mr. Allen

I want to see forestry going ahead even faster than it is, but nevertheless there are a great number of people having in the foothills on small farms in areas in Wexford suitable for forestry and they use these commonages for grazing. Now if the Minister acquires portions of these commonages, these people will be forced out; that is, the people who object. What I ask the Minister is that, in acquiring these commonages, consideration should be given to these people who are depending on them for a livelihood and alternative land should be made available to them.

I want further to suggest that, when lands come into the hands of the Land Commission in eastern counties, they should be kept in a pool in order to be given to these people who are put out of the commonages as alternative land. That land should be used for that purpose, and that is the plea I am making to the Minister. The Minister, on the motion by Deputy Blaney a couple of nights ago, stated, I believe, that a couple of objectors who might not agree to acquisition voluntarily would be squeezed out, or words to that affect.

Mr. Blowick

What were my exact words?

Mr. Allen

It was on 16th November and I have read through that.

Mr. Blowick

The words I used were that they would come around eventually.

Mr. Allen

I will give the Minister's words as reported at column 907 in the Official Report of November 16th, and, as I read through them, I can see a certain amount of danger. The Minister said:—

"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."

Mr. Blowick

That is different from what you said and I hope they will come around.

Mr. Allen

They will come round all right, but it is a very different question from being forced out. There would be no doubt about that. There would be nothing wrong in what the Minister suggested. I would not have any objection to their being forced out, provided the Minister makes provision for them, as an alternative. That portion of the commonage should not be taken from them, leaving them with an uneconomic holding.

Mr. Blowick

What are we going to do with men who want to sell their rights? They have their rights the same as the man who does not want to sell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Allen should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Allen

That is my point of view and I think this is the proper time to put it to the Minister. At another stage in the speech, the Minister said he is going to become a gunman—God forbid—to lead a move against compulsory acquisition. The Minister gave the impression that he was going to lead a column of toughs to fight compulsory acquisition, and they were to have guns. I would not like to see the Minister do that.

Mr. Blowick

And uniforms and everything else.

Mr. Allen

Many sections of the Bill are concerned with the acquiring of commonages and the creating of titles for commonages. That is the main principle in the Bill and to what extent the Minister may get land, I do not know. I suppose he has got the advice of his experts in the matter and of their experience over many years past, and that this Bill is a result of that. While it may help in giving title and all the rest of it, I do not think the Bill will help to bring commonages into the pool. I do not think it will, unless the Minister takes steps through the Land Commission and through voluntary acquisition to provide, within reasonable distance alternative land for these people.

I think the Minister has sufficient information and knowledge of the value of some of these commonages and of the people who live in these foothills, with small portions of land, to understand their position. The Minister should make provision in any compulsory acquisition for alternative holdings for the people concerned. If he is in a position to offer fair alternative holdings, then the use of compulsory powers at that stage could not be wrong, in any way.

On the general question of forestry, there has been a good deal of criticism about what has been done in the past 30 years, but nevertheless what was done was done well. I am convinced of that. I have always said that of all the Departments of State, although I do not want to throw any bouquets at the Minister or his Department, the Department of Forestry is the most efficient of them all. They do their work in an orderly manner; they know their objective and they reach it all the time.

Land is difficult to acquire. I do not agree that all the barren mountains of this country are capable of growing timber. Many thousands of acres are not capable of growing it. To grow good timber you need more than a barren mountain with nothing on it but rocks and if people who are talking to-day of the neglect of the Department of Forestry would look at these barren mountains and think that they are capable of growing timber, then they have been misinformed if they have been told that that is so. Mr. Cameron suggested that we should plant for social purposes in the West of Ireland but I do not think we have yet reached that stage. While it is very desirable to give employment in the West of Ireland, I do not think that all the barren land we see there is fit for growing timber.

Mr. Blowick

Mr. Cameron did not confine himself to the social programme.

Mr. Allen

If the Government has any intention of trying to develop the West of Ireland, there is plenty of scope for it in other directions than in planting trees from which we have no hope of producing anything but scrub timber. For 30 years we have had people in this House advocating the planting of timber from which we would get nothing but scrub trees. I do not think the Government should allow that to happen.

Mr. Blowick

The social programme never envisaged planting for scrub. It envisaged the planting of second quality stock.

Mr. Allen

We have seen small areas of timber planted where there has been no proper shelter and as a result these plantations have been failures. I was often told that the west wind, while it is generally mild, is most dangerous for forestry and where an area is exposed to the west or north-west wind, it is most difficult to grow timber on it.

On the general question, I think there is a measure of agreement all over the House that we must step up the area planted each year. If this Bill brings in a large pool of land, I am sure that within a couple of years the Forestry Department will find itself planting a larger area. I have strong views on the amount of employment that will be given by afforestation. There is nothing that grows on the land that will provide as much employment as forestry. It may be that afforestation will not give a return for 50 or 60 years but it will give a considerable amount of employment in its development. If the land is available, it will step up employment in the areas where planting takes place.

This is a Forestry Bill and I suppose I would not be out of order in mentioning another aspect of forestry that has been neglected. The Minister mentioned that the total area available for forestry is about 1,000,000 acres. However, we will still have about 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 acres of hill, bog and mountian and of that what are probably 13,000,000 acres capable of being planted. We are looking forward to only 1,000,000 acres being planted in our time but you still will have at least 12,000,000 acres in the hands of private owners. I want to suggest that there is greater scope for the development of the growing of trees on those other 12,000,000 acres than the Forestry Department can ever hope to achieve.

If there was some encouragement given to the private owners of land to plant more trees, it would be much better. It should be the slogan of the Department of Forestry and the Minister to every landowner that he should plant some additional trees every year. I would go further and suggest that the Minister should persuade the Government and the local authorities to allow committees of agriculture to have a wholetime forester on their staffs who would aid the private owners of land in the planting of trees.

