Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jun 1958

Vol. 169 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Forestry.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Childers)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,290,050 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for salaries and expenses in connection with Forestry (No. 13 of 1946 and No. 6 of 1956) including a grant-in-aid for acquisition of land."

I should like first to refer to certain changes in the format of the Forestry Estimate this year, designed to enable accounting requirements to be met with much greater expedition, efficiency and economy.

Sub-head C (2), Forest Development and Maintenance, etc., formerly covered all aspects of forest work except the thinning of plantations and felling operations which, with the operation of sawmills, were covered by sub-head C (3). Thinning and felling operations have now been transferred to sub-head C (2) which thus covers all aspects of forest management— reducing the scope of sub-head C (3) to the operation of the Department's sawmills at Dundrum and Cong. The former sub-head division had, in practice, some unrealistic features and expenditure was troublesome to break down into its components.

Sub divisions within sub-head C (2) now comprise:—

Part (1) State forestry nurseries.

Part (2) A new head covering all planting operations and the preparatory work involved.

Part (3) Roads and buildings.

Part (4) All maintenance work.

Part (5) Thinning.

Part (6) Mechanical equipment purchases and maintenance.

The net total Estimate for the year is £1,904,550, a decrease of £36,450 on the net sum sought in 1957-58. The decrease arises to the extent of £28,655 on the expenditure sub-heads, the balance of £7,795 deriving from additional Appropriations-in-Aid. The actual net expenditure rate has risen steadily over the last five years, the figures for individual years being:—

1953-54	£1.17 million
1954-55	£1.25 million
1955-56	£1.47 million
1956-57	£1.65 million
1957-58	£1.76 million

The Estimate for 1958-59 at £1.90 million allows for an increase over actual expenditure last year, the highest total expenditure of any year to date, of almost £150,000. The overall financial picture of forestry at the moment is, therefore, one of continuing annual growth and expenditure but a slowing down in the rate at which the cost of forestry to the community is rising due to various factors to which I shall have occasion to refer in detail.

Sub-head A shows an increase of £12,615 over last year due primarily to the incidence of salary changes, increments, etc. A contributory factor is the provision included in the Estimate for the enlargement of inspectorate staff. A definite commencement has now been made on research work. The research projects include studies on the growth of various species of trees using different spacings, drainage methods, different combination of species. Peat forestry is largely involved and Pinus contorta will be the species principally used. Research on fertiliser application and the later drainage of planted areas will also be undertaken. Research projects on non-peat questions which have been launched include experiments in the chemical control of Pine Weevil, a pest which proves very troublesome following Scots Pine fellings.

Sub-heads B, C (3), E (1) and E (2) and F call for no comment. Increases in sub-heads D and G include increases of £7,500 largely due to the private forestry campaign about which I will speak later. Sub-head H is increased by £7,795 representing the increases in Appropriations-in-Aid. This is small because of a reduction in the sale of nursery surplus stocks.

Turning back to sub-head C (1), Grant-in-Aid for the acquisition of land, the grant included in the Estimate for 1957-58, £110,000, was added to a balance in the Grant-in-Aid Fund on the 1st April, 1957 of £92,790, thus making a total available last year of £202,790. Net expenditure during the year amounted to £125,744, leaving a balance in the fund at the 31st March, 1958, of £77,046. The Estimate now before the House includes a provision of £160,000 which will make a total availability of over £230,000. This should be more than ample to meet the incidence of expenditure within the year.

In 1957-58 a total of 26,346 acres was acquired in 374 transactions compared with 18,725 acres in 247 transactions in the previous year. The ratio of transactions to total acreage indicates the continuing tendency towards a more and more tedious pattern of acquisition in comparatively small areas, the average area per acquisition in 1957-58 being only 70 acres.

Excluding unproductive land, the effective total area acquired amounted to 23,371 acres compared with 16,085 acres in 1956-57. This is in fact by far the highest individual acquisition attainment in any one year over the entire history of State forestry, the highest previous figure for a single year being 17,750 acres in 1953-54. The plantable reserve at the commencement of 1958-59 had risen to approximately 53,500 acres compared with 49,500 acres at the 1st April, 1957. This increase is, however, far from satisfactory since the reserve as it stands is much too limited in relation to the increasing annual planting rate. In dealing with the question in the debate on last year's Estimate, I pointed out that the plantable reserve had only increased by 4,000 acres since 1954 when the planting rate was 12,500 acres. To-day's reserve position is even more unsatisfactory and is the most difficult one we have had to face for many years. At the beginning of 1956-57 the reserve stood at 49,600 acres or just under three times the planting programme of 17,500 acres which was undertaken in that year. By the 1st April, 1957, the plantable reserve had dropped by 100 acres and was approximately two and a half times the planting programme of 20,000 acres undertaken in that year. This year, with a planting programme of 22,500 acres, the plantable reserve of 53,500 acres is less than two and a half times the planting rate. With such a limited reserve it is just not possible to plan individual forest planting programmes with due regard to the proper and orderly development of the forests, and growth in the number of permanently employed workers, etc. We are, in fact, dependent upon lands of which possession will be taken in the months ahead to enable us to achieve the full planting programme of 22,500 acres for the year.

It is obviously a matter of top priority to secure a considerable increase in the rate of acquisition of land for at least some years. There is a considerable total area in process of acquisition or under consideration for acquisition. As at 31st March, 1958 there were areas totalling 2,000 acres of which possession was due to be taken and areas totalling 38,722 acres which the Department has agreed to purchase but title to which is still under investigation. There were further areas aggregating 49,389 acres which had been inspected and found suitable and which were the subject of price negotiations with the owners. I have, during the past year, been pursuing the possibility of speeding up the handling of acquisition proceedings. Steps to strengthen the staff are in hands. The best we can hope for is a substantial rise in the acquisition rate in 1959-60 and for some years following, gradually bringing about a greater equilibrium between planting programme and plantable reserve.

In the long term the key factor to the rate at which we will be able to continue acquiring land is the rate at which land is offered to us. The rate at which offers were being received in 1956-57 and 1957-58 was in fact satisfactory in relation to a contemplated annual planting programme in the future of 25,000 acres.

Sub-head C (2) "Forest Development and Management" at a total of £1,682,650 shows a decrease of £113,000 in comparison with the relevant provisions in the 1957-58 Vote but the provision being made this year is in fact sufficient to cover expenditure higher by £32,000 than that incurred in 1957-58.

On Part (1) Nurseries, there is a reduction due to modern methods of weed control and greater output. The whole nursery organisation is now being reorganised. Economic nursery techniques and good management dictate the need for fewer and larger nurseries. We intend to have in future 50 acre nurseries situated at strategic positions. The result will be a more easily trained staff, higher quality plants and lower costs. The first reorganised nursery is that at Clonegal.

The Department is not satisfied that present arrangements are adequate to ensure that seed supplies are from sources and of strains calculated to give optimum results under Irish conditions. This is particularly important in the case of seed originating on the North American Continent where there are a wide variety of climatic and other factors affecting the range of seed supplies. Consideration is being given to the establishment of new agency arrangements in America to afford a better guarantee of seed sources. Particular attention is being given to variation in Contorta Pine and with this species there is a growing emphasis on the desirability of securing as much as possible of our seed requirements from promising Irish plantations of seed-bearing age. A special survey of potential stands within the country will shortly be undertaken. We hope to co-operate closely in this work with the British Forestry Commission which has similar problems. Steps to enlarge home production of suitable Contorta Pine seed through seed orchards are also contemplated.

On head (2) "Establishment of Plantations" the provision of £434,150 is less by £48,000 than the 1957-58 provision. The 1957-58 provision was in fact in excess of requirements but, due to the change in format of the Estimate, accurate comparison with the actual total expenditure of 1957-58 is not readily practicable. A comparison of the two years on the basis of labour costs will give a fair picture. The provision for 1958-59 includes £396,162 for labour which is higher by £40,000 than the actual expenditure in 1957-58. Despite an increase in planting programme from 17,500 acres in 1956-57 to 20,000 acres in 1957-58, the level of labour expenditure on the establishment of plantations was approximately the same in the two years due to a general increase in output. The allowance of an additional £40,000 in the Estimate for 1958-59, therefore, makes generous provision for the extra costs liable to arise from an increase in the planting programme by a further 2,500 acres to 22,500 acres.

