Committee on Finance. - Vote 46—Forestry (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Wednesday, 10 Jun 1959

Committee on Finance. - Vote 46—Forestry (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,378,950 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, 1960, 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.—(Minister for Lands).

Mr. Blowick

The Vote that the Minister for Lands moved last night in regard to forestry is, in my opinion, one of the most important to come before the House in the course of each year. Naturally enough, forestry is not of as much interest to city Deputies as it is to rural Deputies but I believe that city people are much larger consumers of timber, good, and wood products than rural people and I think they might ask themselves, when they do make a purchase of timber, where it comes from and is it home produced or is it foreign? If the answer is that it is foreign they must then ask themselves "Why have we not all our own supplies"?

During the course of the last ten or eleven years this Vote has grown to many times its original size. I think I would be correct in saying that this year the Vote brings our total expenditure on forestry up to at least, approximately, £18,000,000. Only £4 million was spent on forestry before 1948. That is a sign of progress in this Department and both the Minister and the officials have a good deal on which to congratulate themselves. It was a huge job to expand the programme from 4,000 acres to 25,000 acres which is the target for the season beginning in October next.

When we come to discuss forestry and the reaching of the proposed target of having a million acres of forestry on the land of this country where there has been little or no forestry we have to take into account the user of the land. We have about 17 million acres of land all told. Of that roughly 11½ or 12 million acres are arable land and 5 to 5½ million acres are waste land. There are about 3 or 3 ½ million acres of rough land which can be brought into full production. Side by side with that there is a marginal or semiarable area the productivity of which could be increased by drainage and by means of the rehabilitation scheme.

The Minister for Lands, when dealing with forestry, must confine himself to the poor portion of our lands. That is the case in every country. If we take the target of a million acres, whether it takes 50 years, 30 years or 20 years to achieve it, it is a step in the right direction. I notice that in 1957, last year, and again this year the Minister has been very keen on economy. He is very keen that the grumblers of the future will not be able to say, when these forests come to maturity, that the money would have been better spent if it had been invested at 3, 4 or 5 per cent. interest. I want to warn the Minister against letting that idea encroach too far on his mind.

Unlike other countries we are starting completely from the beginning in this country. We have no tradition of forestry nor have we any experience except that gained since 1908, when Charles Stewart Parnell gave his own home to the nation for the growing of forests. The only knowledge we have is the knowledge we have gained by trial and error. With the exception of this country and England, that is not the case anywhere else. The problem of other countries such as France, Italy and Germany is to utilise the existing natural forests that have been there for thousands of years. We are in a completely different category. We are the only country that has to establish forests right from the very start. In those circumstances I often think of the good job that has been done by our forestry people and the very small percentage of failures that they have had. We have no one to turn to for experience and our forestry officials have to realise that they have got to learn the hard way, by trial and error. Their errors have been very small over the years.

I want to run through various aspects of the Minister's brief and I want to point out that he has omitted what are, to my mind, two very important points. He has ommitted to mention the total number of men at present employed and the plantable reserve. I wonder would the Minister have these two figures at hand because they are fairly important?

The Minister also mentioned that receipts from timber thinnings had fallen £5,400 below the estimate. Why did they fall? Even if they had remained at the same figure as for the previous year I would still want to know why. I should also like to know what amount of thinnings it is expected the new Scariff chipboard factory will take. I should like to know too what sales in thinnings are taking place at home and if they are as much as was expected. I am keen on these questions because we are spending a very large amount of money on the planting of trees. These will be coming up to first and second thinning and then to maturity, and I would like to know what the produce of our forests will be. There is no use planting trees if we do not know what we are to get for them.

The Minister mentioned that the Electricity Supply Board and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have been taking some poles from the Forestry Department. Again I would like to know how much they have taken and how they compare in finish and quality with the foreign poles they have been used to getting.

I should like to know also if any progress has been made towards establishing a research section in the Department and what progress has been made towards finding the annual increment of growth in the existing forests, and towards the elimination of disease and pests in forests. I am interested in these questions because a research department would be able to give us a fair idea of mineral deficiencies or other physical obstacles that might retard growth. It had been intended to establish such a research station at Shelton Abbey.

Last year I expected to see a report on small pulp mills from the D.P.A. This is an important matter and I think the Minister should now take the first step towards the establishing of our own pulp mill. I am not running down the private industries but I want to warn the Minister that, human nature being what it is and the forests being State-owned, it is quite natural that the danger may arise that the private pulp mill owners will create a situation in the years to come when they will try to get the produce of our forests at their own price. There would be only one way to meet such a situation. That would be by having our own pulp mill. That is a danger that has to be guarded against. It is a very real danger. I would be very sorry to think, after the tremendous effort made for the last ten years to establish forestry, that the day would come when, through lack of foresight now, the produce of these forests would become merely food for a racket in this country.

Am I correct in deducing that the plantable reserve is in the region of 56,000 acres? Naturally the Minister is very conservative in this regard. I do not want to lull him into a sense of false security by telling him he need not be alarmed at that figure. I know he would like to see a figure of 80,000 acres. So would I. It would make for much better working. Before the seeds are put into the new nursery beds in the Spring, it would be very nice to know exactly to the lb., the weight of seed and how many transplants were necessary for a three year planting programme. Do not forget the big forestry drive is only nine or ten years old.

The Minister's record over the past few years has been very creditable, but I think the time has come when he will have to increase the ceiling price for land. A good many offers of land failed because the people selling felt they were not getting a fair price for it, rough mountain land as it was. I agree with them. I encourage as many people as possible to sell their land but, once they feel they are not getting a fair price, I cannot press the matter any further. The present limit is about £12 for the best forestry land. It is not sufficient. In some cases £2 or £1 per acre has been offered. That might be all right in cases of a vast expanse of poor quality land, but it would be the worst of bad management if the plantable reserve, because of the low ceiling price, was not kept up to maximum.

During the course of his speech the Minister dwelt on the danger of the plantable reserve not being sufficient. He said that the Department should be in a position to plan work programmes for individual forests in such a way as to provide a steady flow of work in the years ahead. He added: "We are now forced to arrange unduly large planting programmes at newly established forests in Western countries." Along the western seaboard from Kerry to Donegal lies the largest pool of land for forestry. Almost all the available forest land in Wicklow has been bought up and planted and the same is true in many other countries. The Minister will have to turn to the West. During my term of office I deliberately encouraged a high percentage of planting each year in the West, and the figure crept up from 13 per cent. or 14 per cent. to 42 per cent. in 1957. The Minister did not give us the actual percentage this year and I should like to have it.

Not alone is the greatest area of forest land available in the western counties but it is there also that emigration and flight from the land are at its greatest, because of the poor quality of the land. It is only through the operations of the forestry division that emigration can be stemmed and a certain population stabilised on the land. The Minister himself said that Bord na Móna and forestry are the only two sources of permanent employment available in the rural areas at present. Arterial drainage and other works are too spasmodic and would have no lasting effect. That is true. The Minister should concentrate on the West. He cannot get much land in Meath, Kildare or the midland counties because the quality is very good.

Mr. Childers

We are looking for land in the western areas.

Mr. Blowick

That is where the Minister will get the greatest portion of it.

I was glad to see the Minister is seeking increased staff for the acquisition section. Up to a few years ago, with only three or four engaged in the work, that section was almost a joke. Even 20 men could not acquire 25,000 or 30,000 acres nowadays. Most of the larger blocks of land have been bought up. The Minister told us that last year 28,000 acres were acquired in 339 cases. Each case entails a good deal of inspectors' time assessing the forestry value and the price of the land, and, of course, there is the usual wrangling over price which might drag out for months. Even when all that is agreed there is further delay on the question of title.

