Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 1956

Vol. 160 No. 11

Private Members' Business. - Afforestation Programme—Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was proposed by Deputy MacBride on 21st November, 1956:

That Dáil Éireann considers that the aim of the afforestation programme of the State should be to plant a minimum of 1,000,000 acres at a rate of not less than 25,000 acres per year and requests the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure the implementation of this minimum annual rate of plantation as soon as possible.

Debate was resumed on the following amendment proposed by the Minister for Lands on that date:—

To delete all the words after "That" and substitute: "Dáil Éireann welcomes the very substantial progress in afforestation made since 1948 under the impetus of the Forestry Policy of the Inter-Party Governments and agrees that hereafter there should be an annual increase of 2,500 acres in the rate of planting until an annual planting rate of 25,000 acres shall have been attained, whereupon consideration shall be given to the future rate of planting to be pursued, in the light of our forest and general economic requirements".

Mr. McQuillan

When the debate was adjourned last week, I was dealing with the consumption of timber here in Ireland. The most accurate information available to us of the consumption of timber in Ireland is to be found in the F.A.O. Report. They said that, of all the European countries, the consumption of timber in Ireland is the lowest per head. Every Deputy will realise what that means in terms of employment and in terms of industries based on the by-products of timber. It means a big loss in manufacturing concerns and a consequent decrease or loss in employment.

Seeing that we have had the lowest consumption figures, it would, I imagine, have sounded reasonable to the Minister or the various Ministers in the past that the least they would have in operation here would be a policy that would give us, from our own country, our minimum requirements. If we look now and turn from the consumption figures to the import figures we will realise how big a part timber and timber products play in the economic life of this country.

At the present time, according to the leaders of the Government—and I agree with them—this country is in a serious position financially. Day after day we hear pleas made in this House and on the wireless to save more and to spend less. We are told that the economic freedom of our country is imperilled as a result of the financial crisis that now exists. Let us see the part timber plays in building up this financial crisis that exists, according to the Government, and which we must all accept exists.

The restrictions imposed in the past six months have cut across the ordinary people in an unmerciful fashion. They have been deprived of goods that are no longer luxuries or that can no longer be classed in the luxury group. This deprivation and hardship is imposed on the basis that our imports are so much in excess of our exports that, if we do not reduce our imports considerably, the country will be liable to more serious financial troubles than already obtain. That is the broad picture we face.

It is only on an occasion like this that we can bring home forcibly to the public the negligent or culpable part played by the State itself in bringing about such a serious situation as obtains. There is no good pleading with a man who, at the behest of his wife, buys a washing machine. There is no good criticising the man who will buy a new car after his other one has been only 12 months in use. There is no use in telling these people they are doing a disservice to the State when we find the State itself setting the bad example. I say, and I challenge contradiction, that the importation of timber and timber products plays a large part in the disequilibrium of our balance of payments problems.

In the last ten-year period, in almost equal proportion, timber and paper products have cost us over £135,000,000. In the past ten years we have spent an average of over £13,500,000 per annum on the importation of timber and timber by-products which should and could have been produced within this State. If anybody here thinks that the importation of this timber and the by-products has gone down, let me disillusion him. Let me bring the facts home to him. Over the year 1955 alone, the importation figures for the same commodities—for imported timber and by-products—amounted to £15,500,000.

This policy of the importation of timber and by-products which this land of Ireland could grow in successful competition with any other country in the world is pursued as a result of the lunatic advice given by the so-called financial wizards who have directed this country's advance for the past 30 years. The Governments which followed each other in succession relied on the orthodox viewpoint as expressed by the financial wizards. Instead of putting the available money into the growing of timber in this State that available money was put into external assets that lost value year after year according as the situation developed or obtained across the sea.

The important lesson to be learned from that is that if we find that, over a 30-year period, the advice given to us had led us into the terrible position in which we now find ourselves to-day, is it not fair to suggest that, in so far as it lies within his power, the Minister for Lands, charged with an afforestation programme, will no longer pay heed or listen to the type of advice that says to him: "We will not plant. We will not invest the money in planting here in Ireland. We will invest it in British securities, as we have done in the past."

I hope the Minister will use the great weight God has given him to ensure that there will be a change of outlook in his Department, at any rate, particularly in so far as the utilisation of our money is concerned—that it will be spent within the State on development and afforestation rather than diverted to form assets outside the State over which we have no control.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

Does the Deputy want me to sit on somebody?

Mr. McQuillan

I wish the Minister would sit on the Department of Finance. There are people outside this House who maintain that Irish timber and the by-products of Irish timber are not as good as the imported commodities but I know that that view no longer carries weight. I do not think any Deputy would subscribe to that view.

I know that the Minister himself on many occasions pointed out the value and the excellence of the Irish products, but we should not leave it to the members of the House alone to point out the excellent benefits to be obtained by the utilisation of Irish timber and so forth. I gave examples, the last night I was speaking, of the high recommendation by Irish builders, by leading men in the timber trade outside, in connection with the product of the Irish forest. When we get that viewpoint expressed by leading contractors and builders' providers in the country, that the Irish timber is as good for joinery and for furniture and for all other uses as the imported timber, when we have the statement made that many of the Irish firms prefer to use Irish timber because they find it more suitable, then I see no reason in the world why we cannot go ahead with a very big development programme.