As the proportion of peat planting increases in the western and indeed other areas, less scrub clearance work of a costly character will be required. We will, of course, continue to look for better quality, higher-yield lands whenever they are available. New equipment which is expected to reduce considerably the cost of ground clearance in such areas is being purchased and, if it proves as effective as is expected, it will contribute towards a further reduction in average per acre ground preparation costs.

The Estimate provision under this head covers, as well as the scheduled planting programme of 22,500 acres, the replanting of over 1,000 acres of former plantations which were either destroyed by fire or have failed for one reason or another. The replanting area is unusually high. I have been encouraging the Forestry Division to push ahead as rapidly as possible with this work, since many of the areas in question are of more than average productive capacity.

This year's new planting of 22,500 acres is in accordance with the planned acceleration of planting to which the Forestry Division has been working in recent years. The planting of 25,000 acres is scheduled for next year. The annual enlargement of planting programmes by 2,500 acres has not been accomplished without imposing quite a severe strain on the Forestry Service and the resources at its disposal and I think it is highly creditable that this year's programme, at 22,500 acres, will represent an increase of 50 per cent, in three years on the planting rate of 15,000 acres in 1955-56. I have already, in dealing with land acquisition, referred to the plantable reserve position. It is in this respect above all else that the rapid acceleration of planting has presented the greatest difficulty. The plantable reserve, as it stands today, is far too low in relation to the current rate of planting and it is depriving the service of the scope it should have for flexibility to arrange planting programmes at individual forests with an eye to sound forest work management and balance, the preservation of labour stability and the build-up of the forest at a rate and on lines which will ultimately permit of sound and economic management as a forest unit. In touching again upon this question of land acquisition I am deliberately seeking to lay due stress on the absolute importance of a very considerable increase in the rate at which land is being offered for forestry purposes.

Our capacity to acquire land upon which we will have either the certainty or at least a reasonable prospect of growing timber as part of a national investment policy is, and must remain, the key factor in determining the future progress of afforestation. In this connection I would recall to Deputies' minds that, when speaking on the Forestry Estimate for 1957-58, I adverted particularly to the information given by my predecessors to the Dáil on numerous occasions as to the extent to which the expansion of the rate of afforestation since the last war has been due to new mechanical aids to afforestation in peat areas, including experimental work on extremely unpromising areas.

During the past year I have had an opportunity of going into this question much more fully with the officers of the Department and I think it may be of help to the House if I set out briefly what our present position is in this regard. The planting, with the assistance of mechanical ground preparation, of peat areas which had previously been regarded as either technically or economically unsuitable for forestry purposes commenced on a small scale in 1950-51 and was much expanded in 1951-52 and subsequent years. Mechanical preparation has been combined with application of artificial fertilisers to stimulate growth in the initial stages of competition with natural vegetation. Results so far have been promising. Indeed, the single application of an eggcupful of phosphate possibly only once in the lifetime of the tree is like a life-giving elixir of the ancients. In many cases drain deepening some years after planting has been necessary to counteract a check on growth when the roots penetrated to the water-table but the plants showed good response to lowering of the water-table. The possibility of a serious check on growth at a later stage cannot be ruled out but technical evidence suggests that any check should be capable of rectification by drainage improvement and/or additional artificial manuring. Problems still in doubt include the question of stability in conditions of fair to severe exposure, especially when the trees reach about 30 feet in height and thinning has commenced.

Peat areas differ widely due to the varying conditions of exposure, drainage efficacy, fertility and depth of soil. I should make it clear that there are very large areas of utterly unplantable peat land. Recently we have been confining the acquisition of highly doubtful peat land to small blocks adjacent to land of better quality.

Definitions of plantability are difficult to lay down but the Department classified the 1956-57 acquisitions as follows:—

(1) Land reasonably certain to produce sawlog timber: 58 per cent. of total acquisitions.

(2) Land reasonably certain to produce pulpwood: 32 per cent.

(3) Land having a fair expectation of pulpwood: 7 per cent.

(4) Experimental land: 3 per cent.

Of this last category we have planted enough for the present. When results can be ascertained the policy can be modified. In the meantime current planting programmes will still include a high proportion of peat land including large areas in category (3), i.e. land the productivity of which is still unproved but which has a fair expectation of pulpwood production.

Before passing from this subject of the planting of more doubtful peat types I should mention that, through the courtesy of the British Forestry Commission, I had an opportunity last autumn of making an extensive tour with officers of the Department of peat areas planted by the forestry commission in Scotland and we recently had the benefit of a return visit by senior officers of the forestry commission to our plantations on western peat types. Exact comparisons between Irish and Scottish conditions are not feasible but the cross-check of experience has been, I think, valuable to both sides and gives some encouragement towards optimism for the future.

Turning now to head (3) of sub-head C (2) "New Roads and Buildings", the Estimate provision at £370,700 shows an increase of £53,900 over the corresponding provision in the 1957-58 Estimate. Only a small part of this head relates to the construction of buildings, mainly the building of new official residences for foresters, and the increase in provision is entirely related to road construction. The Estimate provision includes £227,476 for labour. Actual expenditure on labour for this work in 1956-57 was £176,000 and in 1957-58 the figure was £195,000. The 1958-59 Estimate thus allows for an increase of £32,000 or about 15 per cent. over last year's expenditure on labour for road construction; there are corresponding increases in the provisions for the purchase of materials, cartage, etc. There has been a very rapid acceleration in road construction work in recent years. A complete analysis of road construction work in 1957-58 is not yet available but the aggregate of provisional figures of yardage of roads on which preparatory work was carried out and yardage upon which either final surfacing or complete construction in one operation was handled comes to 250 miles as compared with corresponding figures for the preceding four years in consecutive order of 66 miles, 90 miles, 118 miles and 192 miles. There are still arrears of work to be made up, however, and every effort is being made to push ahead with this work. The individual forest programmes for the year which have now been settled include provision for a very big increase in work over the already high 1957-58 level. If, in fact, it should prove possible to put all this work in hands during 1958-59 expenditure may well exceed even the considerably increased provision being made in the Estimate. If that should prove to be the case it will probably be possible to meet the additional financial requirements through savings flowing from increasing productivity on other heads.

The construction of forest roads is a complete science in itself. The shape and pattern of extraction roads can be measured to correspond with cost saving in extraction. A shorter road mileage is less costly to construct but extraction costs grow correspondingly. The optimum mileage can be calculated on a work study basis. Our forest road construction requirements and costs are being minutely examined. The first step taken has been to secure materials by contract where this would produce economies. Last summer we invited a consultant who has been responsible for reducing road construction costs in Great Britain to come here. His ideas are being put into operation on an experimental basis but we are certain that costs can be reduced by as much as 15 per cent.

Head 4 of the sub-head "General Forest Management", which includes all work on existing plantations other than road construction and thinning, at £535,400 shows a decrease of £41,900 as against the relevant Estimate provision in 1957-58. Actual expenditure in 1957-58 was lower by £46,000 than the Estimate provision for the year as a result of increasing productivity and the sum provided for the current year, therefore, represents a slight increase over the actual level of expenditure in 1957-58.

General management work tends to rise annually with the extension of the total area of State plantations and no significant departure from the normal pattern is to be expected this year. On some heads on which there was an abnormally heavy incidence of expenditure last year a reduction in work in the current year is anticipated; notably in this category are the extension and deepening of drains in young plantations and weeding and low pruning preliminary to thinning. On the other hand considerable increase in expenditure on high pruning, an operation directed towards the production of really high quality timber, and in expenditure on construction of fire-lines is anticipated.

Head 5, "Timber Conversion", at £128,020, is less by £40,120 than the amount provided in the Estimate for 1957-58. There was in fact a saving of approximately that extent in 1957-58 so that the provision for 1958-59 is on the same basis as actual expenditure in 1957-58. The provision includes £82,897 for labour compared with an actual expenditure of £84,000 in 1957-58.