That brings me to ask the Minister what has been done towards utilising the provisions of the 1956 Act. I did my best at all time to find and easy, honest and equitable way of taking over commonages. It is no use saying that commonages are difficult. Most of the forestry land in the western counties, after long years of usage by the Congested Districts Board and the Land Commission, is now turned over to commonages with many tenants enjoying rights on a mountain. I should like to know if the provisions of the 1956 Act are working. I have an interest in it. By the time the change of Government took place it was not possible to have all the regulations made. If there is any way, I can assist the Minister or if the Act needs amendment in any way, I should be only too glad to help the Minister if I can. I suppose no commonages have been taken over under that Act?

The Minister has gone over to large nurseries. At first glance that appears to be more economical than a large number of small nurseries scattered all over the country. But the small nurseries gave very useful employment in areas where no other employment, such as that from the county council, Bord na Móna or arterial drainage, was available. I think the cost of transporting the transplants from the large nurseries to the various forests will eat up any little economy made. I should like the Minister to go over that again with a magnifying glass because the curtailment of employment has been a pretty hard blow in certain areas. I could name two or three with which I am familiar.

The Minister was a little bit sketchy in what he told us about seeds. How much home produced seed is used? What are the chances that some of the stands of timber planted 25 or 30 years ago will provide some, if not all, of the necessary seeds? What is being done to establish seed orchards among some of the forests of the best trees we have at present?

I am glad to know that the Minister has done what I tried to do but did not quite succeed in doing in regard to the question of providing a proper staff for road construction in forests. That is something that was badly needed. I did not think it fair to ask foresters or forestry inspectors to engage in that work. It is a special work completely outside their ambit but I must say that, even so, they earned my admiration for the excellent roads they made without any training at the job and without experience with the Board of Works or with county councils.

One thing that struck me in connection with the few forests I was through in the last six or eight months concerns the making of roads. Sometimes a road is made into a small nucleus plantation which will perhaps grow to 2,000 or 3,000 acres. In the construction of such roads at present, is the expansion of these nuclei into large forests envisaged for the future? It would be a pity if money were wasted in the supposition that the forests would not grow or expand. I think they will grow and that the roads should be made with that in mind.

Reverting to thinnings—what percentage of those are sold standing? The desire was to sell all of them standing if possible. How far has that policy succeeded? What percentage of, say, this years, last year's and the thinnings of the year before, were sold standing and what percentage had to be extracted by the Department themselves?

What new machinery does the Minister intend purchasing? Under Subhead C.2 (6) he asks for £76,000 for the purchase and hire of machinery. I am not being critical, but that is a pretty large sum and I am simply asking what it is intended to buy and what is the particular work it will be required to do? Is it just to renew ploughs to continue the mounting and drainage which was started in 1950 or 1951? If so, I would ask the Minister to go ahead. Hand-work is good in the sense that it has a certain labour content but while our young men are as hardy and as vigorous as ever I do not think it would be fair to ask them to engage in some of the work machinery can do nowadays. If the Minister wants to do something with large tracts of land hitherto regarded as unplantable it can only be done by using machinery. Wonderful work has been done in many areas by using machinery. One particular forest so developed in my own county has been a great surprise to me where, even on the poorest land, the trees are already eight or nine feet high. That shows that we have a favourable climate for forestry here. Even on land that has been considered unplantable I believe plantations will, in time, be successful.

Turning to the reserve of plantable land, I think there is nothing for the Minister to be gloomy about even if he has only 28,000 acres of which probably 25,000 or possibly 26,000 will prove to be plantable. He should continue the pressure on acquisition and he should not shed any tears because we have not a three years' supply of plantable land on hands at present. It is one of the growing pains which forestry has to suffer. I admire, and I have every sympathy with the Minister in his drive to secure a reserve of 75,000 or 80,000 acres which would be necessary for the proper running of forestry schemes, but so far the programme has not suffered very much because this figure has not been reached. The worst result is probably the slight extra cost involved because the men in charge of the nurseries do not know exactly what species of seeds to sow. If we want to run our forestry programme properly we should have three years' supply of land in hand.

I think it is very creditable that we have approximately 270,000 acres now planted. Up to 1948, when the first inter-Party Government took office, I think the total area planted was only about 103,000 or 109,000 acres. I am relying on memory and open to correction on that. When 25,000 is added to this year's figure we shall not be so far from the 300,000.

It is comforting and pleasant to know that most of the forests are doing well. The Minister described some land as experimental; about 3 per cent. of the total is experimental. I believe that as time goes on most of what has been described as unplantable up to now will be found plantable. Comparisons with Scotland or Northern England are not completely true because our climate is much more favourable for timber or indeed any crop than the Scottish climate and what Scottish, English or Welsh forestry experts might consider as unplantable may, in fact, prove plantable. Such land may not give first-class, commercial timber in the long run but it will certainly give pulp wood which will more than pay for itself.

I want to impress two things on the Minister. The first is that he has the means in his hands to do something that no other Minister can do, check unemployment and check the flight from the land. The second thing is to tell him that the flight from the land is greatest where the land is poorest and it is on the poorest land he will be falling back to secure the plantable reserve. It was my view, and I have not changed it, that the best place to find that land is in the Western counties along the Western seaboard. Some forestry officials will throw up their hands in horror at the idea of planting trees within range of salt water, but how is it that private plantations and shelter belts have proved so successful within a few hundred yards of the sea during the past 20 or 25 years? Such a plantation may be seen around the parish priest's house in Achill where one would imagine the gales and storms would tear out the trees. Instead, the plantation is thriving wonderfully.

Without casting any reflection on some of the forestry experts we had 20 or 25 years ago, some gentlemen proclaimed loudly and boldly, and got a large following on the subject, that the land west of the Shannon was not fit to grow timber. I am glad that bogey has been exploded. It is about time.

I was very glad to see the Minister in County Mayo and to welcome him when he took over the huge area of Tourmakeady. Any time he comes on an errand of that kind he will receive a very warm welcome. Employment is urgently needed in that county and forestry is the only hope I see. I admit that the preparation of land, fencing and planting has not a high employment potential but, if we do not plant the trees now, it will never be done. If, 25 to 40 years ago, somebody had planted the 250,000 acres that we have planted, we would be very proud of it and would nurse the forests and try to get the most out of them. Let us do for future generations what the generations that are dead and gone did not do for us.

The Minister is engaged in the best work that is being done by any Minister of the Government. I want him to pursue it. He is not making any mistakes. For some reasons, the number of men employed has dropped slightly. The selling of thinnings standing instead of getting forestry workers to cut them and extract them does not account for the drop. I do not think the preparation of the soil by machinery accounts for it. I would be very sorry to see the employment potential of the Forestry Division going down. In the years to come it will expand but I should like the Minister, when he is replying to the debate, to give some explanation of the drop in the number of men employed.

I should like to know what is happening about research. I gave the Minister some idea of the lines on which I would go. Research is a very important part of the work. It is in the same category as the soil tests undertaken by the Department of Agriculture for farmers. A research section, even if it were to do only very elementary work, is absolutely necessary and would pay for itself.

