Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1960

Vol. 182 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Forestry (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £1,748,700 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, 1961, 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.

Mr. Moran

Under Subhead H— Appropriations-in-Aid, allowance has been made for receipts totalling £363,000 as compared with an allowance of £330,500 in the original estimate for 1959/60. Actual receipts realised in 1959/60 including receipts appropriated under the Supplementary Estimate for that year totalled slightly over £380,000, which was substantially above the highest level of receipts in any previous year.

The important receipt head is that for sales of timber. Receipts from timber sales in 1959/60 totalled almost £313,000 which was over £30,000 above the level in any previous year. The Estimate allowance under this head in 1960/61 is £320,000 and in relation to the level of receipts last year there should be little difficulty in realising this sum.

Apart from sales of firewood, nearly 4½ million cubic feet of timber were sold in 1959-60 compared with 3½ million cubic feet in the previous year. More than one-third of the timber sold in 1959-60 was over 8" quarter girth, that is in the size class suitable generally for box-making and sawlog purposes. The sawlog market which was sluggish and uncertain in 1958-59 was much stronger in 1959-60 and prospects for the current year are satisfactory.

Discussions with the Electricity Supply Board, mentioned in the House last year, with a view to increasing the proportion of home-grown timber used to meet the Board's transmission pole needs were successful. Through selective forest felling co-ordinated with the Board's intake requirements, sales to the Board were stepped up from 3,500 poles in 1958-59 to 13,000 poles in 1959-60. Improved co-ordination also enabled sales to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for telegraph poles to be increased from 9,000 to 14,000 poles.

The pulpwood market was improved by the commencement in the autumn of 1959 of purchases by the new factory of Chipboard Ltd. in Scariff, Co. Clare, which went into production in December. The opening of this new factory enabled the Department to pursue a more vigorous sales policy in relation to small size timber and was of course particularly useful in providing a convenient outlet for the produce of thinnings at forests in Clare and South Galway.

For the coming year the prospects in relation to the timber market generally appear reasonably satisfactory at the moment and I would expect to see some volumetric increase in sales over last year's level providing receipts somewhat in excess of the allowance made in the Estimate. Further progress was made during the past year in the campaign to promote more extensive use of home-grown timber in the building trade by encouraging contract specifications based on appropriate moisture contents for different purposes and permitting equally of the use of home-grown or imported timber. The report on the European Productivity Agency Small Pulp Mills Survey in which this country participated was published recently. The report is still under study by various interests concerned.

The only remaining Subhead of the Estimate is Subhead D—Grants for Afforestation Purposes. It will be noted that the provision included in the Estimate—£25,000—is £10,000 greater than in 1959/60. Actual expenditure in, 1959/60 was over £14,000 by comparison with £4,300 in 1958/59. It is estimated that a sum of £2,500 will be required in 1960/61 to cover second instalments on grants made in earlier years. The Estimate provision is, therefore, adequate to cover first instalments on new grants totalling £22,500 which would represent the planting of 2,250 acres.

The rise in expenditure last year and the anticipated further rise in the current year is indicative of the increase in private planting which has been brought about by the enlargement of the rate of grant to £20 an acre and by the publicity campaign conducted over the past few years by the Department. During last year the general campaign through newspaper publicity, etc., throughout the country was accompanied by intensive propaganda in Counties Cavan, Clare, Cork and Monaghan. The campaign in these counties centred on a series of lectures spread over the county regions which were organised in cooperation with the local County Committees of Agriculture and the various rural organisations. Altogether 73 lectures were given in the counties concerned. The lectures were well attended and a good deal of interest was displayed, much of which was subsequently converted into positive action. It is still too soon to establish any figure as to the actual level of planting last winter but it seems certain that there was a further substantial increase on the 1958/59 level; in 1958/59 about 1,200 acres were planted by comparison with an average annual figure of 400 acres in previous years. The free Advisory Service which the Department is now making available to all prospective planters is proving well worth while and there was a big increase in the number of advisory inspections sought in 1959/60 as against the previous year. Altogether in 1959/60, 1,073 separate areas totalling 3,138 acres were inspected under the Advisory Scheme.