Thousands and tens of thousands of acres of private forests owned by private people were cut down in the first and second world wars and very few of them have been replanted. During the last 15 or 20 years powers were given to the Forestry Department to tell these people that they must replant but I do not think that there is any compulsory power in the hands of the Minister to compel these people to replant. Something must be done about that although I am not suggesting that it is necessary to have compulsory powers.

This country has been denuded of whatever commercial timber was held in private ownership. People engaged in the native timber sawmill industry will tell you that they find it impossible to get timber from private owners. All that timber was felled during the two wars and a great deal of it was exported from this country in the first World War. This matter should be taken much more seriously and the Government should take the matter more seriously.

The grants given by the Department of Forestry are said to be the same as they were 20 years ago. That is so, and the grant of £10 an acres should be doubled at least in view of present rates of wages, present prices of land and trees and the cost of planting and fencing which have certainly gone up over 100 per cent. I want to plead with the Minister for Lands to allow— and provide for it in legislation—any local authority willing to do so, to have a whole-time forester on its staff. Wexford County Council some years ago were willing to do that but got no encouragement in official quarters and never received sanction for the appointment. It was put up to the Department but nothing more ever happened. They have no power to do that at the present time. If we had a forester who was also a propagandist and who would act as technician and adviser to each landholder who wanted to plant trees, we would get more trees planted in a year than the Forestry Department would be capable of planting in five years.

There is a huge amount of waste land on every holding and the trees cut down over the last 30 or 40 years —in a large number of cases—have not been replanted. Farmers may have unsuitable lands from the Forestry Department's viewpoint because they are too small and the cost of fencing and maintenance and protection would be far too high. The owners of the land should be given every possible encouragement by increasing the grant and making technical assistance available to them.

On the question of the prices, if the Department are prepared to pay for land which they wish to acquire for forestry, I think those are mean and unfair prices from the owners' point of view. These are the prices that were offered 20 years ago. Land prices have gone up like everything else and the owner of the hillside, bog or commonage—whatever it may be—is entitled to fair compensation for what— ever property he owns. Definitely the Forestry Department will have to reject offer of land which come in from time to time when the land is quite inferior and would not grow the best trees, but apart from that there is quite a lot of land which the owners would be prepared to make available if they got a reasonable price. While the Forestry Department or the Land Commission or the Department of Finance are measly and mean about what they are prepared to pay, the rate at which land will come in will be much slower than it need be.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture (Mr. O. Flanagan)

As the Minister pointed out, the Bill is designed to facilitate the acquisition of land for forestry purposes. The first two lines of the Explanatory Memorandum issued with this Bill give Deputies a complete idea of the purpose of the Bill. When we see a Bill with this aim and object in view being introduced we must come to the conclusion that the Bill is of a progressive nature.

I welcome the Bill and I would welcome any measure which would equip the Minister with the powers and facilities necessary to go full steam ahead with afforestation. In the course of this debate there has been a good deal of criticism. Some of it may be necessary, more of it may be unnecessary, but the Forestry Department has been under fire in this House for the past two days. A number of Deputies stated that there were creaks from the bones of the Forestry Department. I think that is a very good thing. I think it would be a bad thing if the Forestry Department's bones were just left to rest in peace. It is a healthy sign to hear creaks from these bones. Despite the very serious criticism that has been hurled at the Department it must be borne in mind that in the past seven years 80,000 acres of land have been planted and that, I feel, is no mean acreage.

It is very heartening for Deputies who support the Government to hear the speeches of the Minister for Lands and of Deputy MacBride on forestry because if there had been more people like the present Minister for Lands and Deputy MacBride, with the same energy, ability and sincerity, working for afforestation 25 or 30 years ago, we would not be talking about planting to-day but we would be giving serious consideration to the best means of disposing of our surplus timber. I am sure it must be the great envy of the Fianna Fáil Party that we on this side of the House have such afforestation enthusiasts as the Minister for Lands and Deputy MacBride.

It is quite true that the bones of the Forestry Department are now creaking, and if they are, it is entirely due to the great energy, zeal and determination of the present Minister and of Deputy MacBride when he was a Minister. I think it is also to the credit of Deputy MacBride that, when he was Minister for External Affairs in the first inter-Party Government, the efforts and emphasis he placed at that time on afforestation have borne good results and have had effect through the years since. I feel if there had been people like the present Minister and Deputy MacBride in the public life of this country as administrators years ago, much of the talk as to the first steps in afforestation that are now being taken would be well over. We would not be listening to the volume of criticism that is being hurled at the Forestry Department now.

The present Minister for Lands is sincere and I have no doubt that under his administration there will be very great progress so far as planting and afforestation are concerned. I have no doubt that, with the co-operation of the House, very important steps will be taken to have more public attention focussed upon the activities of the Forestry Department. Afforestation is very important from the point of view of providing employment. There are people employed by the Forestry Department to-day who were not employed by that Department six or eight years ago and I venture to say that in five or ten years to come there will be a considerable improvement due to the facilities which the Forestry Department will be given under this Bill to expedite the acquisition of land for afforestation.

The employment given by afforestation is of the utmost importance. We have heard Deputies say here that they could see no progress in that respect in their constituencies and they could see no employment. Indeed, one Deputy stated that not a single tree had been planted in his constituency. Certainly I have not that pitiful tale to tell in so far as my constituency is concerned. The constituency I represent has been very closely associated with the work of the Forestry Branch for a number of years past. There are four forests in the area and they form the greatest single concentration of State forests in the country. They cover some 17,500 acres, of which about 11,000 acres are productive. There are very extensive forests on the Slieve Bloom ranges. I only wish that some of the Deputies who participated in this debate had some first-hand knowledge of the very valuable work that the Forestry Branch have done and the very valuable work that is in progress on the Slieve Bloom mountains.