Approximately a quarter of the current level of expenditure on timber conversion relates to the felling of old woodland and scrub areas and the felling of standards interspersed through young plantations. The main expenditure on the head is on the direct labour thinning of plantations.

Normal thinning progress in the year 1957-58 was interrupted by the abnormal windblow in February, 1957, which accounted for 3,250,000 cubic feet—the equivalent of a full year's thinning. 7,500 acres were thinned in that year, totalling 2,000,000 cubic feet. Half the area and two-thirds of the volume of thinnings were sold standing. This policy, started in 1956, will be continued in the future as the results are beneficial to forestry economics. This will bring about a decrease in direct labour employment but an increase in private timber merchants' employment. Future thinnings have now been approximately forecast for three years beginning in 1958-59 at 3,000,000, 3,250,000 and 3,750,000 cubic feet respectively.

Our thinning production forecasting will be further improved when the new section of the Department has completed an assessment of annual growth, a vital feature of future development. In 18 months the first assessment of all plantations older than ten years will be completed.

Head 6 of the sub-head, "Mechanical Equipment for Forest Development and Maintenance", shows a decrease of £26,650 compared with 1957-58. Extensive additions have been made to mechanical equipment of all descriptions in 1957-58.

The Estimate for labour expenditure over the sub-head as a whole provides for the employment of up to 5,000 men. I should make it clear that the Estimates for 1957-58 and the current year have been affected by decisions made to increase output and reduce the taxpayers' burden. Firstly, improved analysis of costs by calculations on a man hour basis commenced in 1956; secondly a direction was given in 1957 to secure better output. Contributory factors have included the standing sale of thinnings and the purchase of road materials under favourable contracts.

The result has been a saving of £300,000 on the cost of work this year all of which operated to the taxpayers' benefit, and the necessity for reassessing labour requirements in the future becomes apparent. I should make it clear that the increase in planting by itself does not increase employment, 50 persons being employed per 1,000 additional acres.

As we have been approaching the maximum planting figure of 25,000 acres, the rise in the annual employment level has been gradually diminishing each year. Employment rose from 2,562 men in 1950-51 to 4,055 in 1953-54 and has been increasing more slowly since to 4,835 in the past year. The apparent decrease in 1957-58 compared with 1956-57 is offset by 350 men enjoying private employment on the felling of thinnings and provision of road materials instead of State employment, so that total employment was still rising but more slowly. Only one-third of this year's employment relates to current planting as distinct from maintenance, road construction, etc. The total number now employed is 4,613 and will rise as grass cleaning around young trees commences. Increased thinnings will give more private employment. Total employment on State forestry work will rise slowly to 6,000 by about 1968 and then more rapidly to 7,000 in 1974 and to 9,000 in 1978. But, of course, employment on sawmilling, etc., will also be steadily increasing, as by 1974 thinnings will have risen from 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 cubic feet a year.

I have now dealt with the main subheads and have described the past year's work. I must next review the general development of our afforestation programme. On taking office I felt it necessary to apply the test to forestry that is now the key to our future prosperity. Will it pay? This is a human as well as an economic approach in that merely transferring money from one group of workers to another is grossly deceptive and that is what will happen if the total receipts from forestry fall below the expenses, including interest payments. Every year the taxpayer is going to spend a large amount of money not on employing the people who migrate to the towns for employment, who are making boots, shoes, refrigerators, beer and furniture but on planting trees.

In view of the fact that at least over half our people in rural districts migrate, we must ask whether there will eventually be greater prosperity through the planting of trees. Or will our descendants say it would be better if all the money had been invested at 5 per cent. at accumulative interest by the taxpayers and that at the end they would have been able to employ more people and import more materials for Irish industry.

Apart from this, since we have to export more goods at lower cost, since forestry is mainly dependent in the ultimate on exports and as our pulp will be bought at world prices, it is for this very essential large scale industry, one of the three largest in the State, to set an example of efficiency to private employers and still more essential to pay the taxpayer a dividend which he will spend on employing others directly or indirectly. So the officers were invited to assess the forestry income and expenses of the future, making reasonably optimistic assumptions in regard to growth, the price of the product and other factors. The memorandum prepared is I think unique—being possibly the first overall projection of income and costs prepared for an entire country's forestry operations.

The following are some comments on this study based on British assessments of tree growth pending our own calculations and on a planting programme of 25,000 acres from 1959 onwards. We have 246,885 acres of land planted at this moment, of which half is planted for less than ten years. Present policy provides for the planting of 1,000,000 acres, one-seventeenth of our total land area. At current rates of timber consumption we would need to plant 7,000 acres a year—at Danish rates 17,500 acres. In either event we will have a large export surplus.

The consumption of pulpwood is increasing yearly. The U.S.A. is already a net importer. Europe may cease to be a net exporter and there will always be a market available in Great Britain where the target is only planned to reach 35 per cent. of requirements. Annual consumption of industrial wood per 1,000 population varies from 1,840 cubic metres in North America to 880 cubic metres in Europe. Our trade balance for timber is £10,000,000 on the wrong side. Our advantages are well known; fertile soil, good climate, no excessive cost inflation in rural areas. The only obstacles would be excessive interest rates and costs of collection in certain areas. To date we have spent £14,000,000 of which £10,000,000 was spent in the last ten years.

At the 1956 rates of output it has been estimated that without extensive mechanisation and without improvement in timber prices we would lose £526 per acre at 5¼ per cent. interest. If this industry was a marginal contribution to our economic life and if it remained at a modest level of cost we could, perhaps, be less insistent on high output. On the contrary the wood has to be sold on the export market. The total investment of capital raised by borrowing will amount to £21,000,000 by 1974. In the meantime, the taxpayer will also spend as much as £800,000 per year out of tax revenue on non-capital expenditure.

He will also pay the taxes to repay the lenders who provide the capital until the revenue relieves the Exchequer of this annual debt. Moreover it will not be till 1974 that total revenue will equal expenditure and not before 1990 will the net revenue of the Department exceed £3,000,000 though the lucky Minister for Finance in 2009 A.D. might expect to receive £17,000,000 from the Department if all plantations were grown on a 50-year rotation.

I want to make certain that our descendants will not only have greater purchasing power but will reap a dividend from the whole vast operation so that when there are eventually some 19,000 persons employed apart from those in conversion sawmills and factories, we will not have the economists saying that more people could have been employed by other means. The value of forestry must be brought above the controversial level and towards this end a State Department must at the same time prove to the somewhat cynical public that the business of forestry can be run as efficiently as if the promoter was a private lumber corporation.

I have faith that the officers of my Department, from the highest to those beginning their careers, are adaptable, efficient and zealous and the many changes directed towards increased output carried out in a few months are proof of this. The economic assessment study indicates that we can be optimistic provided output increases and costs are reduced by the measures taken in the last year.

On the basis of reasonable assumptions, the final financial yield from Irish State forestry can be as high as 5¼ per cent. on the capital invested. That is an encouraging picture. It is a real contribution to the vacuum for productive enterprise which has existed since the war. For too long we have been spending money to give employment and not increasing production, the inevitable effect of which is to increase employment.

Forestry employment rising eventually to 20,000 persons and affecting the lives of an appreciable proportion of the whole population need not, therefore, reduce the purchasing power of the present taxpayers and their successors, which it was bound to do if we had not taken the step which is already known to the House and which I will now outline, namely, the institution of the incentive bonus scheme, by far the largest proposition of its kind undertaken in this country.

At this point I must record the social objective underlying this scheme. Firstly, the taxpayer and the worker will share the increased rewards from greater productivity; the workers will have higher wages, will be more contented and the extra wages will give employment to other workers making goods for them; the taxpayer will keep more money in his pocket and will either invest it in some capital project that employs more people or buy more Irish products, giving more employment; the Government, if short of capital, will be relieved of a commitment and can invest elsewhere in employment-giving projects; if more trees can be planted for less cost, the management employment will be greater at a later date. Finally, the incentive bonus scheme will set a country-wide example of great importance to other employers now that consultants can arrange incentive bonuses for an amazing variety of jobs.