I want to get the Minister's mind away from this midget idea of embarking on a programme that will give us in, say, 15 or 20 years' time our requirements as we now believe they will be, in other words, basing our consumption in 15 years' time on our present day consumption. If we adopt a big afforestation programme now, there is no doubt whatever that if we are not able to absorb the timber in the bye-products that will accrue from a large-scale programme, we will get sale outside this country for all the timber we will produce. If—as it is at the present moment—we have the position here that the Irish timber is available over the last five years at a rate that is 66 per cent. less than the imported commodity—and we have that statement from a leading builder here in Dublin—if we can buy Irish timber equal to the imported commodity at a price that is 66 per cent. less than that imported commodity, surely that would give us confidence that in years to come, if we had not consumption for all that we would produce, we would be able to get a market abroad for whatever is surplus to our requirements? I know that the argument, the vein of thought that has been running through the Minister's brief on this for the last two or three years, is that if we reach a certain target—which I understand now will be 25,000 acres per year—we will have enough for our requirements as they are envisaged by the Forestry Department. I have no respect, Sir, for that kind of visage which has been shown by the Forestry Department for the last 30 years, when we show only an average of less than 6,000 acres planted per year. If that is the sort of advice the Minister is going to take, I suggest to him that we will not see this large-scale afforestation programme which is needed at the present moment.

On the import business again, not only did we import the figures I have given in 1955 of £15,500,000 worth of timber and newspaper products, we imported other products made from timber not included in that figure. We import annually an average of £3,000,000 worth of commodities, including rayon and nylon, the by-products of timber. That is an average of £3,000,000 a year spent on the purchase of these things abroad.

Are we to get into this thing in a big way? Are we going to be timid about it for our generation the same as the last generation? Are we going to be afraid of the development of rayon and nylon and all these other processes that have been taking place over recent years? Would it be fair to suggest that the afforestation people have only just recently heard about these products and that they do not come into consideration at all in the long-term planning that the Department is supposed to be envisaging at the present moment?

There is another motion coming on here, A Cheann Comhairle, in which I hope to be able to deal more critically with the afforestation people themselves. I think I will postpone some of the matters until then.

One of the arguments put forward here in the past against a large-scale afforestation programme has been the difficulty in the acquisition of land. I have come into this House on numerous occasions and the Minister has put a pair of horns on me on every occasion that he could possibly do so. When I criticised him over the slow rate of acquisition, he tried to suggest that I wanted the type of tactics that have been adopted in Hungary to be utilised on the small farms of the West. He actually painted pictures here to show that I wanted wholesale removal of villages in the West, and he deliberately tried to antagonise those people, to give them the impression that I had no interest in their welfare, only just to see timber planted and to hell with the people who were living in these areas.

Mr. Blowick

That is what the Deputy said, you know.

Mr. McQuillan

Let me say this in reply to the Minister. I am going to make him a present of it. If I had my way in this and if I found that persuasion and a price did not achieve what I felt should be achieved and if I felt that the offer of alternative holdings of a reasonable character was not accepted by those people, I would take compulsory powers to remove them out of it. I give the Minister a present of that now.

Mr. Blowick

That is clear enough, mind you.

Mr. McQuillan

Fair enough. If there is any section of this community which feels they must be patted with doles and reliefs for all time, when there is a chance of economic resurrection for them and a chance of a new livelihood away from the slum areas in which they exist now, if that opportunity is given to them and they fail to accept it, then they can blame no Government. However, I think there is a duty on the Government not to pay endlessly this form of depressing dole that goes on at the present time, paying the man with the valuation of about £3, keeping him in misery and his family in misery for years on end, with the hope that around the corner, after some other election, that individual will get a farm of land. That is the way these people are being codded at the present moment and I have no doubt whatever that, if the Minister accepted the recommendation which is there from Mr. Cameron that the purchase price per acre be raised where land was being purchased for afforestation purposes, where a reasonable price was given the Department would have no trouble in getting those people in mountain areas and in bog areas to give up the necessary land and to move out.

If the Minister feels like telling me here that there is a reasonable price at the present time, I can assure him from the information available to me that forestry are still as niggardly as ever in the price being offered to people whose land is suitable for afforestation. I cannot believe in acquiring something from an individual who has thrived on it for years and not recompensing him. I believe he should be properly recompensed; but if he is properly recompensed and still fails to carry out his responsibility as a good citizen of this State, I think the Minister has powers—and he certainly took them under this and other Acts—to act and to see that a gentleman of that sort does not hold up national progress. I know what the Minister will say at chapel gates about all that— and some of his colleagues, too—but I will put up with it.

General MacEoin

Mind you, that would go well from a chapel gate.

Mr. McQuillan

You have plenty of material now, the next time you trot around. I pointed out here that we have almost 12,000,000 acres of arable land out of the 17,000,000 acres in the country. That leaves over 5,750,000 acres of non-arable land. Of these 5,750,000 acres, there are over 3,000,000 composed of land that is very nearly arable; much of it is moorland and much of it very suitable for afforestation. I say that, without touching arable land at the present moment there is sufficient land available in the State to carry out a planting programme that in a number of years would give us 1,000,000 acres of timber. There is no genuine excuse left now to all those people who have been making the excuses we have heard over the various years. There is no excuse left unless they have the honesty to say that the real reason is lack of money. If the Minister says it is lack of money, we will all know how to help him.