I wish the Minister the best success in achieving this year the 25,000 acre target which was set by the first Inter-Party Government in 1949. It was the intention and part of that programme that when the target of 25,000 acres would be achieved in 1960 there would be re-examination and re-assessment of the whole problem. I would suggest that in the coming year the Minister should examine the whole problem. If he comes in here and gives good reason for increasing the programme to 40,000 acres we will help him out. If he gives good, sound reason why the programme should be cut down to 22,000 acres, we will hear him. I am not one of those who will say that 25,000 acres a year is just the right planting programme for the Government, that if they plant an acre more they are doing wrong or if they plant an acre less they are doing wrong. I will not take that stand. We set the target at 25,000 acres as being a convenient figure to achieve the total of 1,000,000 acres of forestry, about 1/17th of the total area of the country. I would like the Minister to look into that question during the coming year. He would be wise to do it. Personally, I think the Minister will find that there is no great need to expand beyond the 25,000 acres at present. If we take Roy Cameron's report, about 7,000 acres a year would meet our own needs according to present timber consumption. Neither extreme is right. The Minister will find on examination that something in between is the proper thing.

Mr. McQuillan

While there has been an undoubted improvement in recent years in the rate of planting in the forestry programme, I want to emphasise that there is no room whatever for complacency on the part of this House or the country. In order to get the problem of afforestation in proper perspective we should realise and appreciate that of the 117 nations that are listed in the United Nations Agricultural Organisation, Ireland is at the very bottom of the list as far as forestry acreage is concerned, that there are 116 countries ahead of us. That should give us an idea of where we stand as a nation.

At the moment there is one per cent of the country under forest whereas it is recognised by the authorities that at least 18 per cent of the land should be under timber. We have a long way to go yet before we reach the 18 per cent. I want to assure this Minister that he will need very good reasons before he comes back to this House with any programme that would suggest a reduction in the rate of afforestation that is in operation at the moment.

I agree with Deputy Blowick that at the earliest opportunity the Minister should re-assess the problem, now that we have reached the target of 25,000 acres laid down a few years ago, with a view to increasing the rate of planting. Every authority that has studied the problem in Ireland has agreed that the soil and climate of Ireland are unmatched for the purposes of afforestation. Yet, over the years, especially since we have had native Government, there was criminal neglect of afforestation on the part of all Governments until 1948. I hold no brief for what has happened from 1948 on but, at least, there was a decided improvement because there was an enlightened approach to afforestation. One of the factors that brought about that improvement was that public opinion was roused and the public were enlightened as to the importance of embarking on a scheme of afforestation.

The responsibility for the situation we find to-day lies on the shoulders of all Governments since 1922. Deputy Blowick said that this programme should have been embarked upon 30 to 40 years ago. Had that been done, the hillsides and poor areas of the country would be clothed to-day in timber that would provide major ancillary industries and give first-class employment to the thousands that emigrate to-day. That would have been the position to-day if the programme now in operation had been embarked upon as an urgent measure 30 to 40 years ago. I suppose there is no good talking about that at this stage but it does emphasise the fact that we cannot allow any more years to slip by before starting a dynamic programme.

It is the business of the Government alone to formulate an active forestry policy and to take steps to carry it out. It is the business of the Government to set up the necessary machine, through the Forestry Division, to acquire the land for the programme. It is the business of the Government, when the programme is under way, to set up the major ancillary industries based on afforestation. Let me emphasise that that is the approach of all democratic governments to the question of afforestation. In all democratic countries the afforestation programme is planned and formulated by the Government and responsibility for the schemes lies on the Government and not on private enterprise.

I want to emphasise that it is utterly false in principle and in economy to put the private planting of trees on an equal basis with State planting. I think the Minister is alert to the advantages of afforestation and I should hate to see him diverting his energies and the skill and knowledge of his officials into the private enterprise channel in order to facilitate individuals in the richer counties at the expense of the community as a whole and, more particularly, at the expense of the undeveloped areas. For the past 18 months the emphasis, in relation to private planting has been on counties such as Carlow and Kilkenny. With all due respect, the Government must not have given really serious consideration to the way in which afforestation reacts on the unemployment problem. If they had, the Minister would not be permitted to concentrate on counties like Carlow. I do not want Deputies who represent Carlow to think I have any objection to Carlow getting its fair share. It is, however, tragic to find the services of experts and officials being diverted from the major schemes which should be put into operation.

More than anything else—this cannot be repeated too often—afforestation offers a solution to emigration from and unemployment in the rural areas. Today, whole families are packing up and leaving, especially from the poorer areas. The Minister should, wherever he can embark on a large-scale forestry programme in the poorer areas, make haste to implement that programme.

Deputy Blowick referred to the necessity for setting up State-owned pulp mills. Here, again, we have an insight into the working of the Minister's mind on this question as to whether the State or private enterprise will be the channel used to develop certain industries here. Giving priority to private pulp mills is a question the Minister will have to tackle. Deputy Blowick advanced sound reasons today and I am glad he has taken the line he did. It is very encouraging to find Deputy Blowick at this stage anxious that the State should ensure that there would be no rings or cartels and no holding-up of forestry products to ransom by organised private pulp mills. All the difficulties visualised by Deputy Blowick can be solved by the Minister following along the line of State planting right through to the establishment of State pulp mills and ancillary factories to deal with the by-products of afforestation.

We have a first-class example of a State-owned body working very successfully along the lines I suggest, namely, the Sugar Company. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that type of economy. There is nothing criminal in the State doing these things. The rights of the individual under these State companies are protected just as well as they are protected under private enterprise. Indeed, if anything, the advantage is in one direction because we know that private enterprise very often has inherent in it the philosophy of "Dog eat dog" and the weaker go to the wall. But if the State gives a helping hand the protection is there for the weaker and there is no opportunity for the exploitation. It is the duty of the State to ensure that there is no hold-up in our major afforestation programme and in the establishment of ancillary industries because of lack of initiative on the part of private enterprise.

A first-class forestry programme ensures a number of things. It ensures continuous, secure employment in areas in which it is most needed. It ensures the production of future wealth. It saves the country from the balance of payments point of view because Irish products are equal in quality to the best imported. There is no reason why there should be any slowing-down or any hold-up. Every effort should be made to expand. The benefits will be immediate. It is estimated by experts that 80 per cent. of the capital outlay on forestry goes in wages. Very often the greatest percentage of outlay goes on machinery and overheads. In forestry, however, the biggest proportion goes on wages. Thereby security is ensured to the worker and his family.

At the moment large sums are being spent every year on employment and emergency schemes. We have relief schemes in Galway, Roscommon, Mayo, Donegal, Kerry and Clare. The manner in which that money is expended is to my way of thinking quite extraordinary. If there are 12 unemployed in a certain townland, that townland qualifies for a minor relief scheme. Irrespective of whether or not the project is desirable, the money will be spent in that townland in order to give employment to the people concerned. In the next townland a very essential work may be required but, because there are only three unemployed, that scheme must wait. That type of wasteful expenditure should be cut out. All that money could be utilised on forestry instead.

There is nothing so soul destroying as temporary employment. Nothing makes men so sour and disillusioned. But if men are given continuous employment on forestry schemes a good return will ensue morally as well as physically. Added to that, we will be producing wealth for the future. Every Party here will support the Minister if he takes the bit between his teeth and insists on doubling the annual planting rate as quickly as possible. He will receive no opposition. He will be helped by all. It is very seldom the Minister will get any praise from me under any circumstances but if he does as I suggest now I will go out of my way to back him. Whether or not he will be suspicious of that, I do not know, but I shall certainly support him.