Now for the scheme itself. A firm of consultants has timed every forestry operation, a most difficult undertaking because conditions vary so widely. Briefly, the scheme provides that each worker will be guaranteed a minimum time rate, but by performance levels rising above a fixed point, additional earnings, partly by way of a production bonus and partly by way of a quality bonus to ensure work of adequate quality, will be secured. The level of additional earnings will vary with productivity but will be so controlled as to give any reasonably competent worker who gives of his best an opportunity of earning from 32/- up to £3 a week more than the normal time rate. To ensure a proper assessment of performance levels, work values are determined for each job in hands in accordance with the recognised principles of work study with full allowance for reasonable rest periods for the worker and so forth. The scheme was discussed in detail with representatives of the various unions active in forestry work before its application was commenced at the beginning of April. I am very pleased to be able to say that the trade unions concerned showed a very helpful interest in the scheme and a willingness to assist in securing its successful application in the interests of both their members and the Department. I have already paid tribute publicly to the way in which the unions have received the scheme, but I think it only right that I should now take the opportunity of placing that tribute on the record of the House.

As a prerequisite to the implementation of the incentive bonus scheme it was necessary to rationalise the time-rate structure for forestry work which previously varied from county to county in order to have firm basic wage rates to which incentive bonus rates could be related. A basis of rationalisation acceptable to the men and their unions was found and brought into operation with retrospective effect to the beginning of January. The rationalisation arrangements embodied an increase comparable to that taking place in outside employment. The introduction of this new national wage base for forestry work is itself a signal step forward and should go far to promote and maintain good relations between management and labour in forestry work. The new time-rate for the country as a whole is 110/- a week, with special rates in traditionally high wage areas near Dublin whereas previously in some counties rates as low as 100/- a week prevailed.

Mr. Dillon

In fact they got the 10/- that the Government laid down.

Mr. Childers

Of course it varies from county to county in the case of county councils. The addition of incentive bonus earnings on top of these new time-rates will represent a considerable increase in the earning power of forestry labourers. In this connection I need not stress the importance, as an antidote to emigration, of providing in rural districts not merely an adequate number of jobs but employment of a sufficiently remunerative character to encourage the best of our people to stay at home rather than to seek fortunes abroad.

The incentive bonus scheme must be applied gradually, each forest being treated as a separate unit for purposes of application. Only in that way can we be certain that the scheme will be based on sure foundations and initiated with a full understanding by all concerned of how best to use it in the joint interests of the employees and of the Department. So far the scheme has been applied in seven forests in Counties Dublin, Wicklow, Carlow and Tipperary. It is expected that it will take two years to complete the application of the scheme in all 176 forest units throughout the country.

To ensure that application will go ahead as rapidly as possible a picked team of departmental officers have been associated with the industrial consultant engaged on the work. These officers are receiving a thorough grounding in work study techniques and will form the nucleus of a permanent work study staff in the Department to maintain the scheme at a high standard of working efficiency. Ultimately work study will be incorporated as a standard feature of the training of forestry personnel. I should make it clear that the foresters have been instructed to include competence and zeal as an overriding qualification in the selection of men for forestry work and they have been given virtually the same freedom of choice as a State company or a private corporation. Within this proviso they will naturally retain men with the heaviest family obligations and with longer service.

The incentive bonus scheme is expected to increase the productivity rise of 10 per cent., which has already been secured from the other measures I have mentioned, to at least 20 per cent. when it is in full operation. There follow some further requirements in relation to the operation of the scheme if it is to be successful in the fullest sense. Forest work will have to be planned to secure a maintenance of work in areas where productivity is rising. This will be a complex task for under the old system we have not been able to acquire sufficient reserves-in the right places to ensure continuity of work.

Our forestry economic assessment referred to already indicates an inevitable stabilisation in additional employment recruitment until about 1964 even though additional much-needed road construction will create a demand for more workers.

Our object in time must be to secure more stable employment and for this an increase in the plantable reserve is essential. In this connection we have made a study of the amount of forest land that is available for acquisition during the next few years. We have assumed that general economic conditions remain the same in relation to demands for sheep and cattle grazings. As I indicated previously, sheep income employs our people in the towns and there can be no conflict with the sheep economy which is so important. Even with increased staff and the necessary finance we find it difficult to forecast any more favourable acquisition prospect than a short-term rise to about 30,000 acres (plantable) falling back later to about 25,000. This should ease the plantable reserve. The figures indicate that the 25,000 acre target is not far short of the maximum.

I next must advert to the progress in establishing timber conversion factories. The next ten years will see an ever-increasing volume of thinnings and some mature felling. Apart from the extension of the Bowater factory at Athy a number of other projects are in sight for the manufacture or extended manufacture of pulp and chipboard.

Local authorities are showing more willingness to accept native timber under public building contracts. The number of firms producing properly seasoned Irish timber is not yet adequate but growing. At my request the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards have taken up the question of establishing standards for home-grown timber.

I now come to the question of private forestry. If ever there was an implied challenge to the ultimate ambitions of a nation the dearth of private forestry is the perfect example. Our private forestry plantations in 1880 totalled 380,000 acres and to-day amount to 90,000 acres. Not once in the last 30 years have any but the private forestry and farming societies specifically demanded a big diversion of Government funds—of the £14,000,000 already spent on State forestry—for private planting. Only 1,966 acres have been planted in the past four years although a grant of £10 an acre is available.

Yet there are thousands and thousands of parcels of land from half an acre up to much larger acreage growing nothing and suitable for planting. The emphasis on State planting has been far too great and the whole activities of the Department have been concentrated on State forestry. This creates apathy towards private enterprise. The future of forestry depends to a great degree on a new conception of saving for the future through the planting of trees.

The Government has agreed that we can make a tremendous effort to interest our people in private forestry; apart from making grants available, not a penny piece has been spent for over 30 years on private planting promotion as a nationally desirable policy; we start from scratch. I believe in this policy and I will go so far as to state that the success or failure of the campaign will prove whether we are likely to make really dramatic advances in our production drive during the next decade.

May I state again: trees are an investment for the son and the grandson or the daughter and the grand-daughter. From one acre of poplars £600 can be secured in 20 to 30 years. From one acre of Sitka spruce £300-£400 for the son and £700 for the grandson. For the man who does some of the work himself the profit is tremendous, for the man employing labour if the work is filling in time to maintain the output of good workers the profit is very great; for the man employing full-time forestry labour the profit, assuming the value of money remains the same, is satisfactory—if money declines in value, the investment has little competition in any field of investment. Just as in the old days great landowners laid down a bin of port for the son's twenty-first birthday, so with far greater profit and wisdom a man can plant an acre of Sitka spruce to provide a dowry for his son when he marries. In this particular matter I speak with real sincerity as my own family plant trees in large numbers.

The Government has decided to double the grant for private planting, raising it from £10 to £20 an acre, payable in two instalments, £10 after planting and £10 five years after the plantation has been established. It has also been decided to launch a special scheme to foster the cultivation of poplars by farmers. Poplar cultivation has unusual features which render the normal planting grant scheme inapplicable, but the country—and the farmers—could gain appreciably from extensive poplar cultivation. It matures very quickly and thus gives an early return on the capital invested. Details of the poplar scheme have not yet been settled.

But of far greater importance: The officers will now conduct a promotion campaign bespeaking the help of the private forestry societies and of the National Farmers' Association, Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre. Leaflets will be published, technical advice supplied free and, above all, individual talks given in selected areas. The propaganda campaign will be directed towards two-picked counties in the first instance. The two counties will be specially picked having regard to such factors as the proportion of medium-sized farms where silvicultural conditions are suitable.

There is no lack of land; where there is, a little fertiliser will release land for forestry. Co-operative societies can plant trees and enjoy the profits.