It is intended to continue the intensive propaganda campaign this year and as in previous years a series of lectures will be arranged in a number of counties. It seems certain at this stage that we are on the high road towards securing the active cooperation of the farming community in bringing into useful production as farm wood-lots, the small waste areas on farms scattered throughout the country which are not being used for agricultural purposes, are suitable for tree cultivation and cannot conveniently be included in the State afforestation scheme. That is the primary objective of the Private Planting Grant Scheme and it is encouraging to find such a growing response to the scheme by farmers, big and small.

I am happy to be able to report a year of sustained progress in both State afforestation and private planting and I recommend the Estimate to the House.

Mr. Blowick

There was no need for the Minister to canter through his brief as rapidly as he did.

Mr. Corish

Did the Deputy not get a copy of his speech?

Mr. Blowick

I did.

Mr. Corish

That is more than I got.

Mr. Blowick

I thought it was customary for ex-Ministers to receive a copy.

Mr. Corish

I thought so, too.

Mr. Moran

I apologise to the Deputy. I was not aware that the Deputy had not a copy.

Mr. Blowick

I cannot help recalling some of the comments the Minister made some years ago when he was in Opposition when I was trying to develop the forestry programme. He referred to plantations of young trees as plantations of bushes and ridiculed the opening of new forestry centres in the west of Ireland. There is no need to be ashamed of what is being achieved. The 25,000 acre planting that has been carefully built up over a number of years is a very good record for the Forestry Division. Account must be taken of the fact that our people are amongst the most land-hungry in western Europe and it is difficult to understand how it is that the Department can acquire 27,000 or 28,000 acres from people who have scarcely enough land for themselves.

One disturbing aspect of the Minister's account of the progress for the last year is that the acquisition is a bit low. If we are to continue to plant 25,000 acres a year—and I submit that we should—it would take something more than the acquisition of 27,000 acres to keep that up. I notice the plantable reserve, not the total reserve, is around 48,500. The Minister did not tell us how much unplantable land is in the hands of his Department. With the help of machinery much land that was unplantable has been rendered plantable and with the exception of lakes and bare mountaintops, I do not see why land covered with peat or other such land could not be planted.

I take it that the ceiling price for the purchase of land for forestry purposes is unchanged at £10. That is too low. With increased staff the Department can make a great effort but when they come up against the fact that people will not sell their land at prices offered, the intake of land will not be increased. The plantable reserve must be kept up if the Department is to run properly and if the nurseries are to be looked after. There should always be a three years' reserve in hand; in fact a bigger reserve than 75,000 acres is desirable. If the Minister wants people to sell their land he must increase the ceiling price; otherwise the available reserve will go down and, if it does, the whole planting programme for the year goes down with it.

I should like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made towards the purchase of commonages or parts of commonages provision for which was made under the 1956 Act and how that Act has operated. At the time the Act was being drafted grave doubts were expressed by people whose opinion I respected that the partition of commonages would not work. I have often wondered, since I went out of office in 1957, has it been put into operation and, if so, with what success. That provision was inserted in the 1956 Act in order to allow those who are willing to sell their shares in a commonage to sell for cash so that forestry could be started in the area and, at the same time, avoid creating an injustice in the case of those who wished to retain their shares.

I did that with the best intentions but I have no information as to what has happened because I have no knowledge of any case in which it has been tried out. I should like to know if it has been tried out and with what success. If it is not a success, or if it threatens to perpetrate an injustice on any of the holders, my advice would be to drop it. It was not intended to work in that way. It was intended to give justice to both sides, to those who wished to sell and to those who wished to retain their shares.

If the Minister wants to continue the intake of land, I suggest the appropriate provision in the 1956 Act offers him the most reasonable prospect. It has been my experience in the last 10 years that the rights to commonages given to tenants by the C.D.B. have been grossly abused. It very often happens that 15 or 16 people have the rights in common but only one or two are sufficiently wealthy to avail themselves of these rights. The others pay their annuities and rates, but the fortunate one or two who are wealthy enough to be able to stock the commonage grab the lot. That avenue would, I think, be well worth exploring because the pools of land available when I extended forestry in 1949 to 1950, and my successor after 1951, have dried up by now. There were several big offers of land then. There was one offer of about 8,000 acres in North Mayo. There was another in Oughterard in Galway of between 1,200 and 1,300 acres. I am sure the offers the Minister gets now of 100 acres, or something over that, are very few. The only way in which the Minister will be able to procure land will be by raising the ceiling price.