The Minister had occasion to visit that area recently in connection with a further important development in relation to afforestation. He came to open a new forestry training college in Kinnitty in Offaly. There are a number of students in that college now actively engaged in training. These young men will be the future forestry experts. When their training is completed they will be sent out to various centres all over the country, centres in the constituencies that have been referred to here, where not even one tree has been planted, and they will pass on there the benefit of their expert knowledge and training. In that way the forestry prosperity that I see in my constituency may prove in time the happy and pleasant experience of Deputies in other constituencies and they, like me, will be able to pay the same tribute to the Forestry Branch that I in justice feel bound to pay them.

Apart from the planting of trees, there is the thinning and the care and attention which must be given to the young trees. That provides work for many men. Indeed, one of the difficulties that presented itself in Laois-Offaly was the problem of finding enough labour to participate in the employment offered in certain areas. It is true that the work may be far away from the towns and workers may have a considerable distance to travel, but it must be remembered that land suitable for afforestation cannot always be found as convenient to a town as the workers would like it to be. In some parts of my constituency, thinning operations had to be suspended and a good deal of inconvenience was caused to the officers of the Forestry Branch because sufficient labour could not be procured.

In Laois-Offaly we have been very fortunate in so far as afforestation is concerned. We are fortunate in having the new college opened there. The establishment of that college is a step in the right direction. Indeed its establishment was long overdue. Whatever else may be said about the Forestry Branch, this Bill is a definite sign of life and the opening of the new training college in Kinnitty is a definite sign of activity. But, so far as I am concerned, the best sign that I see is the energy and zeal and earnestness displayed by the Parties comprising this Government in relation to afforestation. Deputy Allen need have no fears so far as this Government is concerned. Whatever he may accuse the Minister of, he need have no fear that there is any danger that the Minister will every say, in so far as the acquisition of land is concerned, that he will fill ten fields full of inspectors so that he can chuck out all the old "cods". There will be no fences pulled down and no threats such as we have heard in connection with the acquisition and user of land from other Ministers in the past.

I think very useful work will result from this Bill because, when land can be more easily acquired for afforestation purposes, there will be more planting done; there will be more preparation of the land, more drainage and more thinning. As Deputy MacBride has pointed out, all these things form an important source of employment. When I hear Fianna Fáil Deputies lamenting that greater progress has not been made in afforestation, I remember, as I have very often had occasion to remember, that when Fianna Fáil are out of office they are full of the most marvellously progressive ideas; when they are in office, on the other hand, we do not hear so much about the ideas or the very progressive plans. It would have been a wonderful asset to the country if Fianna Fáil, when they held office for 20 years, or thereabouts, bent the energy about which their members have been so vocal in relation to this Bill towards developing afforestation.

As a result of the genuine efforts of Deputy MacBride and the sincerity of the Minister for Lands, more work was done by the inter-Party Government in four years than was done in the 17 or 18 years of the Fianna Fáil Administration, in so far as afforestation is concerned. That cannot be denied. We feel that is a proud record. It is no harm to repeat, because it is no harm ever to repeat what is right, that whilst we have men on this side of the House showing the same energy, zeal and progress in afforestation as we have, there is no danger but that very great progress will be made. Future prospects are extremely bright. In the not so far distant future, the Forestry Division will have to their credit the further acquisition of land, new forests and the provision of more employment. It is very easy to say here: "Plant trees", and it is very easy to plant trees with a pen on paper or speaking from a public platform: it is a different day's work to plant trees, as the Forestry Branch has had to plant them, on the actual site. That fact must be borne in mind. Deputies Derrig, Allen and every other Deputy know that the simplest thing in the world is to stand up at the cross-roads and say that thousands of acres will be planted. I am sure that Deputy MacBride will not be offended if I say it is a very easy matter to take up a pen and say that tens of thousands of acres can be planted. That looks lovely on paper and it sounds grand from the platform, but it is a different day's work to plant the trees on the land.

I feel that the Forestry Department are making a genuine effort. This Bill is proof of that effort. The training college opened recently is another proof and a further proof is the number of students undergoing forestry courses. I feel that a word of praise would be more helpful than unwarranted criticism at this stage. Progress in this connection has been made. We can only hope and trust that the Minister for Lands and the Forestry Branch will see to it that, when this Bill becomes law, the powers given under the Bill will be put into effect and that we may expect better results.

Deputy O'Connor made a reference to discourtesy, if I may describe it as such, by an officer of the Forestry Department. I do not know what merit was in his complaint. I have always found those connected with the Forestry Department very reasonable men. They are civil servants and the ordinary man in the country cannot be expected to view things in the same light as civil servants. Deputies, and particularly Ministers or ex-Ministers, who spent a number of years in very close touch with the Civil Service, find that after a while they become like the civil servants themselves even though they have been far removed from them.

In so far as I am personally concerned, I am even using Civil Service phrases at home and I am doing that absolutely unconsciously. I am almost asking for files in the house as a result of the close personal contact I have with civil servants. The big trouble is that, when Civil Service phrases are used in the country, the ordinary countryman finds it extremely difficult to come to the same level as the civil servant. I find that when a lot of the complaints concerning civil servants are investigated they are entirely due to the absence of a proper understanding of the Civil Service mentality. I am not saying it is the fault of the people not to understand them but it is the manner a civil servant has of putting his case. All civil servants are the same in that respect. If there were a little more knowledge of the manner in which civil servants work I feel that there would be a better understanding in this country and vice versa.

A very good deal of credit must also go to the ordinary forestry worker who has a very difficult job. He has a very special type of labour to perform. I hope that now, just as we have the county councils with pensions schemes, we will have the Minister for Lands giving some consideration to the ordinary forestry worker by bringing in some pension scheme that will cater for the forestry worker in his years of retirement. The forestry worker is as much entitled to his pension and superannuation scheme as the ordinary county council worker and I hope the Minister for Lands will bear that in mind.