It must be borne in mind that the industries which will arise as the result of forestry promotion will be based on products of the land and there will be no need for tariff walls to protect them. There will be no need for quotas to be established to prevent the importation of competitive goods, so that the more one thinks over this question of afforestation and its results, the more attractive it becomes. It is far more attractive than the type of assembly industry we have in this country to-day, the assembly of cars and things like that, costing fortunes to the taxpayer and with very limited benefit to the community except for the employment given. There would be better results if half that money were spent on afforestation instead of on sheltered, hush-hush, fostered, assembly industries.

Mr. Booth

Shame.

Mr. McQuillan

It is disgraceful that this question of afforestation was neglected over the last 20 or 30 years, while preference was given to the type of industry I have mentioned. It can be said here that if we planted 25,000 acres per annum, in time we would probably be producing more timber and timber by-products than we could utilise here. That is nonsense. The demand can be increased here and anyway, if we reached that stage, there is always the possibility of the export market. It is much better to be worried about selling native products abroad, even though at times we may suffer, than to be in the position we are in, worrying about the loss of population which can never be replaced if that loss becomes any greater. On balance, it is better to try to conserve our population rather than have speculation and worry in the minds of economists as to how we will dispose of forestry products.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the numbers employed in afforestation. Undoubtedly, as I said, there has been an improvement in the rate of planting, but I want an explanation from the Minister with regard to the reduction in the number of men employed. The statistics show that generally there has been a drop in the number of people employed. Two years ago the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he had a plan ready to provide 100,000 new jobs if Fianna Fáil were returned to office. The public believed that statement made by a responsible ex-Minister. He was not talking on the basis that he did not know the facts. He deliberately produced that plan when he was out of office, ably abetted by the Minister for Lands, who is always ready to concoct a scheme like that in order to regain office.

The Government must give an answer to the people on their promise that, if returned to power, they would provide so many new jobs. The Minister has a responsibility to play his part in providing a percentage of these new jobs. What percentage has he provided? Has he increased the number of men employed in afforestation or has he reduced the number? Deputy Blowick is of the belief that there is a reduction. The statistics definitely show that there has been a reduction and I would like the Minister, when he is replying, to explain what the actual position is in that particular matter.

In conclusion let me, like Deputy Blowick, promise that if the Minister comes into this House at any time with a measure to expand and embark upon an increased rate of planting in afforestation, he will get all the assistance I can give him. He certainly will not meet with obstruction in this House, or outside it and, if he is afraid that this thing is being treated on a purely political basis, he can be assured that I gave him full credit for being the first Fianna Fáil Minister I can remember who has seriously interested himself in the question of afforestation. I do not agree with him on one or two of the aspects on which he has laid emphasis in his plans but I shall give him the credit that of all the Fianna Fáil Ministers who have had responsibility for afforestation, he is the best. He need not have any qualms that he will meet with criticism from me and people like me in this House or outside it, if he makes greater haste to get an increased rate of planting and provide more work of a reasonably permanent nature, especially in the West of Ireland.

Mr. Collins

It is very heartening to hear the tribute paid by Deputy McQuillan to the Minister when he said he was one of the best Ministers we have had. I agree with Deputy McQuillan. He has shown, since he became Minister for Lands and Fisheries, that he has put real drive into the fishery section of his Department. I do not want to go into that now but he has made a real effort to provide some of the jobs which Deputy McQuillan criticised him for not providing.

I have read the Minister's report on afforestation and while I agree that it is progressive in many ways I have to say that in some respects there is something lacking. The intake of land is not as great as it should be. I should like to remind the Minister that in rural Ireland afforestation is the only means of combating the unemployment problem. I should like to remind him that, due to the trend of affairs over the last five or six years, the employment that can be given by local authorities to rural workers is very limited. That is due to the fact that a policy was initiated and implemented whereby the machine displaced the man.

The whole economy of road making in the country now depends to a great extent on the machine. That may be, as I said last night, laudable from the point of view of economy but we have always to watch out that we do not allow the hard core of economics to destroy the social side. That side has been irreparably damaged in rural Ireland. In reading the Minister's report I notice that a certain amount of money has been ear-marked for machinery. We do not want to go back to the old county council days when the working man sat on a bag of hay on the roadside breaking stones with a stonehammer. Thank God, we have moved on from that and that was a move that all of us were pleased to witness.

While it is necessary in a well-organised afforestation scheme to have a certain amount of machinery to get into the subsoil, as mentioned by the Minister, I would say that the less machinery we use in our afforestation schemes the better it will be for the social order of things in this country. If we have any sincerity left in us all our efforts should be bent towards the solving of our great employment problem. In the last two years or 12 months there has been a general feeling that the era of progress is about to present itself. We are trying to build up and establish a good sound agricultural policy, as was advocated by Arthur Griffith, and, side by side with that, we are trying to build up the industrial arm.

We know that the problem of unemployment is our most important social problem. While there may be a certain amount of capital made available for the industrial drive we, who represent rural constituencies, can be fully satisfied that we have to look in some other direction for alternative schemes of employment. I say, coming as I do from an area where we have acres upon acres of land suitable for afforestation purposes, that afforestatiou is the only sound rural industry that we can establish.

I want to say to the Minister that the officials of his Department are not playing their part as they should play it. I received a letter from his Department this morning telling me the price they were prepared to pay for 600 acres of land. I would like to get some of these forestry officials down into that part of the country and have them tell me then that that land is only worth £3 an acre. I know that land well and in the worst of times it was worth £10 to £12 an acre for grazing purposes. It is rough grazing land. The Minister's Department now informs me that it is only suitable for the growing of inferior timber. I cannot understand that.

I am not an expert on forestry, but I know a tree and I know that it takes good land to grow a tree. Poplar can be grown anywhere. If £15 to £20 an acre is being given for the planting of poplar I would say that this land can grow a better tree than poplar. That is the economic side of the matter, but I am deeply interested in the social side. There is a big incidence of unemployment in that part of the country. These people are living far off the main roads and they are a deeprooted people. I feel that if we could have that 600 acres in the heart of that mountainous area acquired for afforestation purposes we would have a number of families in continuous employment and these families would be much happier than if they were working in an industrial plant.

I want to impress upon the Minister and his officials that I find fault with the decisions given in regard to the value of the land. I leave it to the common-sense of the Deputies. Would a man with 600 acres of good, sound, rough grazing land be tempted to part with that land for £3 an acre? Are we serious in our efforts to promote forestry and to reach a target of 25,000 acres per year? We shall not do that unless we treat people fairly and give them a decent price. I do not want a situation in which we will have to acquire land compulsorily. The land is there in abundance if the right approach is made to owners.

I want to state with all emphasis I can command that we shall not be able to tackle the great problem of unemployment unless we go ahead with forestry everywhere. We must make an all-out effort if we are to achieve the target of 25,000 acres. At the start of the Second World War we had no difficulty whatever in marshalling together all the best elements in the nation to achieve the target ahead. We built up a force here that was a credit to any small European country. Deputy McQuillan could castigate the Tánaiste for failing in his promise of 100,000 jobs, although I do not think he failed entirely. But if he could make an all-out afforestation drive in every part of rural Ireland, in a few years' time we would have broken the back of the unemployment there.

I was pleased to hear Deputy McQuillan, who is not over-generous in his tributes, particularly to anybody on this side of the House, pay tribute to the Minister. The Minister is a young, energetic man. He has handled fisheries and the Land Commission very well, but he must be tree-minded to make a job of forestry. As a representative of rural Ireland, I would ask the Minister to have his Department reconsider the method by which they purchase land at such niggardly prices as I have mentioned here.

