The discussion on this Estimate has been more protracted than I thought it would be. I have been rather surprised at some of the misconceptions, both as to policy and fact that have emerged during the debate. At all events, I hope to deal with the various points raised by the different speakers as I proceed. I should have thought, generally speaking, that the policy of my Department as far as afforestation is concerned was more widely understood in this House and outside, and consequently I was rather surprised to hear some Deputies, including Deputy Esmonde, suggest that my Department were interested only in getting land in the immediate vicinity of established forest areas. Of course, that is not so. That may have been the case some ten or 15 years ago, but that position cannot arise now because forestry is established in so many areas throughout the country that the situation has completely changed.
My Department are now anxious and willing to accept land in virtually any part of the country where it is on offer. It would be the very rare case indeed where an offer of land would be turned down for the considerations suggested here by Deputy Esmonde and some other Deputies. I do not know how this misconception has arisen. It was necessary for me some time ago to make it clear that it was the Department's intention to try to acquire any land suitable for forestry in the vicinity of established forest blocks, and I had to issue a warning that grants for private planting were subject to my approval and that people who were purchasing land in the vicinity of forest block build-ups would be well advised first to inquire whether grants would be available.
It is incorrect for Deputies to suggest — I think it was again Deputy Esmonde who suggested this — that grants would not be available for the re-planting of old woodlands that were clear felled by private individuals in the vicinity of State forest blocks. That is not so. What I did make clear was that some of the people who have come along to make what I call speculative investment in forestry by purchasing suitable forest land in the vicinity of forest blocks might not qualify for the grants available for planting these areas.
Some shrewd businessmen did proceed some time ago to endeavour to buy land in the vicinity of forest blocks where they could take advantage both of State forest fencing and of State forest roads. It was to these people that I issued the warning some time ago to the effect that in areas where suitable land was available for forestry, my Department would be interested in acquiring it and that those people who were purchasing land for the express purpose of afforestation in the immediate vicinity of State forests did so at their own risk as far as qualifying for the grants available from my Department for private planting was concerned. I hope there is now no question of people who do clear felling of old woodlands being refused any of the facilities available from my Department. The people I did refer to were those who expected grants from the Department when competing for suitable forest land in the immediate vicinity of State forests.
I also wish to emphasise that where land is available anywhere in the country suitable for forestry, my Department are interested in it, and while it is true that there were delays between inspection and acquisition, these delays are now virtually eliminated. I hope to achieve further improvement in that field during this coming year as we are now engaged in a reorganisation of our forces, with particular reference to concentrating on the counties where the big forestry potential is, mainly west of the Shannon.
I realise there were delays between inspection and offer. That was inevitable until we got the staff geared to deal with the new intensified afforestation programme. It has been a big jump to achieve planting at the rate of 25,000 acres a year, and it was inevitable that there would be a certain amount of delay before we had the machine geared to deal with an acquisition programme that would ensure we would have enough land to achieve that planting programme. I think I can now say that we have the organisation to deal with the new situation and I confidently hope that this time next year, we will not have the complaints we formerly had about the delay between inspection and offer.
I want to refer at this stage to the question of private planting which was raised by a number of Deputies and to finish with it. I dealt with it in my opening statement and while it is true to say that we can claim to have achieved a 100 per cent. increase due to the campaign we have launched, I am not at all satisfied with the figures. I have come to the conclusion that the main forestry drive in this country must be carried out by State services. In my view, part of the reason for our failure is the system of farming we have here, the system of land tenure, as distinct from the picture of some of the countries to which Deputy Esmonde referred.
There is nothing in this field that both I and the Department have not tried to induce people to do more private planting. We have gone from county to county with intensive campaigns in which I and the officers of my Department took part. We got all the rural organisations to participate in the forestry drive for private planting. We arranged lectures in conjunction with the local committees of agriculture. We did everything we could possibly think of doing to try to make people more forestry conscious. Indeed, in the west we reduced the minimum acreage to qualify for a grant from one acre to half an acre, to try to induce the small man to plant that waste half acre of marginal land which might be available on his small holding.
The claim that we have achieved a 100 per cent. increase on previous figures on private planting is of course infinitesimal in comparison with the planting that is being done by the Department throughout the country. I fully concede that I have got the utmost co-operation from all rural organisations, and from the local Press, in the different counties in which we engaged in those campaigns.