I understand that the average intake has not gone past the 15,000 acres per year, that the Land Commission or the Forestry Division or whoever is responsible, have not purchased more than that in recent years for the afforestation programme. I may be wrong in that. It would be correct to say that the average intake was 15,000 and let me by comparison mention this. Since 1870 over 1,250,000 acres of reclaimed land have reverted to their original non-arable state in this country, through lack of lime or lack of attention. If we work that out on an annual basis, we find an average of 15,000 acres per year. That is more than we are acquiring for afforestation purposes. The reason I mention that is that it is one more argument against those who say how difficult it is to get land for afforestation. It cannot be so difficult when we allow that amount of land to revert to its original state.

If we take the eight year period ending in 1950 we find that over 120,000 acres of the best land in this country were purchased by aliens. This works out at an annual sale of 15,000 acres to aliens. If we can sell land at that rate to non-nationals and if we can allow land to go back from an arable state to a non-arable state at the rate of 15,000 acres per annum, surely no Minister is serious when he says there are great difficulties connected with the acquisition of land for afforestation.

I do not think the Minister can take objection to anything I have said in this debate in a personal sense. I do say to him, whether or not he will be still Minister in the new year, that the people who are interested in afforestation are really fed up with the chopping and changing that has taken place in recent years. There is a feeling of uneasiness about the change in targets that has taken place and the various excuses given for changing the targets. Consequently there is a lack of confidence amongst the public and that section especially which is interested in the afforestation programme. There is a lack of confidence in the Department as such; the people feel that there is no real solid plan available to be pursued on a long term basis and that the programme has been chopped and changed to suit the particular wind that blows at the moment.

In view of the part that timber plays in our imports, I think it time we woke up to the fact that it is absolutely essential to produce, within this State, our requirements in so far as we can produce them. I believe that whatever hope we have of economic salvation it is going to come through increased production on the land brought about by a vast land redistribution programme, side by side with a stepped-up afforestation programme. It is only through a policy that will embrace both of these aspects that we will have a chance of preventing the substantial rate of emigration that exists at the present time. It is only when we have industries based on the soil, and on afforestation, that we will be able to keep at home the young people who are now emigrating. Wholetime employment is required and not work of a temporary nature so that the youngsters will have a feeling of security that will enable them to settle down here.

It is argued, of course, that in recent years afforestation has taken on extra men. In other words, there are 400 to 500 extra men working on afforestation. Let me get this home to the Minister. Admittedly there is a great deal of extra employment given over the winter months to breadwinners, to young men and to fathers of families. They will get some work now on afforestation, to a limited extent, but that work is not the real benefit to be conferred on the community; it is the work they will be given afterwards, the constant work in the industries that will be set up when afforestation has got under way.

The peak period for afforestation takes place around January, February and up to March; the period lasts only for about six weeks. We are told by the Department that the number of forestry workers went up to 5,200 or 5,300 during January, but if we look six weeks afterwards that figure will have fallen by nearly 1,000. In other words, the employment is only for six weeks or two months. Does that suggest that the best type of man still available in the country will hang on for ten months of the year in order to get two months' employment in afforestation during the peak period? Let us not think for a moment that there is a great all-round-the-year employment content in afforestation, but at the same time I do not want to be taken as criticising what is there. We cannot have many men at the rate we are planting. I want the Minister to step up that rate so that the time will be shortened, and shortened considerably, when industries will arise from the afforestation programme that will be initiated now.

In conclusion, I wish to say that the Minister himself—and I am glad he is sitting down while I am saying this, because he is generally shocked when I praise him—has shown a definite interest in afforestation over the periods he has been in office, from 1948 to 1951 and from 1954 to the present moment. Anything I have said to him on this question of afforestation has been in the hope that it will strengthen his hand with the Department of Finance and any other agencies which have sought, from time to time, to thwart an afforestation programme. Let me say that no matter whether it is the present Minister or anybody else who is in office, I shall take every opportunity in this House and outside it to criticise the rate of progress where I feel that rate deserves criticism.

As far as afforestation is concerned, if over the last 30-year period the money that was wasted through investment in British securities—the money that was allowed to lie in external assets until it wasted through devaluation, through steps taken by various British Governments—were sunk here in agriculture and afforestation we would not be sitting here tonight arguing the pros and cons of afforestation but we would probably be discussing the various types of production that would be in process of development as a result of the clear-sighted policy pursued 30 years ago. It is no good going back on the 30 years. It is time we started to do what should have been done 30 years ago and let it be said, at any rate, that the present generation of young men in this House will not, when they reach the tottering, doddering age of 70 or later, be still looking for the afforestation programme they were looking to see pursued 30 years earlier on.

Mr. Blowick

I think my amendment is a more direct approach to the question than Deputy MacBride's motion. While Deputy MacBride's motion was aiming generally at increasing afforestation, I submit to the House that my amendment is putting the same idea in more concrete form and consequently I recommend it to the House. Deputy MacBride has intimated that he is accepting the amendment.

When the question of afforestation comes up in the House there is a great deal of enthusiasm and as in the case of the speaker who has just sat down, we hear a good deal of enthusiastic nonsense on the subject of forestry. One must approach this question of forestry in a levelheaded way. The first thing I would like to set right is the remark Deputy McQuillan made that in some vague way it is the Department of Finance that is exercising a stranglehold on the progress of afforestation.

Mr. McQuillan

It is not.

Mr. Blowick

It is very unfair to say that and I want to put it on the records of the House.

Mr. McQuillan

A very foolish Minister.