Forestry is one of the ways in which we can hold down at least a certain population on the poorer land in the rural areas. These people cannot live on the little mountain holdings they have but, if there is any kind of steady employment in the locality, they will not leave. I suggest forestry is one of the most useful instruments we have in stemming the tide of emigration.

I am interested in the question of pests in connection with forestry. The Minister did not advert to that aspect in his opening statement. Forestry experts in 1948 and 1949 were of the impression that, if we expanded our planting to 25,000 acres per year, serious pests would develop. Have they? I remember reading in a Canadian forestry journal of a pest which was imported into Canadian forests from Europe. Damage to the tune of millions of pounds was done.

Would the Minister also tell us if a research section has been established? When Shelton Abbey was rebuilt and converted into a forestry school the idea was to establish a research section there which would work in close harmony with the Universities. Research is necessary from the point of view of investigation into pests and diseases, and their control, as well as from the point of view of investigation into soils to find out how different soils affect trees. I should like to have some information on these points when the Minister is replying.

The raising of the ceiling price may not be the answer to the problem of procuring more land. The Minister has excellent advisers. He has forestry officials who are second to none in any forestry service in Europe of which I am aware. They are far ahead of men in services much older than ours. It is a section of which the Minister can be proud. I am sure it is within the competence of his excellent officials to find out exactly what is the best approach, without encroaching on the rights of land owners.

We read from time to time of a certain opposition to forestry development but, so far, I have not come across any really convincing argument. It is argued that forestry displaces people from small holdings. The fact is that, if these people have made up their minds to go, nothing will hold them. They will sell their land for forestry because they will get a better price for it than they would from a neighbour who wants it for agricultural purposes. Forestry helps to counterbalance those who go because it holds others in the area.

The Minister told us that 4,500,000 cubic feet of timber were sold in 1959-60 as compared with 3,500,000 cubic feet in the previous year. I was very anxious that a pulp mill should be established to use up the fairly large quantity of otherwise unusable timber which will come out of our forests in six or seven years' time. The plantings done in 1948 and 1949 will then be 15 years old. They will not be felled until they are 20 years old. The Minister should now consult with his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the desirability of establishing a suitable industry to absorb these fellings. If my recollection is correct, by the year 1967, or 1968, there will be something in the region of 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 cubic feet of timber coming out of the plantings that started in 1948, 1949 and 1950. There may not be any difficulty at present in disposing of the thinnings but the planting programme has been stepped up by 2,500 acres a year for the past few years, until it has reached 25,000 acres. I take it the acreage will be 25,000 next year and the year after also. We shall not feel 15 or 20 years passing and if we do not provide for the use of the timber then available we shall have a big quantity of home-grown timber for which there will be no market. We shall be paying at the same time some £10,000,000 for timber from other countries for paper and so on.

It was to get data on that subject that I spent a fortnight in Sweden in 1956. I want to impress on the Minister, as I did on his predecessor, the absolute necessity for coping with that matter. I want to warn the Minister that it is not enough to produce timber. Producing timber is a waste of time if we do not make the best possible use of it. I would ask the Minister to try to contemplate how he is to get a market for 12 million or 14 million cubic feet of timber of anything from eight inches to 14 inches in breast high diameter. I should like to see even a small move made towards establishing a pulp mill which could produce paper from our own timber and save sterling which we have to pay for timber at present to other countries which have natural forests. The Minister would be doing a good job if he proceeded on that line. If he neglects it then in 12 or 15 years the generation of that time will have some nasty things to say about him or his successor.

I was disappointed to note the drop in the employment figures which the Minister announced. I suppose the Minister's answer is that the mechanisation of the Department has resulted in the drop. When I left office, if I remember correctly, the planting programme was around 17,000 acres and 4,800 men were employed. I do not see how mechanisation in the form of tractors and new types of ploughs, could have reduced the number to the present figure.

The Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers, when he was Minister for Lands was guilty of wiping out a number of small nurseries which had been giving useful employment. There was one in Lecarrow where the employment was as high as 30 men. The plants were quite good and the young transplants which were being produced were as good as any in the country. I cannot understand why that was wiped out. It was a mistake of the first magnitude.

I was not here to hear the whole of the Minister's brief and I should like to know if the Department has progressed towards supplying the E.S.B. with poles and other timber, because up to the present at least, the Forestry Department could not supply them as they had not got the trees. It seems a bit ridiculous to purchase trees from Sweden, Finland and parts of the American Continent, when we could grow them at home. Have we poles of the correct quality and the correct size to supply them and if so in what numbers are they being purchased? While on the subject, I should like to mention that recently men have been dismissed in the Cong sawmill and I wonder why.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy's information is not correct.