Reference was made to the question of the private planting of trees. Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme and even, as Deputy Allen says, committees of agriculture could do considerably more in this connection. If parish guilds or guilds of Muintir na Tíre find land suitable for planting in their areas they should by united effort plant these areas themselves. I feel that a local committee could do much to encourage private planting. It is something that should be encouraged considerably.

I should also like to refer—as another Deputy did—to the fact that permits were given to fell trees on condition that replanting would take place. We all know that in recent years, particularly during the war and after, permits were issued for the feeling of trees. Associated with those permits was an undertaking to have certain replanting done. Then, when the inter-Party Government took office, the land rehabilitation scheme was introduced. Where trees were cut down and an undertaking given for the purpose of replanting, we found that the landowners availed themselves of the benefits of the land rehabilitation scheme and, instead of replanting, they decided to avail themselves of the benefits of this scheme and reclaim the land.

I hope that in cases where the landowners are satisfied that the lands have been converted to a better type of land, those people will not be obliged to abide by the undertaking to replant because they have done a greater national service by having their lands reclaimed for the production of food for man and beast. They deserve the greatest credit in that respect. Where land can be reclaimed due to the efforts of the Department of Agriculture and the land rehabilitation scheme the Forestry Department should be slow to enter into such lands for afforestation purposes if there is any hope of those lands being properly reclaimed.

In so far as the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes is concerned, I hope the Minister for Lands will emphasise the importance to inspectors of reporting to him on the suitability of lands for afforestation and that every effort will be made to see that these lands are suitable for afforestation and not for any other purpose. It would be very regrettable, indeed, that any lands would be planted if they were suitable for the production of food. That is particularly the case where we have small holdings and where the smallholders are endeavouring to eke out an existence. They find that their livelihood and income depend entirely on what they earn from those holdings.

It has been my experience in the past and, in fairness to the last Government, it was my experience during the term of office of Deputy Derrig as Minister for Lands that, in acquisition of lands for forestry purposes due consideration was always given to the quality of the land. If the land was in any way suitable for purposes other than afforestation it was not acquired. I hope that line of policy will be pursued by the present Minister for Lands.

From the experience I have had and from the many representations I have had occasion to make to the Minister for Lands, I can say that the main replies issued, probably to most Deputies, state that the reason that schemes could not be undertaken is the difficulty in acquiring the land. I am very glad the occasion has presented itself to this House whereby we all have an opportunity of giving the Minister an Act by means of which the acquisition of land may be made more simple and may result in greater progress.

We all know quite well that wood is an essential raw material, both in peace and war. There is nothing more important than timber. Deputy MacBride himself, in the course of his address to this House and an address which he gave in Cork, or somewhere in the country, emphasised the importance of wood, both in war and peace. I am 100 per cent. in agreement with him. There is nothing whatever more important. I feel that the Forestry Department in future, when they are equipped with the facilities of this Bill, will go ahead more speedily and give better results.

I am quite satisfied of that, but I could not subscribe to the idea of Deputy MacBride that forestry should be handed over to a board like Bord na Móna. I do not agree with that. I can see the Deputy's point of view. He has the idea that if the Forestry Department and Bord na Móna were working under the same board, their terms of employment would dovetail and at a time when work cannot be done on the bogs it could be done at forestry, at planting and thinning. I have experience of Bord na Móna. Whilst Bord na Móna has made very great headway, I wonder if forestry would make the same headway under a similar board. I doubt it. However, it is a matter of opinion. I would prefer to see afforestation as it is at present.

No matter what Minister is in office or what board is appointed, unless there is power to acquire land and go full steam ahead, it is all the same whether a Minister or board is in charge. Now that legislation is being passed to equip the Minister with additional powers, it is much better to give the present system a further trial, and when these difficulties have been removed I feel that a good deal more progress will be made.

I want to tell Deputy MacBride and the House that the country owes to him a very deep debt of gratitude. I am making that statement for the records of this House, and sincerely, as one who admires Deputy MacBride's ideas on afforestation. While we are very proud indeed to have that great contribution coming from Deputy MacBride, we are equally proud of the determined manner in which the Minister for Lands has so actively interested himself in afforestation. There has been no Minister for Lands since this State was set up who has displayed the same interest or made the same progress as the present Minister. That is evident by the introduction of this Bill to simplify matters for his Department. It is also evident in the areas which he has visited—he was in Glengarriff recently—in many parts of the country, including Wicklow and elsewhere. It is evident by the manner in which he has been responsible for the setting up of the training college in my constituency.

It is to men like Deputy MacBride and the present Minister for Lands that we who are anxious to see afforestation go ahead look with hope and trust. I am glad that we have men of their type here with drive, determination and energy. There can be little doubt in the minds of people who are anxious about forestry that, while we have men of the type of Deputy MacBride and Deputy Blowick, urging and emphasising the importance of afforestation, the civil servants will not be allowed to rest without serious and constant prods from those who are actively interested in it.

In addition, afforestation is one of the greatest sources of employment. To Deputies who have not the experience of State forests in their constituencies, I say again that we in Leix-Offaly appreciate the very valuable employment given there over the years to hundreds of workers. I should like to know if the Minister would have any objection to arranging for Deputies who are genuinely interested in afforestation to go on a tour of the Slieve Bloom mountains or of any other forest area. I am sure the head officers of the Department would have no objection to showing interested Deputies what progress has been made on the State forests.

Mr. Blowick

They are quite welcome. I would be delighted to give every facility.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Thanks very much. I would ask Deputies who are interested to visit the State forests in Laois and Offaly, where they will see the valuable and useful work that has been done. They might also visit the new training college in Kinnitty. If Deputies were brought by the officers to the top of the Slieve Bloom mountains, to Clareen, to the Valley of Bawnree and down to the Killenure mountains, they would see that the bones of the Department are not creaking but moving actively. Afforestation in Laois is very much alive. I would like Deputy MacBride to see for himself the progress made in the Slieve Bloom mountains. He would appreciate it and would share our desire that similar schemes should operate in many other parts of the country. I know very well the progress that has been made over a number of years. It is something the Minister for Lands can feel proud of. Anyone who visits the State forests can see that very useful work has been carried out. I am sure that Deputies' knowledge of afforestation would be improved considerably if they had time to spend one day in the State forests on the Slieve Bloom mountains.

