Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1964

Vol. 210 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 36—Lands.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,744,830 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, 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission.

I propose to take Votes 36 and 37 together this year for the first time and, as generally arranged, I shall deal with both Estimates in this opening address so as to permit a combined discussion. Vote 37 will be formally moved after the motion in respect of Vote 36 has been put, when the debate concludes.

Vote 36, Lands, shows a net increase of £241,460 compared with last year. I shall first of all refer to the salient features of the Estimate, with particular reference to those items which reflect a significant change from last year's provision, and follow with a short review of the main activities of the Land Commission during the year ended 31st March last.

In the Book of Estimates, as published, subhead A, which provides for salaries, wages and allowances, shows a decrease of £11,465 compared with last year. This is largely attributable to normal retirements and replacement by staff at lower points of salary scales. The establishment strength remains unchanged. I should point out, however, that the published figures do not reflect the increase provided for the Civil Service under the ninth round salary and wage agreement, effective from 1st February last, application of which will mean an increase of the order of £97,000 in the provision under Subhead A for the current financial year.

Subhead B is in two parts this year. Part 1 relates mostly to expenses for travelling and subsistence arising from the inspection, survey and division of lands under the Land Acts. It also provides for incidental and miscellaneous expenses, such as advertisements etc. The increase of £2,700 this year is largely due to an anticipated increase in travelling expenses in connection with land settlement operations.

The second part of subhead B is a new item. In previous years, only such Post Office services as telephones, telegrams and foreign postage were separately provided for in Part 1 of the Estimate, other services, that is, inland postage charges, handling of stores and miscellaneous items, being shown without recoupment in the "allied services" in Part 11. This year, subhead B.2 provides for actual payment to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for all services rendered by the Department. The total amount required this year, under the general heading of Post Office Services, is £46,000; the corresponding amount for last year was approximately £38,000.

Subhead D represents the taxpayers' contribution in the current year towards the service of land purchase debt, accumulated, since 1923, on both tenanted and untenanted land. The moneys in this subhead are in the nature of statutory commitments. The total contribution this year, namely £989,950, constitutes about one-third of the entire net Estimate.

Of the total subhead provision, more than £843,000 is required to make good deficiencies in the Land Bond Fund arising from the statutory halving of annuities under the Land Act, 1933. The overall increase of £24,200 in subhead D this year is attributable almost entirely to the halving of purchase instalments payable by new allottees as land settlement continues.

I should mention that in anticipation of the passing of the Land Bill, 1963, section 23, a sum of £10 is included in subhead D this year to meet deficiencies arising from the application of the Statute of Limitations, 1957. The purpose of the provision is to prevent annuities which have lapsed by reason of the operation of section 24 of the Statute of Limitations, from remaining a charge on the ratepayers and to enable any resultant deficits to be defrayed out of central funds. A number of annuities payable out of holdings situated mainly on remote islands are becoming affected by the Statute of Limitations, 1957.

Subhead G this year, consists of four separate items and I think it would be as well if I dealt with each of these individually. In former years, the first part of subhead G related to the purchase of land by the Land Commission for cash in the open market under section 27, Land Act, 1950. As Deputies know, such transactions are as yet confined to lands required for migrants' holdings or to facilitate the rearrangement of fragmented holdings. A sum of £185,000 was estimated for these purchases last year and actual expenditure amounted to £196,199. In all, 23 properties, comprising 2,773 acres, were purchased for cash under Section 27 during the year ended 31st March last. The corresponding figures for the previous year were 29 properties, aggregating 2,231 acres, total expenditure amounting to £182,279.

Deputies will be aware that section 44 of the Land Bill, 1963, envisages the elimination of the restrictive application of section 27 of the Land Act, 1950 so that, following the enactment of the Bill, lands purchased for cash will not be confined to the limited purposes of providing migrants' holdings and facilitating rearrangement of fragmented holdings. Moreover, as the House knows, section 6 of the Bill provides that where elderly, incapacitated or blind persons voluntarily sell their interest in land to the Land Commission, the Land Commission may, at the option of the vendor, and in lieu of payment in cash in whole or in part of the purchase price, provide the vendor with a life annuity. In anticipation of the passing of the Land Bill, 1963, therefore, provision is being made for the proposed expanded application of section 27 of the Land Act, 1950, and for payment of life annuities on the lines mentioned. This explains the increased provision of £85,000 under item 1 of subhead G for the current year.