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps I am a very foolish Minister but I would like to put the truth on the records of this House in case some unfortunate official in the Department of Finance would find himself saddled with a false charge. Since I became Minister for Lands I have never had any difficulty with my colleagues in the Government, either the Minister for Finance or any other member of the inter-Party Government, in getting as much money as I wanted for afforestation. I cannot vouch for what happened during the time of the Fianna Fáil Government but at least during the last three years when Fianna Fáil were in office I do not think there was any stinting of money for afforestation. I want to put that on record so that neither the forestry officials nor the officials in the Department of Finance will carry blame that should not come to them.

Mr. MacBride

£250,000 was knocked off forestry in 1951.

Mr. Blowick

So there was but there again I should point out it is not the officials that do that. I think that is definite Government policy, the policy of whatever Government is in power, but I would like to make it quite clear that this Government has never stinted in regard to money for afforestation. In fact, every one of my colleagues, including the Taoiseach, was on my tail, so to speak, to get more and more done in planting, particularly because we are all perfectly well aware, as well as Deputy McQuillan, of the flight from the land. As I have said here many times in the poorer areas where there does not seem to be any minerals—at least if there are they have never been discovered—the only hope is afforestation, and until such time as minerals may be discovered in these areas afforestation is the best way of using the land.

However, I definitely disagree with Deputy McQuillan in his method of acquiring land. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, perhaps I am backward, but I hold that if a farmer wants to sell us his land for afforestation we should buy it provided it is suitable and we can agree on the price. Nevertheless, I want to register a protest here against what Deputy McQuillan said that once we have offered a man a fair price for his land he should be compelled to move out to make way for trees. If that is not what the Deputy said I will take it back because I do not want to misquote him.

Mr. McQuillan

If the Deputy will allow me——

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy took half an hour on the last night and another half an hour to-night.

Mr. McQuillan

There is another motion coming up.

Mr. Blowick

Very good. The Deputy will then have a chance to correct me if I misquoted him. That is what I took him as saying, that if the land is suitable for afforestation and once the owners have been offered a price, out they go. I do not agree with that.

Mr. McQuillan

If you take slum clearance, is that carried out or is the slum left there?

Mr. Blowick

That may be, but in the case of slum clearance the man who has been cleared out of the slum in the city is not making his living on the house.

Mr. McQuillan

On the slum.

Mr. Blowick

On the slum. In the case of the small farmer on an uneconomic holding, that is his property and on it he is making his living.

Mr. McQuillan

It is also the other man's property.

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy studies his history he will find the farmer put in a bitter struggle and there was much bloodshed to obtain the position we have to-day where the farmer owns his land.

Mr. McQuillan

Where is that?

Mr. Blowick

It is the law of this land and the laws that this House makes confirms him in that ownership.

Mr. McQuillan

What about the man with 700 acres of land who is not using it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must cease interrupting.

Mr. McQuillan

You are so mealymouthed in County Mayo that you have not the guts to stand up for yourselves.

Mr. Blowick

If I want to make a statement in this House——

Mr. McQuillan

You will not be there much longer.

Mr. Blowick

I am not going to allow socialistic statements like that to pass unchallenged. That thin end of the wedge will not be got away with while I am here.

Mr. McQuillan

You will not be long here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McQuillan should not interrupt from outside the barrier.

Mr. McQuillan

It is very hard to stick the nonsense that goes on in this House. Some people should have been cleared out long ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must cease interrupting in this disorderly fashion and must leave the House immediately.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I hope the Chair has taken notice of the remarks passed by the Deputy from outside the barrier of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was very difficult to hear what remarks were made.

Mr. Blowick

I am as anxious for afforestation as any Deputy and I push it as hard as I can but I certainly will not be the one to introduce compulsory measures of acquisition in this House or give anybody authority to take over lands for afforestation purposes in the way suggested. It is not for the purpose of scoring off Deputy McQuillan that I said what I said but because among the people in the country there is a large body of opinion that does not hold with that Socialist view. I would never stand for that.

Deputy McQuillan said that the present planting is based on the consumption of timber and said I quoted that 15,000 acres would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the country. I did not quote any such thing. What I quoted was that at the present rate of consumption 3,000 acres—not 15,000 acres—would be sufficient for the commercial timber needs of the country but that we were not satisfied with that and that in 50 years time were banking upon a four-fold increase in the use of timber and, consequently, it would need a yield of approximately 12,000 acres to supply the need. That left us with 3,000 acres of a balance. Despite that we are going ahead and planting 17,500 acres this year, 20,000 acres next year in excess of what the country needs.

The rate of land acquisition in 1946-47 was 5,330 acres; in 1947-48, 7,497 acres; 1948-49, 3,782 acres; 1949-50, 9,122 acres; 1950-51, 21,601 acres; 1951-52, 19,107 acres; 1952-53, 19,418 acres; 1953-54, 20,443 acres; 1954-55, 17,497 acres; 1955-56, 18,263 acres and in the first six months of this year 10,311 acres were acquired. That is the growth of acquisition. Everybody knows by this time that planting has been increasing all during the years.

Might I take this opportunity of paying a compliment to my predecessor in office, Deputy Derrig, who was so suddenly called away in the past few days? He carried out the afforestation programme in excellent fashion. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to a departed colleague and predecessor of mine.