Mr. Manley

Introducing his Estimate last evening, the Minister gave us a very commendable review of the activities of the Department of Forestry. We are all very pleased to hear from him that at last the target of 25,000 acres has been decided on for planting in this year. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on their continuance of the drive initiated here some years ago to have an annual target of 25,000 acres. It is quite clear that the Department of Forestry will grow very much in importance in the years immediately ahead. As a matter of fact, it bids fair to outrival completely the activities of the other section of the Department, the Department of Lands. This is natural because of the fact that afforestation provides one of the few rural possibilities of development in this country. We would all like to see it expand and grow, particularly at a time when rural employment is difficult to procure. In the years immediately ahead there will be a tapering off in the employment on the rural electrification scheme, and it is some consolation to have a development such as this to fall back on.

I hope that having reached the target of 25,000 acres the Minister and his Department will not relay their efforts. I see no reason why that acreage should not be increased from year to year. The Minister has expressed concern about the acquisition of sufficient land ahead of development. I cannot understand why in this country with its vast areas of barren land, with so much hill, glen and bogland, we could not get at least 30,000 to 40,000 acres a year for many years to come. We are not sufficiently tree-conscious, as the last speaker said, to realise what potentialities there are in forestry development. There are the ancillary industries that go with it— the Minister mentioned his interest in the development of nurseries—and all these activities are bound to increase employment.

There is nothing so pleasing to the eye in a rural scene as the young forest growing and developing. There is nothing that will so readily transform the whole countryside from the point of view of scenery, beauty and natural amenity as forestry development. A part from that, there are the commercial possibilities. I would ask the Minister, if possible when replying, to give us an idea of the cost of the importation of timber into this country in the last twelve months. These facts should be associated with the Forestry Vote so that we shall be in a better position to assess the whole value of the forestry industry here. We know it is not in his Department but I am sure he will be willing to provide this information if possible.

The Minister has told us that in 15 years or so it is envisaged that the revenue from forestry might equate the expenditure on forestry. If that is a possibility, that fact should be emphasised as a means of inspiring hope and faith in forestry development. We should all like to see that realised in this country. It is well that the rural organisations, particularly Macra na Feirme, should be encouraged to take an interest in forestry. They are likely to see and enjoy the fruition of the efforts now being undertaken in forestry development.

Private planting is a very wise activity of the Department. I do not agree at all with Deputy McQuillan that private planting will interfere with the State forestry schemes. Private planting will take very little of the officials' time. The onus is on the owner of the land to provide the labour and the capital. All that is required for payment of the grant is that the place is suitable and the acreage accurate. That does not interfere at all with the State enterprise envisaged. Land owners should be encouraged to provide shelter belts, particularly in exposed places. Suitable trees should be made available at very competitive prices—I believe they are in most cases—and we should encourage every effort of that kind.

The incentive bonus scheme has come in for a certain amount of criticism here, and particularly the fact that employment has decreased over the past 12 months. I expect that was a natural eventuality. New techniques, greater skill and experience have been applied to forestry over the years. These have helped towards greater expansion and it is quite possible this is one of the reasons for employment in forestry development. At the same time there is something ingenious about the scheme for incentive bonuses and if it works out successfully—I do not believe in slave-driving at all—it may be undertaken by other Departments and even by private firms.

The Minister referred to the planting of ploughed land. That has some obvious advantages; it checks the growth of weeds and scrub in the early years of development of the young trees. That is important. The furrows left by the plough beside rows of trees help to drain the land superficially. That is the most expeditious means of dealing with forestry in certain areas instead of having to dig drains and use machinery.

I do not know what research has been carried out in regard to the application of certain minerals to the land in order to develop the growth of young trees but in some cases where farmers have applied farmyard manure in a limited way to young plants the results have been very encouraging. It is possible that the controlled application of certain fertilisers would promote rapid growth and more resistance to disease. I do not know if experiments have been made in that line but I think they are well worth while.

There have been very serious forest fires in recent years and that is very regrettable. It should now be possible for the Department to have its own watchmen, in periods of dry weather at least, so that they would be able to watch, travelling on motor cycles or on foot, the people who come out on picnics and see that they do not light fires inside the danger zone near forests. Some arrangement of that kind should be provided to prevent these fires which cost so much money.

Travelling between Kinsale and Cork recently I was edified to see what I assumed to be some trees that had been cut there in recent weeks. I was amazed at their strength and length. I believe they were for E.S.B. purposes —they would certainly fit that classification. I did not think we could grow trees up to such a standard here. I see no reason why we could not produce commercial timber on a scale that would be important as an economic development. There are great possibilities for the expansion of forestry under the present Minister. He has applied himself with vigour and zeal to his task. I am sure he is in earnest and that he will continue his efforts so that we shall become self-sufficient in the production of raw timber for ordinary use here in future years. We look forward to the development of forestry in rural Ireland especially because there are few other developments to which we can look forward. I think forestry offers the greatest potential, and no effort should be spared to expand it.

The Minister expressed concern about land acquisition. It is my experience that rarely is the maximum price paid for land. The Department makes a generous offer, but the price is usually cut back. It is not generally realised that the annuity must be redeemed before the purchase price is paid and that further reduces the sum going to the owner of the land. That sort of niggardliness in approaching a problem of this national magnitude should be avoided. If we are generous, we shall get the land required and certainly if we get the support of rural organisations such as Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre there will be no shortage of plantable land for the next ten years at any rate. Above all, let us be realistic in regard to price and pay a price commensurate with value and with prices offered in various other areas. The price might be fixed in relation to the standard of fertility, but I think that would not be fair in all cases because lands that are not fertile for some reason may grow good forests on development. We cannot afford to be niggardly about the price we offer for land for forestry.

Mr. Tierney

I must congratulate the Minister on the drive he is putting into forestry. I am however disappointed in some respects, perhaps through no fault of the Minister. In my area we have a vast amount of land suitable for forestry but at present the people who are giving land to the Department are the big farmers with large tracts. We have, however, a vast amount of land held by small farmers who cannot afford to offer it for forestry, even though it is fit for nothing else, because they use it for small rough grazing. It has been brought to my notice—and I have referred the matter to the Minister on a few occasions—that where we have this type of farmer anxious to give over all, or portion, of his holding to the Forestry Department, if he could get any sort of promise from the Minister that he would get an exchange holding when land was being divided near by, he would be prepared to give up the land suitable for forestry.

I believe the Minister should consider carefully the question of an exchange of holdings. I know that one matter comes under the Land Commission and the other is the concern of the Forestry Department but both are under the one Minister. A smallholder cannot afford to give up 20 or 30 acres of rough grazing and so make his holding completely uneconomic unless he gets a promise that an exchange holding will be forthcoming at some future time. If that were done, much more land would be offered to the Department.

In regard to the bonus scheme, so far as we in North Tipperary are concerned, in the Roscrea area and possibly in Silvermines area also where trade unions have made representations to the Minister, the workers have been paid this bonus. In a number of rural areas, where there are no trade union organisations to represent the workers, a big number of forestry workers have been paid no bonus whatever. Prior to the introduction of the bonus scheme the workers were entitled to the same rate of pay as county council workers but, when the bonus scheme was brought in, the county council rate of pay went overboard and we were told by the Minister and his Department that all workers would be paid on the bonus scale. That is almost twelve months ago but we have workers in various parts of North Tipperary who are still being paid a low rate of wages and no bonus scheme has been applied in their case.