Mr. Blowick

I am glad of that. On the question of private planting I should like to make a suggestion which I made before. I understand that applications for grants will be entertained only for one statute acre, that is where the private owner plants a statute acre or more. I think the minimum should be reduced to half an acre and I will give my reasons. Many people are completely unaccutomed to planting even a shelter belt and they are chary or scared of facing something new. We are all the same in that respect when facing something new. I believe that many people would put down half an acre where they could not chance the cost of one acre. They would be afraid it might fail or that it might be a joke in the locality.

It would be a step in the right direction to make the grant available for half acres. I know people who have a particular kind of rocky ground suitable only for timber and unsuitable for agricultural purposes where people might avail of such a grant. I understand that half of the grant of £20 per acre will be paid when the planting is done and that the other half is deferred for three to five years, conditional on proper care being given to the plantation. That is all to the good and some check is needed. You might meet a type of person who would put down the plantation and then, if he found it suited him, deliberately destroy it after he had drawn the grant from the Department. If the area were made smaller it might encourage people to plant.

One of the things which pleased me most in the Minister's outline of the work of his Department was his statement in regard to planting in the congested areas, particularly in the west. The west of Ireland is the part of the country having the smallest holdings but I believe it is the best hunting ground for land for planting. In the arable areas, particularly in Leinster and parts of Munster, it would be nothing but sheer madness to utilise them for planting, not that I think any Minister would attempt such a thing. I should like to see the 40 per cent. being increased. We have the heaviest emigration in the west and, as was stated on the Vote for the Land Commission, whole families are moving out. The pattern of emigration heretofore was that the sons and daughters left and the fathers and mothers remained behind, perhaps with one son or daughter staying with them, as the case might be. For the last few years that pattern has changed and now whole families are packing up and locking the doors. The Minister when replying to the Land Commission Vote would not admit that such was the case. That only shows that he is not keeping in touch with his people because it is the case. I know of one district in which 19 houses have been closed up.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that may not be debated on the Vote for Forestry if it was relevant on the other Vote.

Mr. Blowick

It happens to be relevant on both Votes. As a matter of fact, it is more relevant on the Forestry Vote for this reason. If forestry were developed in those areas the employment afforded by that development would help to retain a great number of these people at home. The last thing I want to impress on the Minister is that some provision should be made at once to utilise the vast pool of timber which will be available at the end of this decade, around 1968, 1969 and 1970.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am delighted to hear the Deputy say that.

Mr. Blowick

I have not the least idea of what the cubic footage of thinnings would be out of an annual planting programme of 25,000 acres. I imagine it would go into 15 million cubic feet per year and because of the nature of the thinnings we cannot find a market for all that, irrespective of how much is used for pit props, farm fencing and so on. What I would deplore is if, after growing a crop of timber, we had not the means of disposing of it and converting it into the paper that we need and if we still had to buy woodpulp from other countries because we failed to establish the machinery to use our own produce.

Mr. T. Lynch

We can make chipboard of it in Waterford.

Mr. Blowick

That will consume a certain amount of it but it will not consume a fraction of the vast quantity that will come out of plantings inside the next twelve or fifteen years. My guess is that it would take seven or eight years from the word "go" to establish such an industry as I have in mind, and by that time there would be ample timber to keep it going. It might be argued that we have some industries in that line at present; we have, but I believe they are on too small a scale to deal with the vast quantity of timber coming out of the forests.

Finally, I want to impress on the Minister the necessity to make provision for that development. Much as I would stress the necessity of keeping up a decent planting programme, now that we have reached our goal of 25,000 acres a year we must also make provision for the natural output of that planting programme.

Mr. Corish

The problem to which Deputy Blowick has referred of finding a market is not peculiar to the timber or forestry industry. The importance of that problem cannot be over-stressed but it is one of the difficulties we have in regard to many of the farm products we produce annually here. I do not want to enlarge the scope of this debate except to say that I have not the same detailed knowledge of forestry as the Minister and the former Minister have and while I am concerned about the timber we plant, I am primarily concerned with the employment potential of forestry which I believe has not been exploited to the full even yet. It took quite a long time to convert many people here to the idea of a big forestry programme. I remember that the former Deputy Seán MacBride was laughed to scorn when he suggested we should aim at a target of 25,000 acres.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

A million acres in two years—that is what he said.