Deputy MacBride made a comparison with Britain. I do not think that the comparison with Britain a fair or a good one. In the first place, their population is approximately 16 times our population, taking England, Wales and Scotland as a unit. Their land area is at least three times as big. England is a highly industrialised country and the usage of timber per head is much higher than it is in this country. But taking everything into consideration, I am very proud of the progress afforestation has made in this country. Very good strides have been made in regard to the acquisition of land without infringing upon the rights of the people who own the land and that is an important point which we must take into consideration. If different methods were employed, I admit it would be easier to get land, but I should not like to see any Government nor would I like to be a member of any Government who would adopt those methods. There is a way of getting the land. The progress made in land acquisition in the past few years has been quite satisfactory taking everything into account.

We have got an intake of over 20,000 acres per year and that is very good having regard to the fact that the Forestry people were geared to a much smaller programme only a short time ago. On the 23rd November, 1955, I said at column 955 of the Official Report:—

"...it may be of interest to the House to know that Ireland at the moment has 104 acres under timber for every 1,000 of population whereas the United Kingdom—with much less problems of land acquisition for forestry purposes—has only 76 acres per 1,000 of population. Our present planting rate will give us 255 acres per 1,000 of population whereas the United Kingdom's target is 98 acres per 1,000 of population although the United Kingdom as a highly industrialised country will always have a much higher timber consumption per head of population than this country. Actual accomplishment in the United Kingdom at the moment is only 55 per cent. of the target of annual planting on which the above comparison is based."

Let me quote from The Timber Trades Journal of the 24th November, 1956:—

"For the first time since the war the area planted was less than in the previous year.

In the forest year 1954 the area planted was 70,400 acres; in 1955 it was 67,900 acres, a drop of 2,500 acres. A fall in the rate of planting was earlier forecast by the commissioners and it is again their unwelcome duty to say ‘they can see no alternative but to accept a still lower figure as the target for next year. The reason is simply an insufficient flow of acquisitions of plantable land'."

I think we must admit that there are far better prospects for acquisition in England, Scotland and Wales than here. England does not depend on its land and is not a predominantly agricultural country like Ireland. In Ireland, every bit of land is valuable. For that reason the acquisition of land here is much more difficult but our achievements in that respect are very good under the circumstances.

I said a moment ago that other methods could be employed to get the land but they are methods that will not be employed if I can help it. What was so dearly fought for should not be so lightly thrown away. Deputies who advocate those methods do not seem to know the feelings which exist in every farmer's mind in regard to the piece of ground he owns.

It was mentioned in the course of the debate that there is a huge area of waste land in this country. My comments in that connection are that waste land is no good to us for planting. We want land that will give us at least a second or third rate crop of timber and not land which will give us no timber at all. Outside of the entirely barren mountain-tops and other such waste ground, there is a very wide area of land but it could not be described as waste. If a Land Commission inspector or a man with a dog and gun goes in on the land on a Sunday he will find that no matter how poor it is, there is an owner for it. There is no waste land. With regard to mountain land, the small farmer makes his living on that particular type of waste ground and, no matter how much we would like to push afforestation, the humblest farmer is as much entitled to his rights as the President or any Deputy. If he does not want to sell his land for afforestation purposes under any circumstances there should be no law to compel him to do so.

Let me draw a line between the compulsory powers of acquisition of the commissioners and the powers in relation to the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes. In the case of the commissioners, the land is taken to benefit the public but it is different in regard to the land acquired for afforestation purposes. In that case the State grabs the land and gives a small measure of employment until, in years to come, it will give a very good deal of employment. There is a big difference in the two things and they should not be confused. In one case you have a body acquiring land not for itself but for the benefit of the people. In the other case you have the State acquiring land for the State. The two things are totally different.

I do not intend to keep the House any longer except to quote again what I said on a previous occasion about European conditions. European countries are held up to us as an example but it has transpired that a number of European countries have a lot of badly managed forest that does not yield any commercial timber little better than firewood. I want to quote from the Dáil Debate of the 11th July, 1956, Volume 159, No. 5, in which I said:—

"If this country were to do no more than plant 15,000 acres a year henceforward, the future annual yield estimated on a moderate base can be taken as 30½ cubic feet per person. In other words we have already advanced to a point at which we have a guarantee of a future timber yield more favourable than that enjoyed to day by Europe as a whole and almost twice as favourable as that enjoyed by Europe, less the Scandinavian timber-exporting bloc. The comparison would become even more favourable if account were taken of the high European consumption of timber for fuel purposes. In Europe, excluding the Scandinavian bloc, fuel consumption accounts for 46 per cent. of the total cut.

To drive the point home, let us compare our position with that of Denmark—I suggest Denmark because it is another small country with a comparatively small population and with a prime reliance on agriculture for its economy. Denmark at the moment has an average yield per acre almost three times the European average and 9.1 per cent. of the country is under forest. It is authoritatively stated that ‘the demands for afforestation in Denmark have been fully satisfied'. One would not expect to find material for a favourable comparison here but with over one-third of Denmark's forest's hardwoods giving a lower yield and with 62 per cent. of the total forest area privately owned, 27 per cent. being held by 18,000 proprietors of small holdings, the net Danish yield is only 24 cubic feet per person as compared with the anticipated future Irish yield of 30½ cubic feet per person from a planting programme of even 15,000 acres. Take into account the facts that 38 per cent. of the total cut in Denmark is at present devoted to firewood and that a much higher proportion of Denmark's population is industrially employed with a higher potential consumption of industrial timber and the comparison becomes even more favourable."

Mr. MacBride

From what is the Minister quoting?

Mr. Blowick

My own speech here on the 11th July, 1956. We must keep things in proper perspective. I said that in the Dáil on the 11th July last but I think it bears repeating. In Yugoslavia 38 per cent. of the forest—

Mr. MacBride

Is the Minister arguing against his own amendment.