Having regard to the increasing cost of living, a loss of £12 or £14 a year is a big consideration to a worker. I would appeal to the Minister to operate the bonus scheme for all workers or, if he is not prepared to do that, to pay them at the county council rate. It is not fair that men should be kept waiting ten or twelve months for a scheme. There is no indication that the scheme will be introduced as far as North Tipperary is concerned.

The Forestry Division are not getting the amount of land they require for the simple reason that the price offered is far too low. In some cases it is £3 or £4 an acre. In rare cases the price was brought up to £7 an acre. If the Minister keeps the price down to that ridiculously low level, nobody will offer land except somebody who can afford to do without it. I am very interested in afforestation. The Minister should increase substantially the price offered for land for forestry purposes and he will find overnight that a vast amount of land will be forthcoming, possibly more than he can plant.

I may be wrong but I understand that some time ago the Minister was expecting heavy machinery which would be used in forests, where suitable. I would appeal to the Minister to go slow in introducing heavy machinery for this work. Afforestation was introduced in order to build up Irish industry. I believe it will have that effect in the not too distant future. It was introduced for another purpose also, to absorb the unemployed in suitable work. The more machinery the Minister brings in, especially of a heavy type, the more workers will be disemployed. The result will be that what we gain on one hand will be lost on the other. Any group of honest, decent workers can do more satisfactory work than can be done by heavy machines. I suppose the Minister has in mind that there is a certain type of land where the use of machinery would be absolutely essential but I would appeal to the Minister to use discretion in this matter.

The Minister is very interested in fisheries and is doing a very good job. Fisheries have an important bearing on the tourist industry. The Minister has the means in his own Department to develop a very attractive tourist proposition. Large tracts of land are being acquired by the Forestry Division. My suggestion to the Minister is that such land should be preserved for game, in the Department's name, for some years to come, and that the shooting rights should not be given to individuals or groups. In that way a world of game can be built up which would be a tremendous tourist attraction. I would ask the Minister to examine that proposition very carefully. Some lands the Minister is now acquiring were once well stocked with game and when they are planted the game will return naturally. If these lands are preserved and, possibly, restocked, they could be of great importance from the tourist point of view.

Mr. Lindsay

The immediate objective by way of benefit deriving from money spent on afforestation must be the giving of employment in rural areas. I am heartened by the spirited appeal by Deputy Collins of West Limerick for unified effort in this regard. Many things prevent a national drive. In any matter where land has to be acquired, delay is the order of the day. In an ordinary transaction between private individuals delay in completing a sale is notorious but when, through no fault of theirs, there is the legal delay coupled with what has come to be the delay of Civil Service routine, it is very difficult to achieve one's objective in any given time. I think the Department can be blamed for this. If they are not to be blamed, certainly they should be exhorted to discontinue the practice of not pursuing the offer.

I know of cases where the person offering the land does nothing after the original offer from the Forestry Division except, perhaps, get in touch with his nearest T.D. to make some sort of effort. I have one case on hands—I think I have had it since I came into the House—where the offer was made and there was a further increase and a further demand and a further small increase. That has been going on for practically five years. In that case, I do not think the fault is entirely the fault of the Forestry Division. The fault lies also with the person offering the land, who does not seem to follow up an offer and make his fresh demand as quickly as he might. The valuation of land in the initial effort by officials or somebody at their behest is also wrong. The original offer is too small and tends to dishearten the person offering the land and to make him lose interest.

Deputy Collins stressed the value of the type of land that is offered which, to a valuer from Dublin or an official who might not be conversant with such land, may appear virtually useless. Rough commonages and rough grazing land on the mountain side or elsewhere, which appear to be useless, may be very important in the economy of certain areas, particularly the congested areas in the West, North-West and South-West. A great deal could be achieved by altering the psychology behind the offer. The introduction of the element of redemption of annuity into the offer at a late stage, or understood by the person making the offer at a late stage of the negotiations, has a disheartening effect. Everybody appreciates the difference between a purchase in which one does not have to pay auctioneer's fees and one in which one does have to pay such fees. If a man can buy a house for £3,000 or £4,000 and not have to pay any auctioneer's fees, that is an added attraction. In the same way land in respect of which no deduction is made, like an annuity, no matter how small it may be, is a more attractive proposition, whereas in the other case there is the psychological effect that the owner is put off, at least for a time, thereby holding up the drive.

I am interested in private planting as well as State planting. The average scheme initiated by the Department is of necessity concentrated and gives employment over a restricted area. Private planting can provide work for at least one more member of a family.

Shelter belts have been mentioned by Deputy Manley. Such belts are very important. I would urge the value of a shelter belt between tillage land and commonage. Such a belt would have the advantage of preventing the animals grazing on the commonage from trespassing on the tillage land.

Great strides have been made in Mayo. Full credit for the initiation of the drive there must be given to Deputy Blowick in Deputy Costello's first Administration. In 1948 there were only 11 men employed on forestry development. To-day—I hope my figure is accurate—there are 410 men employed all over the county. Deputy Blowick, as Minister for Lands, initiated seven forestry centres in South Mayo and six in North Mayo —it may be the other way round, but the overall figure is 13 centres. In paying that tribute to Deputy Blowick, I am not in any way trying to belittle the efforts of the present Minister. After all, he is continuing the policy inaugurated by Deputy Blowick and he is trying to reach the target of 25,000 acres per annum. He is working with commendable energy. I am not concerned as to whether or not he has any responsibility for the 100,000 jobs referred to by Deputy McQuillan. We are all of us now pretty well conversant with the wide divergence there is between the promise and the performance.

At a time like this it is incumbent on all of us to make some concrete suggestions for remedying the position in the rural areas. The population is declining at an alarming rate. It is only when one has personal experience of it that one grows really anxious about the situation. I was in a Garda station yesterday arranging for a police certificate for an emigrant to America. I asked if there would be any delay and the Garda replied: "There will be no delay. We do a dozen of these in the day." That came as a shock to me. I knew the position was bad, but I did not think it was so bad.

Rural employment must be the primary objective apart altogether from any commercial ancillary advantages to be derived from forestry in the years to come. As Deputy Manley said, rural employment is difficult to procure. It is equally difficult to provide particularly at this era of our progress; scientific advancement may be accountable in large measure for the greater portion of rural unemployment. At the moment in Foxford there is a great deal of anxiety because numbers of people are being laid off work. I forget the exact number, but even one man laid off in a rural area is a serious matter, particularly if he happens to be the breadwinner of a family.

The Minister is to be congratulated on keeping up the pressure. I hope he will achieve the target of 25,000 acres per annum. Not alone that, but, as Deputy Blowick urged upon him, I hope his first consideration will be directed towards re-planning in an effort to increase the target.

Mr. Coogan

Every £ put into afforestation is a £ well spent. It is a £ that will save the Department of Social Welfare many pounds in the years to come. It will also help the taxpayer. Money put into afforestation is like money invested. It is good economy. The policy may be a long-term one. Indeed, it is a policy upon which we should have embarked many years ago. Unlike wheat, one cannot overdo the sowing of trees.

This Estimate should get the blessing of both sides of the House. Our country was denuded of trees by the foreigner. That denudation was aggravated because of the fuel shortage in the last war. A big lee-way has to be made up now. To some extent we have suffered from the mentality: "Only God can make a tree". But God helps those who help themselves and, from that point of view, we should make an all-out drive to plant our land. Unfortunately we are not tree-minded. We were never taught anything about forestry in school.