I welcome the manner in which the Minister has invited Deputies to visit those forests, offering them every facility and co-operation from his officials. I can remember some years ago when Deputies were brought on a tour of Bord na Móna works, and I hope and trust that arrangements will be made to bring Deputies to the State forests, particularly the forests of Leix-Offaly, the Slieve Bloom mountains, where they will see for themselves the extraordinary amount of work that has been carried on. The country has been so transformed that the older people living there can hardly believe that it is the same country. When people of the age of 70 or 75 look around the Slieve Bloom mountains and the districts around Bawnree and that part of the country, they pause and say "Has not an extraordinary change taken place in our lifetime?"

I am sorry that people in other parts of the country have not the same story to tell. We are proud of our forests, of the forestry work that is taking place, and of the workers who are working hard in draining and preparing the land, and we in the Midlands desire to see the great benefits we boast of extended to other parts of the country. I hope that some day Deputy O'Connor can come into this House and say the same thing for North Kerry as I am saying to-day in respect of Laois-Offaly. I am sure the Bill which is now in course of passage in this House will enable something to be done in Deputy O'Connor's constituency, and that the energies of Deputy MacBride and the Minister will be facilitated again by the passage of this Bill.

I may be forgiven if I remark this, that I think Deputy MacBride and the Minister for Lands are trying to outdo each other by their energies for afforestation. I feel that is the way it is, that it is like the old song between the Minister and Deputy MacBride "Anything you can do I can do better." That is a helpful sign and a useful one. It is a sign that those of us who are behind the Government in their afforestation policy are proud to be associated in this Government with Deputy MacBride and to have the present Minister for Lands displaying such great abilities and energies in the cause of afforestation.

Forests and trees and timber play a very important part in our lives, because the timber provides firing in our homes and provides us with the furniture we have in our homes, with our buildings and even with the coffin which is our last resting place. A tree, again, played a very important part, probably the greatest that was ever played, in world affairs—the great tree of Calvary—by which the world was saved and redeemed. I hope and trust that the Bill will have a speedy passage, because it is a progressive piece of legislation, and I feel that when, in years to come, we review the work of the Forestry Department as a result of this Bill we will be able to say that it is a piece of very useful legislation and that we should all be very proud to be associated with its speedy passage.

Mr. James Tully

My contribution to this debate will be very brief, because I notice quite a number of speakers want to get in on it to-night. A very big amount of ground has been covered last night and to-night in the debate, and while I also want to join in the wish that the Bill will achieve something for which we all hope—an easing of the position in obtaining land for reafforestation—frankly, I must confess that I am slightly disappointed, because I thought the Bill would go much further. However, I think it is only fair that it should be given a chance and passed through this House, when we will be able to judge it on the result when it becomes an Act. We will see whether or not it will achieve what the Minister for Lands said it will achieve, or will fall as flat as Deputy MacBride suggested last night it might fall.

Mr. MacBride

I never said one word of criticism about the Bill. I said I thought it was a step, anyway. It was not the Bill I criticised. I am sorry for interrupting the Deputy, but another Deputy also said the same thing and I want to get that established.

Mr. James Tully

I accept fully Deputy MacBride's correction. I understood him to take a different line, but he knows what he said and I fully accept his correction. Afforestation should not be made the plaything of political Parties, and I was glad to find that a number of people on all sides of the House were prepared to agree that the Bill was a step forward. There were, however, a number of people who made contributions which I thought were unworthy of them. It is a very sad thing to find something which is so serious and which affects the life of the country so much being used here for the purpose of scoring a political point against an opponent. That was done here last night and to-night.

Having said that, I want to add that I am not quite satisfied that the Minister, at the present rate of progress, will, even under the new Bill, achieve what we hoped could or can be achieved in this country in a few years time. I want to refer particularly to the speed at which things are done. Another Minister last night said that everything he had done was done quickly. I am afraid that the Minister for Lands would not be able to say that, if he is answering for his Department. He must take responsibility for delays which have occurred in his Department, not alone in the acquisition of land for afforestation but in such matters as staff matters which affect afforestation just as much. I want again to refer to a famous interview which took place on 23rd October, 1954, dealing with staff matters. No decision has yet been made by the Forestry Branch on that interview. If that is the way the trees are going to be planted, we will have to wait a very long time before we can cut down and use the trees which will be planted as a result of this Bill.

I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that this is a very big industry, which gives very much needed employment. There is only one small forestry section in my constituency. I visit that place occasionally and am very glad to say that every year the number employed there has been growing. As secretary of a trade union I have visited practically every forestry section in Ireland and am very glad to say that the employment is growing year by year. That is very heartening in rural areas, where employment is so badly needed.

I do not think the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary, that Deputies should visit the forests just as they visit Bord na Móna bogs, would be acceptable. Deputies can travel around the bogs by car but would have to travel on foot in order to see the forests and that represents a hard day's work. If Deputies did visit the forests their ideas would be altered and they would realise that there is a great deal of very useful work being done, a great deal of very necessary employment being given.

I must say that the Forestry Division, when dealing with their employees, do not deal with them in a fair way. In Northern Ireland, which is not a Christian State according to our concepts, forestry employees are paid in respect of Church holydays whereas, in the Twenty-Six Counties, such workers lose a day's pay if they do not work on a Church holyday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a question of administration.