Mr. Blowick

No. I am trying to get the whole question of afforestation into proper perspective. While we have the lowest figure in Europe, approximately 2 per cent., at the present time——

Mr. MacBride

What is that?

Mr. Blowick

2 per cent. roughly, it might be a point less.

Mr. MacBride

1.5 per cent.

Mr. Blowick

While we have the lowest figure in Europe, I say we are practically the best country in the world so far as tackling the job of afforestation in our country is concerned—15,000 acres planted last year; 17,500 in the next year; 20,000 acres the year after that; 22,500 the following year and 25,000 in 1959-60. I think that is a very good programme. We are not a very wealthy country. We have not vast expanses of land easily acquired. England is in a much better position yet they have had to slow down their programme very much. They have admitted they must have another cut this year on what they anticipated. When we take into account that we are a land hungry people, that the whole of our economy rests on agriculture, that every 22,000 acres of land acquired each year from the farmers is 20,000 acres stolen or put aside from agricultural production——

Mr. MacBride

Is the Minister arguing against his amendment?

Mr. Blowick

No, I am not. I am just putting a point principally because of what Deputy McQuillan said. Deputy McQuillan lashes himself into a frenzy on every debate. When the Department of Local Government is being debated he wants £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 spent on the roads; when it is the Department of Defence he wants at least £50,000,000 spent on the Army; when it is the Department of Justice he wants Guards to get paid double what they are getting and to have twice the present number employed to run up the bill to I do not know how many millions; when the Department of Health is up it is the same. If Deputy McQuillan——

Mr. Moylan

What about forestry?

Mr. Blowick

He did not name that. My guess is that it would run into £12,000,000 or £15,000,000. If Deputy McQuillan had his way the ounce of tobacco would cost about a £1 and the bottle of stout would cost a £1——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter does not arise.

Mr. Blowick

Speakers like Deputy McQuillan can catch unthinking people off their guard. I want to bring the debate back to its proper perspective. I am not speaking against my own amendment. I am putting it forward for the consideration of the House.

I am proud of what the two inter-Party Governments have done for afforestation in this country. Like Deputy McQuillan, I am sorry more was not done in the past, but crying over spilt milk is little help to get it up. I take the position as I see it. I try to improve it and that is what I am doing. I think Deputy MacBride will admit the inter-Party Governments have certainly made their mark in afforestation. We have deliberately and with purpose pushed afforestation very hard in the West of Ireland where there was a bogey against it, extending back many years. It was said that land west of the Shannon would not grow commercial timber. It is there we have to look for the big area of land where we can build suit-ably-sized economic blocks of forest. It is there our emigration rate is highest because the quality of the land is the poorest. It is there we have the greatest number of small farmers on the land. It is there we are making particularly good progress at the present time.

I want to decry the notion that nothing is being done about afforestation. From what some Deputies say you would imagine that nothing was being done, and, above all things, they place the blame for what happened 35 or 40 years ago on my shoulders. I will accept any blame coming to me while I am in office but I certainly will not accept blame for what happened when I was a schoolboy. I will not have that foisted on me. I want the House to realise that a smashing great job of work has been done by the Forestry Division, and I hope I will not be accused of being over boastful when I say that no other Department has made such progress as the Forestry Division has. The idea that officials of the Forestry Division of the Department of Finance are retarding afforestation is just empty nonsense. The proof is that when the Government gave the green light to go ahead they rose to the occasion even better than I thought was possible. The proof is that they have stepped up their acquisition rate from 5,000 acres a year to over 20,000 acres a year and their annual planting rate from 4,000 or 5,000 acres to 15,000 acres last year and 17,500 this year. There certainly will be a further increase next year.

I think that is something we should be proud of. I cannot accept blame for the shortcomings of the past. Perhaps other Governments in the past did what they thought right; perhaps forestry did not appeal to them; perhaps there were no Deputies here to bring home to them the importance of forestry. Who knows? I was not here and I will not accept responsibility for what was done years ago. I will pat myself on the back a little for the progress that was made under the impetus of the inter-Party Governments.

In concluding I wish to commend this amendment to the House as a solid, constructive one, and one which, I know, will be adhered to by the Government.

Mr. Moylan

The Minister's ears have been so grossly assailed during this debate that, in self-defence, he will certainly have to expand the forestry acreage even if he is only to use window boxes. I should like to say at the start that it has never been my experience that money was not available for forestry to an adequate amount or to any needed amount. I should like to approve of the Minister's attitude towards compulsory acquisition. This is not Hungary and, until we have some outsider coming here to do that particular act to our people, it will never be done by any Irish Government.

Deputy McQuillan also talks about the content of employment in forestry and of the quality of Irish timber and about exports. The Minister is somewhat at fault for Deputy McQuillan's attitude. When will Deputy McQuillan and all the other enthusiasts try to remember that forest trees are not Deputy Corry's day old chicks, that they do not grow to maturity in six months, one year or two years?

Another point is in regard to the quality of Irish timber and here, again, the Minister is to blame. I have continually pressed him to put out for exhibition some of the fully finished kiln dried Irish timber. I have not seen Irish timber capable of being used for anything but the roughest work in the past 20 years. That is the Minister's fault. Why does the Minister not do something about the kiln drying and at least advertise the fact that this timber is of first-class quality, as I know it is?

Mr. Blowick

It is advertised at the Spring Show each year. There are samples of it there for anybody to see.