While with those campaigns we did succeed in making the different counties forestry conscious and, indeed, in that way we gained another benefit in that we got more land in on the State side for the purposes of the Department, I agree that the national figures are disappointing, and notwithstanding the inducements offered, I do not foresee that there will be a great improvement on the private planting side.
As some Deputies have said, very few of the old estates are left on which there are large areas of woodland. Most, if not all, of the large estates west of the Shannon have now been acquired by the Land Commission and split up and divided, with the exception of the portions of the old estates that have gone to the Forestry Division. The whole national scene has changed and, therefore, I think it is unrealistic to compare figures for private planting here with, for instance, figures for private planting in Britain where there is still the old landlord system, with large estates and large areas of privately-owned plantations.
Neither is it realistic to compare the figures in this country with countries like Turkey, Greece or the Scandinavian countries in some of which countries forests are indigenous and there has been natural regeneration over hundreds and hundreds of years. For instance, the general picture in the Scandinavian countries is that where an individual farmer may have only eight or ten hectares of what we call arable land, he has something like 300 acres of forest which he regards both as a bank and a system of insurance. He rarely draws on that 300 acres of forest to fell except in a case of emergency, if his wife gets ill, or he wants to buy a new tractor, or some such purpose.
We found in those countries that one of the great national difficulties is to get people to cut the trees when they should be cut because, like farmers all over, they are rather conservative, and even though the trees have reached maturity, even though they have reached the age of 85 to 100 years, the farmer is rather inclined not to cut them so that his family will inherit them and he will keep intact what he regards as the family fortune. Campaigns are being conducted in those countries in an endeavour to get the farmers to fell and clear the trees when they should be cleared.
The nearest comparison I could give the House is that if all our commonages, as we understand them here, were planted and had been under afforestation for generations past, different people who have undivided shares in these commonages now would in the same way have undivided shares in the woodlands planted on those commonages. That is the picture abroad and, therefore, as I say, it is unrealistic to try to relate our local conditions here with conditions in those countries. Not for many generations to come, not until we have all our marginal land, mountains and commonages planted as they are planted in most of the countries to which I have referred, will there be by planting and natural regeneration in those areas, a continuous crop of forests coming in from generation to generation.
Someone complained that only £25,000 is being provided for private afforestation in this Estimate. That is true, but we should be very glad to spend double or treble that amount if we could get the people to take advantage of the schemes which are there. As I have said, while the results show that private planting has doubled, the results from the national point of view are disappointing, particularly in view of the fact that very many more people are availing of the advisory service.
As Deputies are aware, there is an advisory service in the Department at the beck and call of anyone who wants advice on private planting but, notwithstanding the reports they got from experts in the Department that their marginal lands were suitable for planting, the vast majority did not proceed to plant. So, while I subscribe to what has been said on all sides of the House as to the reasons why it is good business, both for themselves and their children, for private individuals to plant I still feel that, due to our system of land tenure here, and due to the lack of a forestry tradition amongst the people, we will have a considerable time to wait before we get private planting up to the level which we all desire.
On the question of economics, the question of investment and return, which was raised by some Deputies, I should like to point out to the House that there is no question whatsoever about the soundness of the economics of forestry in this country. I was very glad to see, for instance, that Norway spruce, growing in its native habitat, at the age of 85 to 100 years had only about the same volume of hoppus feet as our pine or spruce at the age of 45 years.
It is quite clear that due to our sun and rain, our mild climate and long period of growth, we do and will produce at double the rate of growth of the Scandinavian countries. As far as I can study the figures, we produce a rate of growth here approximating treble the rate of growth in Canada. Therefore we are in the position now to produce after 40 to 45 years' growth as big a volume of timber as can be produced in what is regarded as the home of timber, the Scandinavian countries, after 85 years. The big demand for timber now is in relation to pulp for both chemical and other purposes. Undoubtedly that demand will grow from year to year and indeed every single year new uses appear to be found for different derivatives from pulp or from timber, plastics and other similar materials. The market will be expanding and ultimately, as far as we can judge, the market will be unlimited.
Deputy Esmonde asked if we were aware of the amount of timber imported into western European countries. If we had sufficient pulp produced here today, there is a market for it even in the Scandinavian countries. Even Norway and Sweden import and export pulp for different industrial uses. Therefore, on the economics of this whole matter, the State investment, high as it is, and it certainly is high, is a sound economic investment. Outside the different considerations of our balance of payments problems, of providing employment here through the side industries and the employment now provided, the State investment will well repay the taxpayer when the forests start to come to maturity.