I ask for a supreme effort from those who have been planting in the past to plant an extra large acreage in this and later years in order to reveal their belief publicly in the value of this new national investment. I hope some fathers may give the land to their young sons now for forest planting. This is one way of assuring a grandson's dowry. But many will wish to make their gift later.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister, being in charge of the Forestry Department, is the only Minister in the Government who is fortunate in having a fairly bright picture to present to the House. I wish him luck of it. He took over in the Forestry Department a Department geared up to perfect working order; a Department staffed not alone with intelligent officials but with officials who were enthusiastic for their work. I hope that every other colleague of the Minister will have the same to say of his staff. If other Ministers can do so they are very lucky indeed. That was my experience of the Department when I was there. I think I overlooked paying that tribute to the officials last year and I hope it will not come amiss that I say it to them this year. I always found them most capable and willing to do their work, and anxious to implement Government policy even when it disagreed with their own ideas.

The Minister spoke at length on the question of the acquisition of land for forestry which is really the one thorny problem he has to face. If the land comes in there may be some further difficulties but the rest of the work is not so serious. If the State has not got the land it cannot be planted. I appreciate the difficulties before the Minister and the Department in regard to the acquisition of land. The history of the land in this country has been that none of us ever seem to have enough of it and the little piece we have, we hate to part with it.

I think that, in regard to the acquisition of land, the Minister will have to increase the ceiling price. The value of the £ is dropping day by day. That means that the Minister should try to keep pace with the devaluation of the £ by increasing the ceiling price. As the £ drops in value he is, year by year, offering a lower price for forestry land. That is one of the big difficulties.

I know quite well where the Minister's biggest problem lies but nevertheless it is one with which he should grapple. In passing I want to compliment him on increasing the private planting grant. For a long time I was battling with that very problem and it is about time that it should be done. The planting grant was last increased in 1948 as well as selling prices in the acquisition of lands. At present the plantable reserve of land on hands is becoming dangerously low in view of the Minister's intention to plant 22,500 acres this year and 25,000 acres next year. To fulfil that programme will make big inroads on the plantable reserve.

There is another problem, that at present officials in State forests, in the nurseries, do not know, or are not too sure of, the proper type of young seeds to plant or the quantities necessary. To improve that position there should be a plantable reserve of land in hand for the next three years so that the quantities can be successfully determined in advance. I have been aware of that situation for a long time. On one occasion a difficulty arose in which the British Forestry Commission had an excess of Sitka spruce and we had an excess of young larch. An exchange was effected at that time and the problem was resolved but the same conditions may not apply again. If the Minister wishes to improve that position with regard to the plantable reserve, may I suggest to him the best way to do it is to increase the selling prices and to implement the provisions of the 1956 Forestry Act with regard to commonages?

A vast area of quite suitable land is available in commonages and, though I do not want to go into this in detail, we all know of cases where there may be ten shareholders in a commonage, eight of whom are willing to sell their shares but two of whom refuse. Before the passing of the 1956 Act that commonage could not be sold because there was no means of dealing with such a situation. The 1956 Act, however, gives the Minister power to partition the commonage, leaving out the two unwilling shareholders by giving them their fair share, and he can buy the remaining eight shares.

Most of the land acquired for afforestation purposes is poor quality land. The forestry officials are straining at the leash to get good land to plant and if I were a Forestry Commission official I, too, would like to get the best land in the country in which to plant trees. The forestry officials are not to be blamed for that. As a whole, we are depending on the land of the country for our national economy. Agriculture is our principal industry and the best way to use our land is to devote the arable and semi-arable portions of it to agricultural purposes and devote the non-arable land to forestry. As the position stands the Minister's field of operations is confined to the poorer quality land and he has already mentioned various figures of unplantable land that the Department already holds. There are very few offers of land that come into the hands of the Department in which there is not a tail-end of unplantable land which must remain in the hands of the Department. That is one of the snags of the job but it is not serious enough to cause any heart burning.

If the Minister increases selling prices for lands, if he implements the terms of the 1956 Act with regard to commonages, and if he accepts very small areas, that will help immensely to get over the difficulties of land acquisition. I know quite well that the average acreage of offers of land is becoming smaller year by year and, because I believe that most of the worthless slices of land are already in the Forestry Department's hands, they will have now to accept offers of 20, 15 and ten acres. Such offers should not be despised. Starting as a completely unforested country, the progress of forestry here will naturally be slow and there is nothing wrong with accepting small acreages.

Despite the Minister's fairly optimistic speech, I do not understand certain of the figures given in the Book of Estimates In sub-head C (2) (Forestry Development and Management) a sum of £1,682,650 is provided this year as against £1,795,720 last year, a decrease of £113,070 and there is a note at the bottom of the page that £139,020 has been transferred from sub-head C (3) to sub-head C (2). I think it must be a misprint because C (2) shows a decrease and, though I have looked at these figures on a number of occasions, I do not know how that has arisen. I know the Minister will have one answer for it, that turning over the field of thinnings to private purchasers affected it, but that is merely effecting a transfer of labour.

While the forestry programme was developing I do not think it was wise for the Department to go into every aspect of forestry and it was well that private individuals participated in it. Last year 5,200 men were employed on forestry but now that figure is down to 4,600. Possibly that figure will rise during the summer months but it shows a big drop on actual employment in plantations, and I should like to get an explanation on that from the Minister when he is replying.

The Minister did not give us an account of the amount of work provided by forestry operations in the congested districts, information which was given in the past. I believe the Department will have to turn more and more to the congested districts because it is there that the poorer quality land is and they will have to depend on that land more and more. In 1948 in the congested areas 1,600 acres were planted, or 20 per cent. of the plantable area for that year. By 1954 the figure had risen to 5,300 acres or a total of 33 per cent. of the total planted and in 1956 5,600 acres were planted in the congested areas, or 42 per cent. In 1948 the number of men employed there was 500 and by 1956 it had risen to 1,500 men.

I should again like to repeat what I said previously in this House that the Minister in charge of Forestry has a better chance of stemming emigration and stopping the flight from the land than any other Minister in the Government. I have said before, and it will bear repetition, that we do not seem to have a wealth of minerals. If there are minerals underground, they have not been discovered. That forces us back to the land for our standard of living and for our income.

The Department of Agriculture has done a magnificent job of work on the arable land and have helped in that way to improve the farmer's lot. The Board of Works in arterial drainage, is doing a magnificent job in restoring flooded land to an arable, crop-bearing condition. The Minister has under his wing the non-arable portion of the country. By developing forestry on that land, he will put it to much more productive use than that to which it is being put at present.

I know that the Minister will be faced with the argument that trees are displacing sheep on the hills. To a certain extent they are. Sheep did not seem to hold the population in the poorer areas. People are deserting the mountain areas rapidly, despite the alleged profit from sheep. The Minister can take that as clear indication that it is time to test whether trees will hold the population, at least in certain areas, where sheep have failed to do so.

The Minister may not have the figures to hand now but I should like him in replying to give the number of new centres of forests, if any, in the congested districts; the additions to existing forests in those areas; the number of men employed and the likely future development in that area. It is alleged that the Minister said in my county that he would devote all his attention to centring afforestation in Wicklow. Wicklow deserves its fair share of afforestation. The western areas equally deserve their fair share. I cannot vouch as to whether the Minister made such a barefaced statement or not, but I have been told on good authority that he did make such a statement.

Mr. Childers

Acquisition in the congested areas is going ahead just as it did in the Deputy's time.

Mr. Blowick

Just as it did?

Mr. Childers

At the same rate of expansion, in the congested areas.

Mr. Blowick

If so, I am delighted to hear it. The Minister's best field for acquisition is in those areas.

Forest fires are taking their toll, as usual. While I was in the Department I tried to devise some means to bring home to the public the necessity for more respect for public property, such as forests. Careless hikers, picnickers and holiday makers are the chief culprits in this matter. They seek out a nice forest and think that it is a lovely place away from the smoke and noise of the city. They light a fire and perhaps go away without putting out the fire. The wind rises and anything from ten to 200 acres of a 20-year-old plantation may be burned down. Money spent on producing a striking poster to be placed in the vicinity of forests would be money well spent. The person from a country area, the farmer or the farmer's wife and children, being familiar with the danger of fires in a country district, very seldom are to blame for forest fires. In most cases forest fires are caused by townspeople who do not understand the danger arising from their carelessness. It might be possible to flash warnings on the cinema screens about the danger of forest fires during the dry weather of February, March and April.