Mr. James Tully

I know it is but I have got it in. The Minister yesterday referred to the requirements of the home market. Is there any reason why we should be confined to the home market? Is there any reason why we could not export our surplus timber to England, for instance, as countries like Finland and Sweden do? I understand that of the total exports from Finland 95 per cent. is timber and timber products. They are doing quite well. There is Finnish and Swedish timber coming into this country. There is an old wives' tale that Irish timber is not suitable for certain purposes. If it is not, it is because it is not properly treated. There is no reason why Irish timber could not be properly seasoned and used for the same purposes as foreign timber is now being used. There is no inherent quality that makes foreign timber suitable and Irish timber unsuitable for certain purposes. It should be part of the duty of the Forestry Division to see to it that timber that is produced by the forestry section is properly treated before it is released for building and other purposes.

In reply to a question which I addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce a few days ago, I was told that the question of producing wood pulp was being actively considered. I hope it will not take as long to consider that matter as it is taking to consider the interview which I referred to a few minutes ago. I hope the question of producing wood pulp will be decided, that the question of establishing mills in places to which the forestry section can deliver the timber will be considered.

In this country there is a number of woods of old timber owned by people who do not really know or care about it. These areas could be taken over by the Forestry Division, the old timber cut down and processed and new plantings made. The Minister is as well aware as I am of the existence of these woods. It is a shame that they should be left there.

Much more encouragement could be given to farmers who are anxious to grow trees, even shelter belts. I know that if they agree to plant a certain area they will be given all the assistance the local forester can give but the area prescribed is so large that very few farmers can undertake it. The area prescribed should be reduced and every encouragement should be given to farmers to plant trees. Every tree counts.

Deputy Kennedy referred to people who cut trees during the emergency and who signed a guarantee that they would plant three trees for one they cut but who did nothing about it. I am surprised that Deputy Kennedy waited until to-night to mention that. The time to bring that to the notice of the House was when it did happen. He said he was aware of the fact that it was not being done. I do not wish to cast any slur or to doubt Deputy Kennedy's word. I know that it did happen. I was not in a position to bring it to the notice of the forestry section. If I were, I would have done so at that particular time. We know that it happened all over the country. We know that people got away with it. Something should be done by the Department, even at this late stage, to force those people who have not reclaimed the land to plant the trees. I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's point that if the land has been reclaimed it would not be fair to ask them to put it under trees.

I do not believe that it would be such a terrible thing to divorce the Forestry Division from the Department of Lands. An innovation is required to put the necessary drive behind reafforestation. A board such as Bord na Móna may possibly be the answer. On the other hand, we might eventually find that we had made a mistake in setting up such a board. I would suggest to the Minister that he should not dismiss this question from his mind. He should actively consider the matter and then he might agree that there is something in the suggestion to set up an independent board which would not be involved in the red or green tape of Government Departments and that that might be the answer to the present stagnation in the Forestry Division.

Possibly I am criticising the Forestry Division unduly. Perhaps they are doing all they can. But, to the casual onlooker it appears that, while great efforts have been made, and it cannot be denied that there have been great achievements over the past few years, a far greater effort could be made.

I wish the Minister very well with his Bill and I hope that the Bill will succeed in doing what we all hoped it would do when the question of its introduction was first mentioned.

Mr. Bartley

I hope my remarks will be somewhat less platitudinous than some of those that I have been listening to for the last hour or so. There is one platitude that requires a passing comment, one of the many delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture: "It is quite easy to plant trees with pen and paper".

I think there is no political Party in this country that realises the truth of this platitude more than does this Party. We have never attempted to satisfy the people's aspiration in regard to the growing of trees by filling their minds with these platitudinous hopes. There are very many on this side of the House, despite some of the jibes that have been levelled at us from the Government Benches, who did not set out at the beginning to produce trees by pen and paper; there were many of us who instead took the spades into our hands on Sinn Féin Arbor Day in 1918 and who had our first experience of arboreal efforts and went out and put down the green plants in the soil. Maybe there was more enthusiasm than technical knowledge behind the effort but in any event it was not a pen and paper effort.

It was a practical effort and I personally took part in it with a small group which planted hundreds of trees on that day. I know there were very many more members of this organisation in and outside the House who did the same thing and therefore, because of this practical beginning in the matter of tree planting, we can let these cheap jibes pass over our shoulders. I put my name to a motion in relation to afforestation in the congested districts and there is nothing the Minister for Lands has said about the taking of potential agricultural land away from the farmers that I do not endorse. But there has been a fundamental change in this matter and one of the remarks made, I think by Deputy MacBride, that we sat for 20 years and did nothing, has been refuted very ably to-night, not in any speech made by a member of this side of the House but by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture when he described the scenic beauties that have been created throughout this country during the same 20 years. Nobody I think will mistake the political aegis to be associated with that result; nobody will mistake the nature of the banner that should be floated over it. Is it the Coalition or Fianna Fáil who was responsible? If half of what Deputy Flanagan said is true then he has quite adequately and fully repudiated the jibes that have been made by many of the Government speakers about the results of the last 20 years.

Mr. MacCarthy

Particularly by himself.

Mr. Bartley

Particularly by the Minister himself.

Mr. Blowick

Was it Deputy MacCarthy said that?

Mr. Bartley

Would the Minister articulate that more slowly?

Mr. MacCarthy

The Minister is wrong; I made no reference at all to him.

Mr. Blowick

I withdraw the remark then and I offer my humblest apologies.

Mr. Bartley

I am always interested in the interpolations of the Minister and I would apologise to him for my unsuccessful attempt to get a grip on his words. Maybe my hearing is at fault or I might have been able to get a grip on what he said if I had known what he was about to say.

Mr. Blowick

Oh!

Mr. Bartley

As I was saying, I put my name to the motion with three of my colleagues and, as the Minister knows, it referred mainly to the congested districts. That brings me to what I am satisfied has been a fundamental change in afforestation policy in this country. Whether it has been inspired by a Fianna Fáil Government or by a Coalition Government I cannot say and in any event it is immaterial. The emphasis in the Forestry Division always has been on the production of timber. For the greater part of the time Fianna Fáil was in office, the Forestry Division had considerable areas of good plantable land about which they had no doubt whatsoever as to its capabilities, not of growing trees, but of producing timber.