Mr. Corish

It may be the Deputy heard him on a different occasion. I can only quote what I have and I do not want to enter into any controversy about it.

Mr. T. Lynch

That would give jobs to 100,000 men.

Mr. Corish

We have achieved the target of 25,000 acres and it has given valuable employment but I believe it could give much more much-needed employment, in rural areas especially. Rural employment has been diminishing year by year for the past two decades. There is no point in trying to increase employment in rural Ireland in agriculture, road-work, building and fisheries; it seems that the only way we can do something to stem the rush from the land is to engage in much greater planting of forestry.

Deputy Blowick mentioned the marketing problem and spoke of Britain as a potential market. We have certain advantages, I suppose, in exporting timber to Great Britain, but when the Seven amalgamate with the Six countries of the Common Market then we shall have our problem. However, much of the timber we are producing can be used here, through the E.S.B. and the farming community and, as the Minister suggested, in the building industry, small as it now is.

I do not think we can throw any brickbats at the Minister or his officials. He and his predecessor must be congratulated for what they did. Apart from interruptions from various sides of the House about what Ministers did or what ex-Ministers said in the past, I believe there has been a genuine desire on the part of all Ministers for Lands to do the best they could in the matter of afforestation.

I ask the Minister to go slow on one aspect of forestry and I do not expect much agreement when I say this. The Minister suggests that we are about to mechanise afforestation to some extent. He should beware of that. I do not want to go back to the time when we asked our workers to use shovels and spades only but let us not behave as we did when we started to reconstruct our roads after the emergency period when we introduced a great quantity of machinery. The Minister says he now proposes to do somewhat the same so that we can carry out afforestation on a more economic basis. That sort of economy can be carried too far if workers and their families are displaced—and the Minister suggested that they might be displaced. We can force them to look for other employment in Britain.

If these machines were made here I should not mind but they are not made in Wexford, Dundalk, Waterford or Dublin. The Minister proposes to import them from Britain, Germany or the United States. The manufacture of these machines gives employment to workers in Britain, Germany or in the United States and they will be used here to displace Irish workers, as happened in the case of the roads where they displaced thousands of Irish workers who, strangely enough, had to go to Britain or some other country to find employment. That is a daft sort of economy. Let me qualify that by saying that I am not against progress but I do not like too rapid progress which disrupts family life. I do not like the type of economic progress which displaces workers and their families. Unfortunately, I suppose the case is that we have Irishmen now in Britain constructing machines to be sent back here to work in our forests or on our roads and displace more Irishmen. That may not be entirely a matter for the Minister but I think it is something he should consider before he engages in any scheme of rapidly introducing machinery in afforestation.

I suggest that the Minister can do a tremendous amount to alleviate unemployment and emigration in this country. Forestry and the employment given in forestry can do that. If we are to have any confidence at all I think that we should have confidence in the industrial revival and we should also have confidence in our ability to provide for those people who have no employment at the present time. I can visualise the time, if we proceed as we are proceeding now, when we shall have factories in this country and no manpower to operate them. These people in the rural areas who are now being unemployed by the too rapid introduction of machinery are the people whom we expect to man the factories but if we do not cater for them now they will be forced to emigrate to Great Britain where they can get steady jobs. They will stay in those jobs, rear their families in Britain and never come back to this country.

I would appeal to the Minister to ensure, as far as he can, that there will be continuity of employment in forestry. I know it is difficult. I know that the type of work is seasonal and that it is divided into two or three parts of the year but seasonal work is not good enough for any worker. If he cannot get security of employment he will emigrate. He wants twelve months' work in the year and it is not sufficient to say to him that he got seven months' work last year and will get another seven months this year.

None of us would like it if we were told that we were to be paid for only eleven months in the year. No civil servant and no shop assistant would be satisfied with that. The Minister should try to ensure that there will be continuity in forestry work and that there will be the security of 12 months' employment. Men are being laid off in the forests. I do not say that it is a mass lay off but in forests like Camolin, Ballybrennan, and Curracloe in my constituency men are being laid off in twos and threes. These men cannot afford to be out of work for two or three weeks; that is why we are losing Irish workers in this country.