Mr. Dillon

But not June?

Mr. Blowick

It is very seldom that there are fires in June. Such a notice might make people more cautious and would help to reduce the danger of forest fires. Nothing is so disheartening as to see a flourishing plantation reduced to charred and blackened stumps and a sheet of black ashes.

With regard to the private planting grant, the Minister has taken a step for which he certainly deserves praise. There are approximately 283,000 farms and holdings in this country. It often occurred to me that if one out of every four farmers planted one acre, the result would be exactly three times the best efforts of the Department in a single year. The Minister painted a very rosy picture about the father in days gone by putting down a bin of port when his son was born. In many cases fathers were not in a position to do that.

Mr. Childers

I said it was wiser to plant.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister's idea is an old idea, that has been spoken of very often in this House. If people could be induced to see the wisdom of putting down a small plantation for a son or daughter or for themselves it would be a most valuable asset to the holding. I know of no holding that has not a tail-end of fairly useless land which would be much better employed under timber. There are very few holdings that could not afford one statute acre of plantation. The Minister should take up with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, the case that if a farmer puts down a plantation he is taxed for it. That may come as a surprise to the Minister but that is the case. There is taxation and there are local rates. The land is revalued. The valuation is increased the moment a plantation is put on it. At least, that is the case with the private individual. The fact that a farmer is liable for increased taxation, if he is paying income-tax, and to increased rates, in respect of his plantation, will detract from the benefits given by the Minister in the £20 grant.

Mr. Dillon

How do they revalue land?

Mr. Blowick

I do not know.

Mr. Dillon

They cannot.

Mr. Blowick

A man comes from the Valuation Office and, if you put down a plantation, he will revalue the land.

Mr. Dillon

There is no power in this State to revalue land.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Blowick is wrong about that. There is no increase in rates. Thanks be to God, there is no increase in rates.

Mr. Blowick

I would ask the Minister not to dismiss it that lightly. The matter will bear investigation. During the war years every single owner found himself faced with increased rates. We all thought that under the 1951 Valuation Act the value of land could not be raised or lowered, at least in a townland——

Mr. Dillon

Bog is bog, but not land.

Mr. Blowick

Agreed. We all thought it could not be tampered with. For the same reason as turf is accounted a mineral by the valuers, apparently, timber is also accounted as an extra crop or mineral.

Mr. Dillon

Come, come.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister will find that there is ample foundation for what I say, both in regard to income-tax and local rates. He should consult with his two colleagues, the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance, and he may get very useful information on the subject. I warn him that while these conditions remain they will detract from the good effects of the increase in the private grant.

The cost to a private farmer of fencing, planting and suitably preparing one statute acre is at least £60. It is a wonderful investment. I advised many farmers to do that but very few of them seem to do it. The Minister will give £10 of the grant when the ground is planted and £10 in five years' time. The Minister should pay the full £20 in the first instance where the official who inspects the plantation is satisfied that it is properly secured and fenced. I know that the reason for deferring half of the grant is to ensure that a farmer will not turn cattle, sheep or a mowing machine into the plantation the day after planting. If the plantation is fairly secure and fenced and the inspector reports that, in his opinion, the plantation is a genuine one and likely to be cared, the Minister should not defer the second £10 for five years. That will take a great deal of good out of the scheme.

I am very glad the Minister is continuing the planting programme which he found in the Forestry Division. From time to time, here and elsewhere, a certain amount of gloomy talk is heard, on the one hand that we are not planting enough and, on the other hand, that we are planting too much. If the Minister implements the programme under which 25,000 acres will be planted next year and then a full review is made of the position, I think that would be a wise move. Who knows but that 25,000 acres may be too much? Who knows but that it may not be half enough? A review is essential.

I am very glad the Minister is proceeding step by step to implement the policy that was there. He had it in his power to change and to go back to 7,000 acres or 10,000 acres, or any figure he liked. With the increased planting, the disposal of thinnings will become an increasingly severe headache for the Forestry Division. I had plans put before the inter-Party Government, and I had the full support of my colleagues in Government, for the establishment of a pulp plant of pretty large dimensions to deal with the outflow of thinnings which, by the year 1965, will amount to about 10,000,000 cubic feet, or thereabouts. The Minister cannot hope to get sale for these thinnings; 10,000,000 cubic feet of thinnings would provide fencing posts and every other need to which they could be put for half Europe. The amount that could be sold as pit props would be negligible. If time is not taken by the forelock, we shall have on our hands 10,000,000 cubic feet of thinnings. Such a quantity would keep the largest pulp mill in western Europe working uninterruptedly the whole year round. I want the Minister to look up what I had planned in order to deal with those thinnings and to go ahead with the plan. If he thinks it is capable of improvement, then he is at liberty to improve it. Even if he decided to sell these thinnings for firewood at 10/- or £1 per ton the whole nation would be amply provided and there would still be thinnings left on hands.

There was a plan for the establishment of a pulp mill. Such a mill would give employment to about 700 men. It was to be situated on a certain big river because a vast quantity of water would be essential to the working of the mill. There is no reason why we should export thinnings and pay £3,000,000 per year for newsprint to Sweden and other countries, which buy very little from us, while we have the raw materials and the labour to meet our own needs. If the Minister wants to take active steps towards stopping emigration he has it in his hands to do so by the development of afforestation. I wish him luck in his task. I have very little criticism to offer. I am very pleased with the way things are going except for the giving of the cold shoulder to afforestation in the congested areas. If that is happening, then the Minister is guilty of taking retrograde steps.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister should tell us, when he is replying, what has become of the proposals for dealing with the output of thinnings to which Deputy Blowick has referred and which will be coming in ever-increasing flood during the next ten years up to the point when no existing outlet will absorb what we have to offer. When the Minister comes to take a decision on that vital policy matter, he ought to bear in mind that there are powerful vested interests here which will try to manoeuvre the Government into the position of allowing them to make a substantial capital outlay on condition that the Government gives an undertaking that it will coerce the Forestry Division to sell to these monopolies the valuable thinnings from the forests at wholly uneconomic prices. If that disastrous decision is accepted, we shall see in our time the whole forestry investment called in question and a few monopolies will grow rich at the expense of those of us who have sponsored a very substantial investment of public money in the forests of this country.

I have always believed, when one is dealing with that kind of ramp, that the way to deal with it is to let the light in. Maybe it will be no harm to let the light in here. There are two points of view. One is that, when this valuable raw material comes forward, the Forestry Division ought to be allowed itself to convert it into pulp, and such other commodities, for paper and textile manufacture as may be found most economic. That involves the setting up of their own pulp mill. That means they would be enabled to get the full market value of the output of timber from the forests of this country which would redound to the credit of the investment that has been made.

The other proposal is that existing paper interests should be permitted, or encouraged, to make a substantial capital investment on the undertaking from the Government that the Government would direct into their mills all the thinnings from State forests. If that disastrous pup is purchased by the Government what will happen is that, when these monopolies have their hands upon the throat of the Forestry Division, they will announce that they cannot afford to pay more than one-half the value of the timber thinnings. If they are told that, at that price, the Forestry Division are not prepared to sell and will divert the thinnings elsewhere they will immediately announce: then we will dismiss 200 men in two or three urban centres where we have been processing this pulp. "You pay your money and you take your choice: either you give us the thinnings at the price we want them at or we create an economic crisis in two or three centres by wholesale dismissals which we will attribute to your refusal to provide us with raw materials at prices we can afford to pay."

I have seen that trick played before. If anyone tried to play it on me I would tell him to go and take a running jump at himself, but I am sorry to say that that is not always the attitude adopted. I can imagine that the Fianna Fáil Party, if they were faced with a by-election and if there had been that kind of blackmail at the same time, would say: "Whatever it costs, give them the timber and keep the peace." I do not want to put it in the power of any people to bring pressure of that kind to bear on the Department of Lands. I desire to spare them the temptation for the good of their own souls even if I have certain ulterior desires to protect the Department of Lands. It surprises me that when Deputy Blowick was speaking—and there are few men in Ireland who know more about this question of forestry than he does—he did not come out as plain and plump in regard to this matter as I have just done because he knows these facts as well as I know them.