For many years after Fianna Fáil took office in 1932 any Deputy who went to the Forestry Division with offers of land was told quite definitely that there was not much point in offering the land unless it was capable of producing commercial timber. Very often, from their knowledge of the particular land, they were able to tell us whether or not it was of that quality. They always carried out an inspection within a reasonable time, but the position was that the Forestry Division had during all these years quite sufficient land to keep them fully occupied in the planting of timber producing trees.

When the acreage target was enlarged, I take it the Forestry Division officials had, willy-nilly, to allow the less productive type of land to be brought into their reckoning. I heard a Deputy last week refer to the acreage in County Galway and make reference to the fact that the acreage mentioned by the Minister for County Galway contained a considerable proportion of that sort of land. That is so. I, personally, was responsible prewar for the formation of a committee in West Galway which produced on paper a great deal of land. We were then told by the forestry experts that it was not timber-producing land and that, in the circumstances at the time, it would have been both waste of time and money to go ahead with large scheme of tree plating since they had good quality land still unplanted. Now I take it as a tribute to the work done by the Forestry Division on that pool of good timber-producing land that they are now being driven to go after the land of the less productive kind to which we have one or two sections of the Bill devoted.

It is because of that fundamental change in policy that Fianna Fáil quite obviously deliberately took an interest in this in recent years; it is because of that that I put my name to a motion being discussed in conjunction with this Bill—because I want the forestry services now to come back to these areas which were then offered to them and, if they cannot produce timber on them, in any event to plant them with trees which they themselves acknowledge will grow on this land.

In that connection I have a few criticisms to offer of the provisions in the Minister's Bill. I do not think he can dispose of Deputy Moran's criticisms quite so airily as his interruptions of that speech seemed to indicate. The Minister refers to commonages and according to the terms of one of the Bill's sections what he proposes to do here is where there are joint owners, to acquire their land, or to get the Land Commission to acquire it on his behalf. The objectors to the acquisition will then make representations to the Lay Commissioners against the acquisition and if their objection is upheld there will be a partition.

Mr. Blowick

If I might interrupt the Deputy, that is not the procedure.

Mr. Bartley

Then what is the meaning of the term "representation" in the section? It is used in a very specific way.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister applies to the Land Commission for an Order to acquire the whole commonage. That does not give him the commonage. It is the Land Commission who decide what portion will be taken up and what portion will be allotted to the objector.

Mr. Bartley

Will the Minister explain to me what is the meaning of the term "representation", which is very deliberately inserted in subsection (2) of Section 4?

Mr. Blowick

It means that when the Minister for Lands applies to the Land Commission for an acquisition Order for the whole commonage, due notice must be given to all concerned as to what it is intended to do. That gives a chance to the two, three or four people to lodge an objection with the Land Commission against the Minister taking over the whole commonage, saying: "We are not selling our shares." From there on, it is the Land Commission who will decide. The Minister is not taking compulsory powers to himself at all and those who are objecting will be left their shares by the Land Commission and I am providing that the Land Commission will give a just proportion of the common to the objectors.

Mr. Bartley

I understand that quite well and that the word "compulsion" as Deputy Coburn said to-night, is not mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Moran said the Bill was actually dripping with the word "compulsion", and it was so stupid that I did not even interrupt him.

Mr. Bartley

If Deputy Moran put his thoughts in those particular words he erred, but I think I understood clearly enough what was agitating Deputy Moran's mind, and it is much the same as is agitating my mind. I know the Minister will not go into a commonage and say to those people: "We are going to take your land and you can make representations." What the Minister will do is to make inquiries, either through the Land Commission officials or the forestry officials. He will find out that on a particular commonage a number of people are prepared and willing to sell their land for forestry purposes. During the course of inquiry it will be ascertained that there is a number, whether it is large or small—let us assume it is only a tenth of them—who do not wish to part with their land. They have a right of making representation. The Minister must know, as Deputy Moran knows and I know, that in that very process there is inherent as subtle an element of compulsion as was ever contained in any section of an Act.

Mr. Blowick

Not at all.

Mr. Bartley

I am visualising the working out of this in practice. I know very well what is likely to happen when eight people out of ten agree to sell or even five people out of ten agree to sell; the other five will be intimidated into parting with their share.

Mr. Blowick

No.

Mr. Bartley

And in any event, they will have to make positive representations to safeguard their own rights. Now, let me quote here some words the Minister has used.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy is only doing damage, before ever the Bill becomes law at all. It is a mischievous statement for the Deputy to make and he is deliberately trying to scare all the owners in relation to this matter. He should not make those remarks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bartley should be allowed to make his statement.

Mr. Bartley

I know the sort of land in West Galway the Minister wants and unless there is a change of heart I know the sort of land they will turn down. I also feel that a good deal of the land he wants is land that he cannot get.

Mr. Blowick

What about those who are willing to sell their portions and the one or two will not allow them to sell? Have these people no right at all? What about that side of it?

Mr. Bartley

Has the Minister got power to make a straight partitioning of a commonage without reference to afforestation or without reference to the roundabout method adopted here?

Has he in any of the Land Acts the right to partition a commonage?

Mr. Blowick

The Minister has not but the Land Commission has.

Mr. Bartley

It amounts to the same thing—the Forestry Department, the Minister and the Land Commission. Why quibble? Is there power in the Land Commission to partition a commonage?

Mr. Blowick

There is.

Mr. Bartley

Why not go ahead and do it and, when you have partitioned it, let each person sell his portion if he wishes to do it?

Mr. Blowick

If I did what the Deputy says, I would have to buy from those who are not willing to sell and then sell back to them. Why go to those rounds? That is why I am bringing in this provision.