On that point, a directive should be issued from the Minister's Department warning children not to go near forests during the summer holidays. Many children go out from the towns for picnics and they do not appreciate the dangers. Another group which causes a good deal of damage is the itinerants who park near forests. The Guards should watch these people.

We are approaching the target of 25,000 acres per annum. The Minister and his officials should bend all their energies now towards going ahead as rapidly as possible. The rabbit pest is no longer a menace. Recently the Minister appealed in Connemara for the co-operation of public men in securing more land for afforestation purposes. I assured him then that he will have my full co-operation. It is not so many years ago since I put the Minister in touch with people who had land for sale. The only reply I received was that the land was not required and would not be taken. No excuse was given. Possibly the Minister might note it now and give me an idea of why these lands were not accepted, and then we would be better able to know what type of land is best. I am referring to land in the Knock area; the names of the holders were Curran and Haire. I would like to know why these lands were not accepted. There may be good reasons but, if we are to approach people again, we would like to know what the snags are.

It has been heartening to note the export of pit props from Galway during the last year or two, and from that it can be seen that our forests are playing a part in the export drive. I hope we will see much more of that. I am in agreement with other Deputies when they say that afforestation will help to curb emigration. I think the Minister should intensify his efforts in the area I represent where we suffer sorely from emigration. He will get land there much more cheaply than in the midlands. Thousands of acres are lying waste; he has seen them himself. If planted these lands would add beauty to the countryside which would mean much from the tourist as well as the economic point of view.

I note that the grant to private persons and public bodies has been doubled. I congratulate the Minister on that because I believe that private enterprise should play a part in afforestation and it is time people got every encouragement to plant. It is a step in the right direction and I hope the Minister will go still further. Young farmers' clubs could play a bigger part in the afforestation drive but, unfortunately, many young farmers are more concerned with crops that yield a harvest in one year. Unless we can make them tree-minded, as is done in the schools, we shall not succeed. Like Deputy Blowick, I believe that the western counties should be planted to the full. I think the Minister is in favour of that, and I hope we will be able to welcome him again, as we did quite recently, when starting a great effort in that respect in Connemara. He will get my co-operation, just as he has secured it every time he asked in the past.

Mr. Childers

Deputies have been so congratulatory that I almost feel I should examine my conscience. I thank them for their kind and helpful remarks and I can assure them that all the constructive criticism they have made will be carefully examined. First of all, I want to deal with the question of employment because I think we should make quite certain that the House and the country understand the position. It is an absolute fact that in the next two or three years it will be difficult to compare the number of people employed from one year to another because of the practice that has grown since before the present Government came into office—and quite rightly so—of selling standing timber, and it does really make a considerable difference to the figures of men employed each year.

It is impossible for us to tell very accurately the number of people employed each year by contractors in felling timber, and the indirect employment afforded by lorry men and so forth. The nearest figures that I have are that the rise in indirect employment in 1957/58 was about 300, and the rise in indirect employment in 1958/59 was a further 200, making 500 in all, and that there was a reduction in direct employment in those two years of 340. Therefore, there was a small net increase in direct and indirect employment.

I should also make it clear that last year the appalling weather reduced what should have been an increased labour force on road construction. I am hoping that this year Providence will bring us good weather, not only for forestry road works but for agricultural production, and that we shall be able to employ more people in wiping out arrears in the road programme and preparing roads for our new forests.

I must also make it clear that there is a new factor entering into the situation which only much greater acquisition in the eastern part of the country, on the better lands, will prevent from operating—the cost of the employment factor in planting ploughed land which has got to be ploughed by machine because there is no other way of ploughing it. The employment factor in planting ploughed land may be as much as 50 per cent. less than in preparing the land, the better class of land.

As I have already indicated, the proportion of land planted in western counties has risen steadily and in the last planting year was some 48 per cent. of total plantings as compared with 34 per cent. in a previous period. In one sense concentration is very valuable for the counties which most need employment but in increasing employment rates, we have to bear in mind the fact that in regard to the higher proportion western areas—or should I say mostly of newly-planted lands each year in in the west—where ploughing was a factor, the employment content must necessarily diminish, not because we wish to save labour but because we have to use machinery in order to plough heavy soil.

When we consider that trend, and also the very bad weather of last year it will be seen that there has been a small increase in total employment. At the moment, there are between 150 and 200 more people in employment than at the same time last year, in spite of all those difficulties. Of course, the general growth of forestry operations should overcome reductions in employment consequent upon the type of planting and consequent upon the other factors I have mentioned.

I should make it clear that the incentive bonus scheme has not led to disemployment. Last year, in its incipient stages, only ten per cent. of the work was handled under the scheme and the scheme could have had no effect on the employment level. This year about 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the work is being handled under the scheme and, as I have already indicated, employment is running higher than last year and should average some 200 more than last year.

One Deputy gave a sort of philosophical discourse on the comparison between what he called social employment and economic employment, which is of interest and has some bearing on forestry employment, but I should make it clear that it is human to provide incentive bonuses. It is not being done only for cold-blooded economic reasons. If a man is paid more he will spend more and, if he spends more, he will employ more workers to provide him with industrial goods and services. The additional number of workers who provide him with industrial goods and services will themselves employ other workers and so, the payment of more wages for more work, in an expanding economy, inevitably results in the employment of more people. That is the manner in which more people have been employed in Great Britain, the United States and other countries. If more work is done for a given expenditure by the State as a result of State taxation the State can either invest money in further schemes for giving employment or they can tax the public to a lesser extent. I am glad to say that no one is in a position to contradict me on that matter because economists agree on that proposition.

This then is a human proposition. More employment is given as production grows and more families are happy. No one would think of introducing an incentive bonus scheme solely for the purpose of giving a certain body of men higher wages. Such a scheme should have the additional effect of bringing happiness to more families. That should at all times be stressed.

Some Deputies suggested that we should be careful about purchasing too many machines. The high quality of the Irish worker enables us to use men in circumstances in which, in other countries, machines would be better. There are many jobs in ground preparation where machinery is absolutely essential. Unless we purchase these large machines we will not be able to give my employment in many areas. Deputies who see the heavy ploughing that is to be done, the piercing of the peat and the breaking of the heavy pan sub-soil by the gigantic machinery used by the Department, will realise that no possible from of annual labour would replace the work of those machines. Machinery is essential in these soils and in itself provides further employment.

Deputy Blowick ask me to give the figure for the plantable reserve. At the moment it is about 55,000 acres. This year, the Minister for Finance has provided the sum necessary to plant 25,000 acres. If I could see any sign of a growth in the plantable reserves sufficient to enable us to plant even 1,000 acres more, I should be delighted, but there can be no consideration by the Government of the general proposal for the increase in the present programme without significant offers of land coming in.

We are looking for as much land as we can get to provide more uniform employment. I hope that all Deputies understand the necessity for having reserves of land not only for efficiency's sake but for human reasons. If there is sufficient land available for any given employment area, we now have well-established work values and we know the exact cost of carrying out any afforestation scheme in any area, so that it is possible to plan the preparation, fencing, planting and thinning in such a way as to employ permanently a group of men, provided always that some of them may not want permanent employment due to their personal circumstances.

Not everybody knows that the big problem of rural employment has always been the very large numbers of men who are temporarily employed. One of the reasons for our high emigration rate has been the large number of men who will no longer stand and tolerate a system of working for a season and then live on the dole for the remainder of the year when they can get more highly paid and continous employment either in Great Britain or in Dublin. We want to establish a system in the Department of Forestry where we will have groups of men interested in their work, interested in the big incentive bonus, interested in the future of forestry and skilled in their work. We have been able to secure that in some areas where there is a high plantable reserve but there are many areas where there is need for more land and I hope that Deputies will do everything they can to encourage people to offer more land.