Mr. Blowick

That is right. I agree.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Dillon

I think it is a good thing to forewarn the present Minister of the kind of things he will be up against, and to tell him that, if the time comes when he must join issue on that matter, he is assured of substantial support, on this side of the House in any case, against any conspiracy to blackmail him into selling the produce of the forests below its true value.

I do not want to oversimplify the problem. When one comes to consider the erection of a pulp mill here very complicated technical and financial issues arise which require careful study. Very careful consideration will have to be given to the best method of using the output of the forests. But the all-important thing is that in coming to a decision the Minister should be certain that he does not allow himself to be manoeuvred into a position where he has to sell this timber at half its true value to the detriment of the forestry investment we have made in the past and to which we are committed in the future.

The House will remember that when we were discussing the Supplementary Estimate for Industry and Commerce I drew the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the absurd situation that the Department of Forestry was not allowed to sell timber to the highest bidder but were constrained to sell it very often for much less than it was worth to domestic purchasers although there were foreign purchasers ready and willing to pay the true value of the timber available. I noticed in the last week that the restrictions on the export of timber in the round have been removed. Am I right in saying that restrictions have been removed except in so far as one vested interest has managed to arrange that he must be consulted in respect of timber suitable for making veneers? Is it correct that restrictions have been removed except on timber suitable for veneers?

Mr. Childers

It would be rather more complicated; it is on certain sizes. But restrictions have not been removed on the export of veneers.

Mr. Dillon

Was there ever anything dafter than that? Why should a man manufacturing veneers in this country claim that he cannot manufacture it except from domestic timber? Why can he not go and buy his timber where he likes and let the Department of Forestry sell their timber where they like? If he is prepared to pay the market value of the timber the Department will sell the timber to him. If he cannot pay that price, the Department can sell it to somebody else and he can buy timber anywhere he likes. He can buy ash, mahogany, oak or anything else from the ends of the earth and use it for manufacturing purposes here. Why should he have the right to prevent the Department from selling valuable timber to the best buyer because he wants to get it cheaply to manufacture veneers here? That is crazy.

Why the machinery of this House should be used to plunder the ordinary citizen or the Department of Forestry in order to facilitate the person who is going to make veneers in Dublin is a mystery to me. Can anyone explain? It is a confidence trick that is played on this House by trying to keep alive by analogy a situation that did obtain during the war. During the war there were certain raw materials which were in a state of absolute shortage, and if a domestic manufacturer could not get what supplies were available here at home he would have to close his door, if it was not available anywhere else. Then there was some justification for saying that if there was some scrap metal or some other material of that land available it would have to be used in the domestic factory so that end products would be available to consumers here before it was sent abroad in a time of absolute scarcity. But when that time of absolute scarcity passes why should we keep that system alive if the only purpose is, in effect, to enable the domestic manufacturer to buy his raw material at a price below its true value to the detriment of whoever produced it, whether it is the taxpayer, the Department of Lands or the individual farmer who raised an acre or two acres or ten acres? Does anybody understand that ramp?

I wish I could get somebody who would announce to me that I had the right to go round and purchase any man's pigs or sheep or bullocks at the price I choose to put on them and that a law would be there that he would not be allowed to sell until I had the refusal. It would not take me long to get rich. But if that is not to be thought of, why should a gentleman who sets up a veneer factory have the right to go to any man who owns a tree and say: "Sell me that tree at my price or, by the Lord Harry, you will not be let sell it at all. You will have to let it fall down and rot on the ground"? Can anybody explain why that should be? If they cannot, I hope the Minister for Lands, who is responsible for forestry and those who are engaged in the production of trees, will see that scandal is ended.

Did I understand the Minister to announce in his long statement a reduction of 600 in the total number of persons employed in forestry?

Mr. Childers

No. The figures are not strictly comparable because of the growth of private thinnings——

Mr. Blowick

I would like to point out to the Minister that 600 would not be used up in that switch-over.

Mr. Dillon

I could not help feeling as I read and heard the Minister's statement that there was a lot of verbiage but that certain inconvenient facts were sticking out. One of them was that, with all the talk, all the revolutionary new departures and all the glorious prospects and wide horizons that were opening out before us, the net result was that about 300 to 600 fewer people would be employed in forestry this year than last year.

Mr. Blowick

That is the result.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to be unduly critical of the higher flights of the Minister's poetic mind but when a Minister is telling me that just as in the old days when a great landowner laid down a bin of port for the son's 21st birthday so with far greater profit and wisdom a man can plant an acre of Sitka spruce to provide a dowry for his son when he marries, I take it that was addressed to those farmers who will be inspired to plant an acre of Sitka spruce instead of laying down a bin of port to provide for the son's dowry——

Mr. Childers

He would be setting a good example to the others.

Mr. Dillon

I wish the Minister knew what port means in the West of Ireland. It is the beverage which temperance ladies drink by the glass on holidays in the belief that it does not break the pledge. When you speak of bins of port you will remember the context in which that bin of port is understood in the areas which we humble Deputies represent——

Mr. Childers

I want the big landowners to plant trees not put down bins of port.

Mr. Dillon

I thought this was to be addressed to the man who is asked to plant an acre of Sitka spruce to provide a dowry for his son when he marries. I want the Minister to bear in mind that references to bins of port are not likely to awaken any favourable reverberations in the minds of the small farmers whom the Minister wants to plant an acre of Sitka spruce.

Mr. Childers

It was a comparison of extremes, as the Deputy knows.

Mr. Dillon

Bearing that in mind, I heard the grim—and to me—alarming fact that the net result of it all is that instead of increasing employment in forestry, we shall reduce it. I should like to take counsel with Deputies. Do they think this is a good development? I understood Fianna Fáil had asked the electorate for an opportunity to get cracking and that they exhorted the women of Ireland to vote for them in order that they might give employment to their husbands. This dynamic development appears to me to be going to knock about 400 women's husbands, or potential husbands, out of jobs. Is that what we want? Do we think that is a good plan? I do not. I think one of the justifications for the forestry policy was the provision of employment in the parts of the country where employment for the sons of small farmers was not readily available. If you depart from that concept the whole forestry policy calls for review.

We must bear in mind that there is not enough arable land in Ireland to give everybody living on it at present a holding of 30 acres. There are a great many farmers living to-day on seven, eight or ten acres and it is the policy of the Department of Lands to relieve that congestion by expanding their holdings as opportunity offers to a minimum of 30 acres. If the Minister succeeds over the years in achieving that he will overstrain the available area of arable land so that if there is any thought that we ought extend our forestry operations outside that type of land which is not considered arable, we should bear in mind that we shall be forced to the choice between men and trees.

Deputy Blowick, when speaking, became crosser and crosser every time he spoke of sheep. I would sympathise with him if he were talking of goats. I would gladly see all goats swept out of the country but I think Deputy Blowick would be mistaken if he allowed his prejudice against sheep to——

Mr. Blowick

I have no prejudice against sheep but they are failing to hold the population on the poorer lands.

Mr. Dillon

And on the record before us, what are the trees doing? From 400 to 600 fewer men will be employed, against which you must set off whatever additional employment is provided by private enterprise felling and collection of thinnings but the net figure of reduction cannot be much fewer than 300 people. If trees cannot make a better job of it than that, I think we shall have to reconsider the whole question. Certainly a very desirable element in the whole of our forestry policy is the provision of employment for people near their own homes.

Mr. Childers

How can you plant trees without giving employment? I said that employment would increase and that it had been increasing but that it would increase more slowly over the next ten years.

Mr. Dillon

I understood the Minister to say that there was a gross reduction of 600 men against which must be offset the employment provided by private enterprise in the felling, thinning and removing of trees and that this was in spite of the ambitious programme of road building contemplated.

Mr. Childers

I shall give the figures in reply because it is too complicated to give the pattern.