There is no one in this country who can afford to be idle for two or three weeks and forced to have recourse to the employment exchange. These men must seek employment elsewhere. They cannot get it in the towns or on the land. They cannot get it in the agricultural industry as farmers do not need labour on the land any more because they have got fancy machinery which was not bought in this country. The worker who is laid off for two or three weeks has to travel to Rosslare or Dún Laoghaire and go across to get work in Cardiff, Liverpool, Birmingham or London.

That is the reason I asked the Minister to try to ensure that through planting, thinning and roadmaking a man will get 12 months' employment every year. If we do get to the stage where we shall have factories and industries established in this country then we will have the manpower, the men who work at present in the forests or in any other type of State employment. The important thing is to keep those men in the country so that when we want them they will be here.

I was disappointed to hear in the Minister's speech that, despite the progress he speaks about and the fact that we have provided much more money for afforestation, there was an increase of only slightly over 100 workers employed in the year 1959-60 as compared with the year 1958-59. That is not a tremendous increase and it shows the effects of a too rapid introduction of machinery into this industry. I am not against progress or against the introduction of machinery but in our circumstances, where we have such a big unemployment problem, we should try to guard against such a situation. The Minister boasted, and rightly so, that we have achieved the target we set ourselves of 25,000 acres. I wonder would he say whether or not we are to rest on that figure of 25,000 acres or if there is any prospect of increasing it or whether it would be wise to increase that level?

Lastly, I want the Minister to investigate a particular complaint made to me. It has nothing to do with the general policy or general administration of the Department, but it has to do with the Camolin forest. I am informed that, when a number of men were laid off recently, it was the ordinary labouring man who was sacked and those retained were people who had some property. They were not men who could be regarded as big farmers or even middling fair-sized farmers but they had some land and they had some resources. One of them, or his people, had a shop. Those who were laid off had nothing at all and had to make application for unemployment benefit. Some had to leave the country and go to Great Britain. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to report this matter to the Minister for investigation. These complaints were made to me and I can only give them to the Minister for what they are worth.

In conclusion I should like to say a few words of encouragement to the Minister by telling him to go ahead as rapidly as other Ministers have done for the past four, or five or even ten years. Forestry work is the only hope of employment that there is in the rural areas. If the Minister believes that our target should be greater than the 25,000 acres we have achieved, he should push on up to 30,000 acres or whatever figure he believes right having regard to the possibility of disposing of the timber we plant. This work gives valuable employment in rural areas.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I do not think anyone will disagree with the opinion of the last speaker that there is considerable employment in afforestation. As I see it, the policy of the Forestry Division is to acquire and plant 25,000 acres every year. If in the next ten years, they acquire 25,000 acres of land every year they will have a quarter of a million acres under their control in that period. I do not know how much land the Forestry Division already has but I would like the House to consider whether it is desirable that the State should acquire land and hold it in perpetuity.

I would very much favour the idea that the State should acquire land, afforest it and lease it to private individuals or local authorities. There is nothing new in that idea. It is a policy that has been adopted in other countries. Some people favour State control of everything. I do not think that that makes for a satisfactory or business-like arrangement or efficiency. It is very desirable that there should be private afforestation to augment State afforestation. In the past there was considerable private enterprise in relation to forestry. The private individual works at a disadvantage. The State does not pay rates or income tax and if it had to pay these charges would do so by an annual provision in the Budget. A satisfactory forestry policy necessitates private, enterprise side by side with extensive State afforestation.

In other countries, where I have had an opportunity of studying forestry, it is the exception rather than the rule for the State to hold on to land. In France, Germany and the United Kingdom the forestry departments act as advisers and stimulators in regard to afforestation. They take over estates which they plant and lease to persons who satisfy the Departmental inspectors as to their efficiency in carrying out State policy in regard to afforestation. I have often suggested to Ministers through Parliamentary Questions that such a policy might be adopted here but the answer has always been in the negative.

As a member of a Government that is dedicated to private enterprise, as we have heard so often from Ministers of this Government, does the Minister think it desirable that there should be such a big takeover of land by the State and that it should be held for all time by a Department? I do not see anything in the Minister's speech to indicate any change in that policy. I would ask him, when replying to the debate, to refer to the suggestion I have made and to indicate why he thinks it is not feasible.