Mr. Bartley

Why does the Minister say that would have to be done in straight partitioning when he does not have to do it here? If there are five commoners on a piece of mountain, each of them has the right to graze the whole lot of that.

Mr. Blowick

That is the point, the whole lot of it.

Mr. Bartley

As the Minister knows, in practice there is a stock band binding each of them. This is where the element of compulsion comes in. I have the Minister's words here. I am quoting from column 907, Volume 153, of the Official Debates of 16th November, 1955:—

"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."

That fact is going to be used to intimidate those people.

Mr. Blowick

Let me tell the Deputy——

Mr. Bartley

The Minister cannot tell me anything.

Mr. Blowick

I will deal with that when I am replying.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bartley is entitled to make his speech without these interruptions.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister went on to say:—

"Such people are actually stealing the other people's grazing."

Mr. Blowick

Yes, right.

Mr. Bartley

Are not these the Minister's words?

Mr. Blowick

Yes, and I stand over them.

Mr. Bartley

Does the Minister not know and does anybody not know who is not a fool that, if his share is being stolen by his neighbour, he will only jump at the offer of a public Department to come and buy his land?

Mr. Blowick

Has he not the right to sell?

Mr. Bartley

If my share is being stolen by my neighbour and if a public body like the Forestry Division comes along and says: "I will take your land and take you out of your neighbour's clutches", will I not jump at it?

Mr. Blowick

You may or you may not.

Mr. Bartley

There is that factor which is known to the Minister and to me, that commonage tenure in the West of Ireland does intimidate people and does not make them free sellers. There are many people who if they got a chance to build themselves up would be able to take full advantage of their stock band, which they cannot do now owing to some temporary domestic setback.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy wants to stop them from selling.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister cannot reply to every sentence I speak.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy wants to take the part of the man who is stealing his neighbour's grazing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will get an opportunity of replying to all these statements. Deputy Bartley is now in possession.

Mr. Bartley

There is another method whereby compulsion is being applied. Take a small village where there is, say, a rundale system—in any event, where the people have very small quantities of land. Whether it is rundale or not does not make any difference, because the fact is they have not got very much land anyway. Near them is land which becomes available and which would probably solve their problem or go a long way towards solving it. You find that the Forestry Division sets its eyes on that land and either acquires it itself or gets the Land Commission to step in and acquire it. It is then planted with trees and these people are told that a much more important purpose has been served. It is planted with trees rather than given to those people to enlarge their holdings, or as additional grazing or for some other agricultural purpose.

The Minister knows that type of compulsion is often used. If the Minister in cases of that kind came to these people and said, in the first instance: "I would give you that land, but we want it very badly for the growing of timber"—I use the word "timber" as distinct from "trees"—"and therefore you cannot have it"—if he does make that decision, I think there is an obligation on him to say then to these people: "I will provide you with alternative holdings."

Mr. Blowick

If I take the land, I can give them work on it.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister got into a bit of a sweat about the fact that I suggested there was compulsion, and here now he is going to compel them to take work on the building of fences, while planting is going on, and in the planting of trees, but that is only temporary work.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy is ing. Who is going to compel the men to work?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Bartley

In any event, the Minister retains and withholds these lands from these people. They are under-employed on the amount of land they have got, and he comes in and provides work in the planting of trees. Are there not economic circumstances in that compulsion? They are compelled to take the work because of economic circumstances. It is the Minister who is blathering. What compulsion is more compelling than economic compulsion?

Mr. Blowick

It is a shame for you to have to think in that way after 18 years.

Mr. Bartley

You had the Parliamentary Secretary beside you there and he spun out a record of Party achievement which nobody on this side of the House would have attempted, and does that record seem too high for the Minister?

Mr. Blowick

You must have kept it out of Galway, then.

Mr. Bartley

You want to make a speech in reply to every sentence I utter.

Mr. Blowick

Now we know who kept it out of Connemara.

Mr. Glynn

On a point of order a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I think the Deputy ought to quote the figures for afforstation work done by his Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. Deputy Bartley must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Bartley

Would Deputy Glynn like to make some statement on the matter? Might I be allowed, a Leas-Cheann Comhairl, to give way to the Deputy to make his statement?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have ruled Deputy Glynn out of order, Deputy Bartley is in possession and may continue with his speech.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister for Lands is becoming very irritated because he knows the particular land to which I have been referring, and which illustratre the case I have, been making. I do not have to specify it because the Minister knows all the details and, because he does so, he is becoming irritated. Much as I am in favour of planting timber, in that particular case, I would have seen that adjoining and I would have seen that adjoining small landholders would have been given the benefit of that land. Furthermore trees have been planted there in contravention of what I understand is a new policy in the matter in virgin bog, or what the Minister referred to as blankets bog.

Mr. Blowick

Where is that?

Mr. Bartley

I do not understand exactly why this is being done, because I was told on several occasion by expert of the Forestry Department that if the bog is deeper than three feet, the trees will not thrive, but will decay after a few years, and in any case we have been promise that this virgin bog will be conserved for the supply of hand-won turf for our own electricity generating stations.

I put my names to the motion because I do want the Forestry Division to give attention now to the lands they rejected some years ago because they then had a sufficient supply of much better land, and because apparently the Forestry Division now has suggested large scale planting for scenic purposes—I think the expression used here by the Minister was "social purposes."

I would like to make the case for the utilisation of our cutaway bogs in this connection. The co-operate of every Department of State would, of course, be necessary—the Special Employment Schemes Office, the Land Commission, Bord na Móna, and, if possible, the E.S.B. in those areas where we have power stations, and the Department of Agriculture in relation to land reclamation. You would need that co-operation in the utilisation of these cutway bogs, and I do not think that the Minister would require any Act of Parliament for acquisition in any areas like West Galway, if he were to devote his initial efforts to that type of ground. It would be very useful in turf production.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 30th November, 1955.