Mr. Moylan

Some of us think that we are either at the forestry cross-roads or that we will be at the political cross-roads one of these days. I am never impressed by any indignation expressed from the Lobby. I think it is disrespect and disregard for the dignity of this House and I very much doubt the bona fides of those who exploit that indignation.

Of course, the Minister wasted a tremendous lot of time chopping logic, where there was no logic, with Deputy McQuillan.

The discussion on forestry originally embodied a motion by Deputy MacBride and an amendment from this side of the House. They disappeared with the days' Order Paper. I am rather at a disadvantage. I would suggest, Sir, that the reason for introducing a motion in the Dáil on any matter of public importance is to provide an opportunity for suggestions directed to the improvement of Government policy or to call attention to matters which adversely affect its operation. A parrot-like repetition of baseless assertions, with a statement of uniformed opinion is, for its alleged purpose, but a waste of time and, listening to the debate here to-night on the motion and amendment, and a few nights ago again, I listened to nothing that was new or enlightening. I failed to discover any evidence of the fact that those who spoke had addressed themselves to the formulation of any realistic ideas on matters fundamental to forestry.

Deputy MacBride had nothing new to offer. He did not deviate from his established formula. We had the usual pious assertion in his speech that the motion or amendment had no Party propaganda significance, that there was no intention on his part of apportioning a blame either for the past or the future, that the motion is a sincere and a selfless one, an effort to get general agreement on a progressive policy.

Now, to my mind, the acceptance of such a policy demands for its initiation an objective, informed assessment of the problems to be overcome and of the means to be utilised to that end. Instead, we had, in Deputy MacBride's subtle and suave way, an indictment of Fianna Fáil, of its failure to understand the value of forestry or to do anything that was useful in regard to forwarding the policy—and nothing else—nothing that had not already been said ad nauseam.

The Minister is honest, at least in one particular aspect. He never makes pretence of being anything other than a political partisan. The very introductory sentence to his motion is a patron the back for himself. He is patron, president, secretary, committee of the Joseph Blowick admiration society, the ultimate in ministerial intelligence and drive, ambition—An tAire Ó Blathmhaic— Blathmhaic na gcoillte—the flower of the forest. I hope it translates the Irish name correctly. Holding up the distorted mirror of his imagination, he sees therein the wood of his intellect transmuted into the chemicals and plastics of Deputy MacBride's rhetoric. It is difficult for me to understand the Jekyll and Hyde—might I say the Jekyll and MacBride—mentality of Deputy MacBride's speech. On the one hand, he seems to be trying to construct a raft from the unsound timbers of the Clann na Poblachta Party, that might support him in some way even when the Government to which he so tenuously clings will founder, as it must founder, one of these days. As a further side to his character, his grudging appreciation of the Minister's work seems to me to indicate that, being a good lawyer, he knows the Constitution thoroughly and knows that, in spite of all that has been unloaded on the Coalition, there is still room for another Minister and perhaps he is again looking for an invitation to take a seat in the Coalition.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not seem to me to have any relation to the motion or the amendment.

Mr. Moylan

I will prove the relevance of it. Deputy MacBride knows that comparison has not been made fairly between Irish forestry cover and that of other countries. For purposes of effective assessment, comparison may be made with certain countries, but the countries to which he refers have histories, conformation of land and systems of tenure entirely different from ours. Anybody acquainted with Irish history knows the reason for our forest denudation and knows that the system of Irish tenure has had a profound effect on the pyschology of our people and that an important aspect of forestry development is the question of land acquisition.

When Deputy MacBride says that we have 1,500,000 acres available for forestry, I cannot agree with him, but if he says that we have 1,500,000 acres suitable for forestry, I would wholly agree with him. The question is to find out who owns the land and to get the owners to accept that the use of that land for forestry would be more profitable to them than its present use.

I am just wondering if there is hidden somewhere in Deputy MacBride the same idea of compulsory acquisition as Deputy McQuillan so bravely raised to-night. The Minister for Agriculture, last week, had a very pertinent question on that matter and he only gave voice to a question that is in the minds of many people throughout the country. The main problem, which I have raised time and again here in the House, is that of persuading people that certain lands they hold would be better used in their own and in the national interest, if used for forestry than otherwise.

Somebody referred to what the British Forestry Commission did. In the English paper, the Farmers' Weekly, of 22nd November of this year, we read on page 42 that Galbarry agricultural interests took full advantage of an opportunity to acquire stock from the sale of three noted Scottish herds. We read that Mr. R. Midward disposed of his herd, which he had started in 1942, because his farm had been sold to the Forestry Commission. If we turn over the pages of that journal, we find on page 69 another item. Here we get the results of the auction of one of the herds from the farm acquired by the Forestry Commission. We find that 112 cattle, cows, heifers and bullocks, were sold off that farm at the average price of £80 each. That gives us an indication of the type of land available to the Forestry Commission. If the Minister went down to County Meath and found a farm on which there were 112 cattle of all kinds valued for £80 each on an average and acquired it for forestry, what would happen?

Mr. Blowick

I would not be there, I think.

Mr. Moylan

I know what would happen. I think we are trying to build up, and succeeding in doing so, a very valuable national asset which I hope and believe will serve the nation as long as the nation exists, but such a great and valuable project cannot develop overnight. A big business must be developed carefully and this matter of forestry is big business. In such a business, the owners must learn by experience and they must understand that a minor error, understood and rectified in time, may mean the prevention of major and costly errors afterwards. They must be certain that the foundations they lay are sound. Anyone can run a bucket shop on a shoe string. It grows like a mushroom overnight and disappears in the morning. We are not sowing mushrooms.