There are extensive forests in France. Admittedly, there is a terrific demand for timber there. The forests are owned by the local authorities or municipalities. Of course the system of Government in France is based on local authorities. The fact that the forests are owned by the local authorities means that there is continuous employment available locally. In this country the majority of men who work in State forests for nine months of the year and who are then disemployed go to England. There is no alternative for them. In France the forests are planted, tended and thinned and the hardwood is harvested by the local authority and sold in the villages and towns. That helps to maintain continuous employment.

I cannot envisage a central Department in Dublin carrying out such a system. It would not be possible for them to do so. There would have to be staff, experts and advisers on the spot all the time. Therefore, the Minister should seriously consider a policy of decentralisation. The basis of any scheme like that would have to be the local authorities.

I do not see how any private person in Ireland can be expected to be enthusiastic about planting. It may be possible to get people interested in planting an acre of forest or a shelter belt with the grants that they get. If a private person plants an extensive forest, hardwood will lock up his investment for 120 years and softwood will lock it up for six years. For 60 years he will pay rates and income tax on the land. Is it likely that a farmer who has 20 or 30 acres of land on which timber was cut during the emergency or at some other time, will reafforest it? Is there any encouragement for him to do so? The Minister may reply that he will get a grant. The man will get no return from it in his lifetime. It is recognised that a person plants timber for those who come after him. If a person plants timber for posterity and for the nation, it is rather hard luck that he should have to pay rates and income tax on it. If there were some arrangements made between the Minister in charge of forests and the Minister for Finance whereby lands under timber would be freed from these charges, it would be an incentive to private afforestation and once private afforestation starts on any scale it will advance generally throughout the country.

Deputy Blowick dealt with the sale of timber. Although I know a little about the sale of timber I do not claim to be an expert on the subject. I do know that the international market for timber is as uncertain as it could possibly be. That has been the condition of affairs for some years. If the State spends huge sums of money in planting 25,000 acres a year, while other State forests are maturing, there must be some guarantee of a remunerative return. That applies also to private forests. The Minister said that the market for timber is satisfactory. That is not my personal experience as a person who has timber on his own land nor is it the experience of other people, who told me they can find no such market. They can find a market for one or two trees but for extensive supplies of timber there is none.

I should like the Minister, therefore, to tell the House what is the policy of the Department in this regard. Does it intend, as is apparent from the Minister's opening remarks, to go on planting extensively? Both the State and individuals have over the years been planting timber to a greater extent than before, particularly since we established our own Government over 40 years ago. There is a great deal of timber maturing and, as time goes on, there will be more and more maturing. Has the Forestry Division any long-term policy in that regard? I have made inquiries on many occasions about pulp for the manufacture of newspaper, and I have been told it would be uneconomic. I have been told we have not enough timber with which to supply factories, that the amount of newsprint we import would not be sufficient to maintain factories in production. I have been told it would not be economic because the United Kingdom imports the major portion of her timber from Canada and other sources. I would ask the Minister to tell us what is the general policy in regard to timber, whether there is a market and whether he has made arrangements to deal with the situation which must become more acute every year.

I asked the Minister a question this week as to the amount of land available in Wexford. The answer was that there were 8,000 acres available in 174 different lots; he said it would not be feasible to give the dates of offer, how long it had been there and when it was proposed to take over the land. The Minister also said—I allow for the fact he was a little heated when he said it—I did not want the Forestry Division to take over land. If the Minister looked up the records he would find that on several occasions I have brought estates to the Forestry Division whenever I have been asked to do so. There is some complicated machinery operating in the Department of Lands over the years whereby it is impossible to acquire forestry land within a reasonable period. Working with all the expedition that the Minister's officials can command, it takes twelve months to take over land. With regard to estates I have been asked to bring to the Forestry Division, not one of them was taken over within twelve months.

I appreciate the difficulty of the Forestry Division in acquiring land. It is their policy to plant 25,000 acres a year. If there are 8,000 acres of land on offer in Wexford it is a fair assumption that there are thousands of acres on offer in other counties. Is there no means by which the Minister and his Department can expedite the taking over of land? I have a case in mind—it did not arise during his tenure of office so that he need not become angry as he is inclined to do when any criticism is offered——

Mr. Moran

I assure the Deputy I shall not become angry.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Bord Fáilte offered the Courtown Estate in Wexford to the Forestry Division. It took eight years for them to take it over. People who were waiting for a job had to emigrate because of the delay which was due to some legal quibble over a few houses on the estate. That is an exceptional case but the fact that one estate like that could cause such trouble indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the system being operated. It is an antiquated system which up to now nobody has been able to break. I submit the Minister can break it if he accepts what I say. If he sends for the file on the Courtown Estate he will appreciate my complaint about the unnecessary delay which occurs. Although that may be an exceptional case, I do not know any instance where the Forestry Division has ever taken over an estate, freely offered by the farmer, under twelve months.