It is perfectly understandable for owners of greatly eroded land where the sheep grazing value has diminished almost to vanishing point to be reluctant to sell those lands. They may have had the use of that land for numbers of years and, even if they did not own it, their parents and grand-parents may have used it. For these reasons they may not wish to part with it but the permanent employment which would be given by large blocs of afforestation on those lands to the children of those owners should induce them to part with those lands which have become so severely eroded by the grazing, under uncontrolled conditions, of already poor land.

Deputy Blowick also asked for the figures of acquisitions in the congested counties in the West. I have already mentioned the fact that 40 per cent. of the land planted last year was planted in the West. The figures of acquisitions are: 1955/56—8,239 acres; 1956/57—8,086 acres; 1957/58—8,241 acres; 1958/59—11,450 acres. On 31st March, 1959 in the western areas there were in course of purchase 313 cases with a total area of 24,000 acres. The number of offers of land in the West is improving all the time.

Deputy Blowick also mentioned the question of pulp mills. I want to assure him that this matter is under very active consideration. I should like to give the House a very brief account of a report made following a survey carried out by a firm with a very high international reputation as consultants. The survey was initiated by a number of countries including Ireland. The consultant visited each country separately and submitted his report separately to each country. The report was limited in his terms of reference to the smaller type of pulp mills and excluded wallboard and chip-board. He recommended the construction of paper-making mills.

The consultant's recommendations were based on very exhaustive costings data, both in relation to capital courses and production courses, and they show very clearly the relationship which could be established through the various pulping methods envisaged between the price of timber and raw materials and remuneration of capital, on the one hand, and the price of pulp, on the other. Those recommendations can be summed up by saying that in the consultant's opinion this country should be able to engage in the production of paper pulp in the way he envisaged providing the plants were of suitable capacity and that the present relationship of pulping prices and production costings on heads other than labour, power, fuel, chemicals and so forth. remained reasonably constant.

The report in that sense is quite encouraging and it is being examined by the various firms engaged at present in the production of pulp or who are major users of pulp. The report indicates the economic feasibility of pulping plants of various kinds and should give us great assistance with the research we should have to undertake in planning regionally the kind of industries we need to absorb timber.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister does not envisage the State going into this business?

Mr. Childers

At present there is no decision in that regard at all.

Mr. Blowick

I think the Minister would be very wise in advising his Government to do something about it.

Mr. Childers

The Government naturally is always prepared to engage in State production, when the alternative is no production or anything undesirable from the national standpoint.

The Deputy asked me how many poles were sold to the E.S.B. and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The sales of the E.S.B. were 3,500 and to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, 8,800, making a total of 12,300. Sales should be larger this year. The E.S.B. report showed that our timber is comparing favourably in quality with the imported.

The proportion of thinnings sold standing is now between five-eighths and three-quarters of the total thinnings and is likely to rise in the future. The reduction in the income from thinnings was referred to by Deputy Blowick. If he reads the Estimate script, he will find it is due to a market situation, which is expected to be of a temporary character, in which Russian exports of timber forced down the Scandinavian prices which, in turn, forced down Irish prices. It is something we cannot foretell in advance.

In regard to the decision to promote larger nurseries, this is not due mainly to purely economic reasons but in order to ensure that we have high quality plants. The whole management of the nursery is far superior if it is relatively large and everything can be done on a fairly big scale.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister is aware that it causes a dislocation of labour if there is an easing off in the smaller nurseries or if they are abolished altogether?

Mr. Childers

In regard to the price of land, as far as I can ascertain reasonable prices are offered. The number of offers that are turned down because of a difference over price I do not think are sufficiently significant to suggest that is a matter of grievous concern. We try to offer the market value for the land and I think the Department are aware of any changes that have taken place in land values. As I have said, if I received data showing there had been a very large number of offers turned down on the grounds of price, naturally I would be worried. Of course, sometimes we get offers turned down by people who thought they would get an obviously excessive price, but in regard to marginal differences I do not think at the moment we get many offers turned down. In connection with this acquisition drive we are undertaking, it has been pointed out to the acquisition officers that they must be sure to offer what they regard as a reasonable price per acre for the land they inspect.

We are planting a good deal of experimental type land. We have been planting at the very edge of the sea in Glenamoy, where there is a certain amount of salt water exposure, and we have planted along the coast in certain areas where we thought the conditions were possible. I think our experimental work is as advanced on peat as such work anywhere in the world. I do not think anyone can say we are showing an over-conservative attitude. The visit I paid to Scotland, along with officers of my Department, was followed by a visit by the British Forestry Commission here. For a total of twelve days I saw nothing but peat plantations and heard nothing but discussions on peat plantations. This was a tremendously valuable experience, enabling me to gauge the very great importance of peat in future planting, to hear literally 12 of the greatest experts in the world on peat planting discuss among themselves all the problems and difficulties—the eternal problem of what is now considered to be really experimental land and what is considered to be land which we are hopeful will produce good results.

Deputy Blowick also asked about home seed collection. In 1957-58 the total amount of seed sown was 11,500 lbs. of which 1,500 lbs. were home collected. Home collection is extending very slowly and we are comparing the qualities of pinus contorta stands both here and in Great Britain with the British Forestry Commission.

Mr. Blowick

Of the 1,500 home produced seeds, were they mostly conifers or were there hardwood seeds in it?

Mr. Childers

Mostly conifers.

I wish to assure Deputies that the assessment work is continuing. We have completed the assessment of State plantation of ten years or over to the amount of 70,000 acres, and a total of 12,000 acres is being examined. This work commenced in April, 1958, and will be completed as soon as possible. We are also doing as much research as we can manage, with what must be, under present circumstances, a fairly limited staff, both in regard to the comparative effects of planting different species on different sites with different spacing. We are also doing manurial trials by applications of different types of manures for varying returns.

Mr. Blowick

Any soil testing for mineral deficiencies?

Mr. Childers

I have no information on that point. Deputy Tierney was anxious about the application of the incentive bonus scheme to a particular area in Tipperary, the Newport-Silvermines-Templederry area. I should say that these forest areas are in a different administrative district to the area where the bonus scheme was initiated—also a part of the Deputy's constituency—and these areas are listed for application of the scheme within three to six months' time.

In reply to Deputy Lindsay, all the offers we make for forestry land are on a nett price basis. That is to say, they are exclusive of the redemption value of the annuity. Deputy Lindsay also referred to employment in the Foxford forest, which was reduced a couple of years ago when thinnings arrears were cleared up. I am sorry to say acquisition is very slow in the area and I hope it will be speeded up so that we can continue planting in that area.

I think I have answered most of the questions put to me by Deputies and any other constructive criticism will be examined. I should like to thank Deputies once again for their congratulations. I should also say a work of tribute to the officers of the Department who show the most tremendous zeal and whose method of operation is completely different from what is supposed to be the traditional habit of the civil servant. Like men in a great timber corporation they eliminate red tape to the very maximum degree and have shown an extraordinary capacity in working with the industrial consultant in carrying out one of the largest schemes of conversion to incentive bonus that this country has ever seen in its history or is ever likely to see in the future.

Vote put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Jun 1959

Committee on Finance. - Vote 46—Forestry (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1959