Those who have reproached Ministers and the Department with tardiness ought to realise that what they have been doing is building for permanency. Because of the foundations laid, the future, if wisdom prevails, is safe. Even the Minister must realise that the very substantial progress made in afforestation since 1948, under the impetus of the forestry policy of the inter-Party Government, is due entirely to the work that preceded it. If the foundation had not been laid, they could not go ahead. The Minister knows that the big problem is that of acquiring land.

Various means of getting rid of the Minister's services have been mooted. Some of these I might approve of and others I might not. I do not think that we ought merely get rid of the Minister to put some brass hat at £3,000 a year in his place, a brass hat who would be free from all control by the Dáil.

Mr. MacBride

I do not want to interrupt Deputy Moylan unduly, but may I suggest that possibly he is running into the next motion.

Mr. Moylan

I am not talking about a motion. I am talking about discussion around the country. I am quite entitled to analyse here what I hear from people outside who discuss forestry. Anyway, I do not want to get at the Minister for that purpose. He can, as a matter of fact, carry on forever as far as I am concerned. I think, again talking of what I hear outside, that no organisation that might be set up would have the knowledge and wide experience and the machinery and trained personnel essential to deal with the problem that the Land Commission and its offshoot, the Forestry Branch, have. Again, it is being discussed outside in various intellectual debates that a separate Ministry should be created. After all, once the dice has been treated at all you might as well overload it. There is still room. To my mind we have a Minister for Forestry, such as it is. The Minister is responsible for the Land Commission, but he is not responsible for its operations and he can, without detriment, confine himself wholly to the work of the Forestry Branch. It may be desirable at some stage to do something else. Just now I think we will trust the Minister, seeing that we must trust him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Might I point out to Deputy Moylan at this juncture that it will be necessary to call Deputy MacBride to conclude at 10.25 p.m.

Mr. Moylan

Shall I dry up then?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has still four minutes. Deputy MacBride is entitled to the customary 15 minutes in which to conclude.

Mr. Moylan

Sir, I could talk, and I intended to talk, at much greater length because I am deeply interested in forestry. I have tried to familiarise myself with the problem of forestry as far as I can. I regret that the time at our disposal is not sufficient for me to disembarrass the Minister thoroughly, but I give way to Deputy MacBride.

Mr. Bartley

Is it necessary to conclude to-night?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter for Deputy MacBride. I would point out that there are only 15 minutes left.

Mr. MacBride

If the time can be extended, I am quite prepared to agree to an extension.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There can be no extension of the time. The customary time has been granted to each of the two motions.

Mr. MacBride

As the House is probably aware, I have on numerous occasions urged a greater measure of agreement here between the Opposition and the Parties constituting the Government. I have even urged the formation of a National Government. Having heard the Minister and the ex-Minister, there seems to be a tremendous measure of agreement in so far as forestry is concerned. The only difference is that the present Minister has at least succeeded in trebling the annual area of plantation. That is a tremendous tribute to him.

I am very sorry that so little was said by either the Minister or the ex-Minister, Deputy Moylan, as to the motion itself. The motion, and the amendment to it, deals simply and solely with what the annual plantation target should be. It is agreed that the target should be 25,000 acres per year. I did not hear either the Minister or the ex-Minister address one word to that issue. Deputy McQuillan, by advocating powers of compulsory acquisition, provided of course a beautiful red herring for prolonged discussion by both sides. I have never suggested there should be compulsory acquisition. There is not a word in the motion about compulsory acquisition.

Deputy Moylan and the Minister both said that, as far as they knew, there had never been any difficulty in obtaining the finances necessary for afforestation. In 1951, when Deputy Moylan's Government came back into office, one of his first acts was to slash the Forestry Vote by £250,000. I take it that was not done willingly by the then Minister for Lands. True, it was reinstated later as a result of public outcry and public pressure. I wonder why it is we cannot discuss motions such as this, involving really serious economic questions, without bringing in red herrings and without becoming personal.

Deputy Moylan made a suggestion which, I think, is unworthy of him. He suggested quite clearly that my interest in forestry was that I wanted to obtain a seat in the Government. His implied suggestion was that I was trying presumably to displace the present Minister for Lands. Surely Deputy Moylan must realise that that was both an unworthy and unfounded suggestion on his part. There is one very simple answer I can give, if it is necessary to give an answer. The answer is that I was offered a seat in the Government and declined to accept it. Why should a matter of that kind be introduced into a debate on forestry? Is it because Deputy Moylan had nothing else to say? Is it because he had no answer to the failure of successive Governments over a long period to perform what was one of the simplest and most obvious functions of any Irish Government? I do not think I said one offensive word, either to Deputy Moylan or any one of his predecessors, in opening this motion. I simply urged that a plantation rate of 25,000 acres per year was the very minimum at which we should aim. I said that I would like to see a much higher plantation rate.

Why then bring in these red herrings? Why make a speech about compulsory acquisition? Why bring in Hungary into a debate on forestry? Deputy Moylan complained that I had said nothing new. That is so. Everything that could be said about forestry has been said before, not merely by me but by everybody who has given solid thought to the question of the economic future of this country. The only useful function I could perform, therefore, in this matter was to repeat what others—Arthur Griffith and every thoughtful leader—have said in regard to forestry.

Debate adjourned.