The Minister and his officials may think I am speaking here merely for the purpose of lambasting them. My sole desire is to promote employment and I agree with what Deputy Corish said. Continuity of employment is essential if we are to avoid emigration. People have given up in despair waiting for estates to be taken over. It should not be impossible to evolve a new system for the more expeditious transfer of land. There was at one time—I do not know if it still exists in the Department—the idea that land could not be taken over if it was not near what was known as a forestry centre. I do not think that applies in modern conditions. It probably did apply 30 or 40 years ago when we had not available the transport we have to-day. The assumption is that every forester has a motor car. I think that is a safe assumption. Surely it should be possible to take over 20 or 30 acres of land eight or ten miles from a forestry centre and have it supervised by the forestry officer using his motor car to travel backwards and forwards?

These are some suggestions I make in relation to forestry. I hope the Minister, when replying, will deal with the question of delay in the taking over of land and say whether or not it is the policy of the Forestry Division to go on acquiring land and hold it in perpetuity for itself. Or is it the intention to encourage private enterprise and local development on the lines of the policy adopted in every other country in which I have had an opportunity of studying forestry schemes?

Mr. T. Lynch

At the outset, I appeal to the Minister to take my criticism in the spirit in which it is offered. There are certain suggestions I should like to make. The Minister is a member of the legal profession. That is a good qualification in a Minister for Lands. One of the matters which has been a source of complaint both in the House and outside it is the legal delays. I am convinced that the Minister is just as anxious to make a success of his Department as any former Minister was. Indeed, he may try to better what his predecessors have done. I deplore the Minister attacking his predecessors just as much as I deplore the Minister's predecessors attacking him.

I know that lands have been offered in various parts of my county for afforestation purposes. I have asked several Parliamentary questions about these lands. I have always got the same reply. The lands are scattered; the lands are not of an acreage which would make acquisition attractive. Lands have been offered to the Minister in the neighbourhood of Cheekpoint. I hope they will be taken over, if they have not already been taken over.

In every county there are lands which farmers would be prepared to sell at the price the Minister's Department would be prepared to pay. If they are not prepared to sell at that price, there is no need for the Minister's officials to waste any time on them. I suggest the Minister should initiate a drive to take over the lands offered as speedily as possible. I suggest he does that county by county. I further suggest he send his officials into the county, advertising their advent in the local Press and inviting those who wish to sell lands to furnish all the particulars. Having the officials resident in the area for a certain period is bound to have more beneficial results than fleeting inspections. There is a tendency, if land is sold to the Minister's Department, for neighbouring farmers to ask for shocking prices for their lands. There is a way of dealing with these. They can be offered a reasonable price and, if they do not accept it, they can be told their lands will not be bought for a period of years. In the interim they will be hollering after their local Deputies to appeal to the Minister on their behalf.

Deputy Corish is evidently jealous of some of the Wexford land that is being planted. I want to encroach a little on Deputy Corish's and Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde's bailiwick. Great heights surround the estuary of the Suir. Where the heights have been planted the effect is magnificent, but unfortunately there are several very bare patches. If these were planted— the wastelands in Cheekpoint and around Minawn, which is a very famous hill on the Waterford side, and on the Wexford side—the scheme would be truly magnificent from a scenic point of view alone.

Deputy Blowick referred to the enormous output from our forests in the years to come. He suggested the Minister should make preparation now for absorbing this output. In loyalty to my own constituency, I suggest a great deal of this timber could be turned into chipboard. The Minister mentioned the chipboard factory of Scariff and said that the factory gets its supplies from the local forests. That is excellent, but we should also consider the case for this second chipboard factory in Waterford. There are many forests in Waterford, Tipperary, Kilkenny and Wexford. Many of them are approaching thinning. It would be an excellent idea to have a chipboard factory which would absorb these thinnings.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 21st June, 1960.