Mr. Dillon

It appears that there are fewer men to be employed.

Mr. Childers

I did not say that. If we go on planting 25,000 acres a year we are bound to employ more people.

Mr. Dillon

For how long?

Mr. Childers

For as long as I have the responsibility of the Department of Lands and Forestry which may be for quite a long time.

Mr. Dillon

It would be quite irresponsible to say, at this stage, that over the next ten years you propose to plant 25,000 acres a year. You have not got the land to do it.

Mr. Childers

I hope to get it.

Mr. Dillon

You must have a three-years pool on hand before you can contemplate the planting of 25,000 acres and you have not got that. You will also have to reach a decision in regard to the matter raised by Deputy Blowick of the final disposition of the proceeds of that acreage of forestry. Until that is done it is nonsense to tell us that it is the intention to plant 25,000 acres a year for ten years.

Mr. Blowick

On page 8 of his statement the Minister gives the total number of people employed at 4,613. When I went out of office last March 12 months I left 5,220 people employed.

Mr. Dillon

I want to find out the truth about this whole matter. I should like to direct the attention of the House to page 9 of the Minister's statement and to dwell for the moment on the fact that, according to the Minister's statement, in the last ten years we have planted in this country 123,000 acres of forestry. That is as much in the last ten years as was planted in all the time that went before.

Mr. Blowick

In the 43 years before that.

Mr. Dillon

I invite Deputies to take a good look at Deputy Blowick. He is a fine, handsome man, but he is also a man who achieved an extraordinary goal while he was Minister for Lands and Forestry in this country. More forest acreage was planted in the ten years from 1947 to 1957 than had been planted in the previous 43 years, during 20 of which, God help us, Fianna Fáil was responsible for the Government of this country.

I would direct the attention of Deputies to pages 11 and 12 of the Minister's statement in which he outlines what he describes as the incentive bonus scheme. There is a paragraph about it on page 11 and it runs a good way down page 12, telling us that there is a new bonus scheme and a basic national wage of £5 10s. per week. The fact is that the 10/- is the 10/- they had to give the forestry workers under the national wage agreement to compensate them for the extra cost of bread, butter and flour.

It is, no doubt, tactful to hide the fact that the forestry workers had to be given the same compensation as every trade union employee in the country got to compensate them for the increased price of bread, butter and flour. It is not expedient to describe that as an increase of wages to offset the price of bread, butter and flour when the farmers, from whose houses they come, are being told at the same time that their compensation is to take less for their milk, less for their pigs, less for their wheat and less for their barley.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

All brought about by the Deputy's mishandling of the whole situation which left the Exchequer in debt.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not wonderful how the Parliamentary Secretary illuminates every discussion by his informed comments?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon is in possession.

Mr. Dillon

Pray extend indulgence to the Parliamentary Secretary. He seldom intervenes but when he does it is like a flash of lightning illuminating the scene. It is of great importance that the forestry workers are being compensated for the increased cost of butter, bread and flour. That is more than can be said for the farmers.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is wrong in his assumption but I shall deal with it in my reply.

Mr. Dillon

There is a remarkable coincidence about that 10/-. I understand that there are now to be special teams of departmental officers to promote the incentive bonus scheme. Is this a beautiful new poetical description of the M. and O. officer? One would really imagine that business consultants were never brought into a Government Department before. There are venerable old civil servants pottering about every Government Department which are known as M. and O. officers—Methods and Organisation officers.

We have had various business consultants. I remember fighting a battle that 40 could join in, as to whether my M. and O officer should be graded as a principal officer or an executive officer. He was graded as an executive officer and, as a result, he was thrown out of every principal officer's office in the Department and we might as well have not had him at all. I imagine what is happening is that they have called in another body of consultants and they are now doing on one side of Merrion Street what we did on the other side of Merrion Street some years ago.

The Minister had better make him a principal officer. My M. and O. was made an executive officer and that was disastrous because nobody paid him the slightest notice. Make him a principal officer, or nobody will pay the slightest heed to him.

I do not know what this incentive work scheme is. If it means that forestry workers are to be put on a piece-time basis that is not a very revolutionary concept. Heretofore, forestry workers got £5 10s. a week for planting so many trees. If a man was a good worker he was kept and, if he was lazy, he was sacked or ought to have been. I gather from the smile, on the Minister's face they were never sacked and I gather this is a new yardstick introduced to determine which are lazy and which are good. There is a good deal to be said for that but, like everything else, that can be carried too far.

The incentive scheme probably means that if a fellow is pushed to it, and does half as much work as he did heretofore, he will get a certain amount of overtime. Does it not amount to that? If his previous day's work was deemed to be handling of 100 plants, or 1,000 plants—I do not know what the figure might be—hereafter he will continue to get £5 10s. a week for that volume of work and, if in addition to that he does an additional amount of work, he will get that much added on to his wages. That system is as old as the song of the shirt and, humanely and wisely administered, we can take no exception to it. However, we ought to bear in mind it can be carried to a length which could be, in my judgment, inconsistent with the overriding considerations that ought to dictate social policy in this country.

However, I have been told that this matter has been fully discussed with the trade unions and the men involved in this arrangement have had the benefit of trade union advice before accepting it. If that results in a greater volume of work and a higher rate of pay for those concerned then probably a very useful result will be achieved. But I should like to see it in practice because I believe in judging policies, not by what their proposers hope for them, but by the results they produce. If we get better work from better paid operatives then this scheme deserves commendation.

I am going to give the Minister a word of advice. He would bring down on his head a lot less criticism if he did not habitually imply that until he arrived upon the scene nobody was doing anything. He may not be conscious of that but, if he takes his own manuscript and counts the number of times the pronoun "I" appears in it, it might give him a very useful hint of a weakness which may seriously abridge his usefulness in public life in this country. The plain fact is that he succeeded a very good Minister, a man who, as those who worked with him knew, loved forestry, who devoted his energies and enthusiasm to it, and a man who managed to gather around him a body of men who responded to his manifest passion for extending the forestry area of this country.

Very much work and very important work was done in the Department of Forestry over the last ten years. I do not want to suggest for a moment that there will be any less good work done under the administration of the present Minister. Deputy Blowick has offered him his best wishes for the success of any work to which he puts his hand in the Department. To those good wishes I would add my own but I think it would be wrong to accept, or to appear to assent to, the implication that revolutionary changes are under way.

The only really revolutionary decision that requires to be made, and was not made, during Deputy Blowick's administration, but which requires to be made in the reasonably early future, is the decision as to the best method of disposing of the output of the forests. I think ultimately it is by the nature of that decision that the Minister's success or failure in his present position will come to be judged. I do not underestimate his difficulties there. They are formidable but I believe the forestry programme which he inherited was a good programme. I think he will make a mistake if, in an excess of enthusiasm for new ways. simply because they are new, he operates to diminish the number of persons actually employed in the forests. The greatest danger, however, is that he will suffer himself to be delivered into the hands of the vested interests who want to batten upon him and upon his Department.

There must be some Deputies in the House with views on this matter and now is the time to express their views as to how best to use the output of the forests of this country. There will be no use in caterwauling after the damage is done. There will be a decision taken in the course of the next 12 or 18 months on this question of who is to process the output of the forests and now is the time to let the Minister and the Government know what Deputies' views are. Those Deputies afraid to express their views on it ought to keep their mouths shut when it comes to the time the decision is announced.

For my part I believe that the vested interests should not be allowed to get the Minister down, and batten on his Department. Any scheme designed to avoid that disaster is assured of sympathetic consideration from this side of the House and subject to that observation, I hope the Minister will succeed in making the proper decision.

I think Deputy Blowick is mistaken when he says that land can be revalued after it is planted in private hands but, mind you, he is very seldom 100 per cent. wrong. There is some nigger in the woodpile and it would be 1,000 pities if the double grant for private planting should be made abortive by a consideration of that kind. There is no sounder mind in Ireland than that of Deputy Blowick in dealing with the countryman and his problems. If he is worried they are worried too, and it would be advisable for the Minister to take steps in that direction if his double planting grant is to have the success he wants.

Mr. Palmer

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.