The second part of subhead G is a new item which also anticipates the passing of the Land Bill, 1963. Section 5 of the Bill will enable the Land Commission to make loans to progressive farmers in congested areas for the purchase of viable farms of their choice, subject to making their existing lands available to the Land Commission for land settlement purposes. As the relevant statutory proposals were recently debated here at some length, it is scarcely necessary to go into any further details at this stage. Estimated requirements for the current year are £30,000 but any expenditure will, of course, be contingent on the enactment of the Land Bill.

The remaining items included under subhead G do not call for much comment. A provision of £10,000, which is at the same level as last year, is being made for the payment in cash of compensation for tenancy interests resumed on the small outstanding residue of Congested Districts Board estates. The final item relates to payment by the Land Commission of auctioneers' commission on relevant purchases of land for cash and land bonds. This matter was fully explained on the occasion of its original introduction to the Lands Vote last year. The relevant provision for 1963-64 was £20,000 and expenditure was slightly in excess of £25,000. For the current year, it is expected that £25,000 will be required.

Subhead H makes provision for the payment of gratuities, pursuant to section 29 of the Land Act, 1950, to persons displaced from employment on estates taken over by the Land Commission for distribution. Last year, gratuities totalling £9,532 were paid to 45 ex-employees—an average of £212 each. In all, from the passing of the Land Act, 1950, to 31st March, 1964, a total of 324 displaced employees have received gratuities aggregating £46,678. Displaced employees who are deemed competent to work land are automatically considered for allotments; indeed, this is only right and proper. If they are not considered suitable for allotments, however, they become eligible for a cash gratuity, depending on such factors as length of service, personal and family circumstances and availability of alternative employment. An accurate forecast of likely commitments under Subhead H in any particular year is difficult, being dependent on the level of Land Commission acquisition activity and the extent to which workmen are displaced from their employment as a result of the Land Commission's operations. Present indications, however, stemming from the acceleration of the acquisition sector, are that a sum of £11,000 will be required for the current year, and provision is being made accordingly. This represents an increase of £3,000 as compared with last year.

Subhead I, for the most part, provides the funds required to meet the cost of improvement works on estates being divided by the Land Commission. These works, which are an essential feature of land settlement, include the erection of dwellinghouses and out-offices; the provision of access roads, fencing and drainage; provision of water supply for domestic and stock requirements; turbary development; repair and maintenance of embankments and so on. The expenditure incurred on such works each year is inevitably heavy: in fact, it invariably accounts for more than a quarter of the entire Estimate.

The amount provided under subhead I last year was £790,000, of which £725,114 was expended, including £325,848 on building projects. It was planned to spend about £380,000 on buildings but unexpected difficulties and delays arose in getting smaller lots of buildings set to contract. This occurred especially in Leinster, through the high level of general building activity. The various estate improvement works provided employment for about 660 workmen in the course of the year and their wage bill aggregated £292,000. The continued application of work study techniques to general estate improvements and the operation of an incentive bonus scheme for Land Commission workmen have resulted in a significant increase in productivity in recent years. In terms of money, this increased productivity represents a net saving of over £35,000 on Land Commission improvements works during the past financial year after allowing for bonus payments totalling £38,500 to the workers.

For the current financial year, the amount proposed under subhead I is £850,000, which represents about 28 per cent of the entire Estimate. There is an increase of £60,000 over last year's provision, including about £35,000 to meet the cost of the ninth round wage increase for Land Commission labourers and tradesmen. As land settlement expands in line with the continued impetus on the acquisition side, the need for estate improvements works grows, giving rise to additional expenditure. However, I have no doubt that the importance of and the resultant benefits from these works, in the context of land settlement, will commend themselves, especially to rural Deputies who, I think, will agree that any curtailment in the Land Commission's housing and general estate improvements programme would be undesirable.

Grants for the preservation and improvement of game resources are provided for under subhead L. As is generally known by now, these grants are made, within the funds available, to assist approved game development schemes formulated by local organisations representative of all appropriate interests and are confined to assisting locally organised direct improvement schemes formulated by local organisations representative of all appropriate interests and are confined to assisting locally organised direct improvement schemes which hold promise of worthwhile practical results and which are backed by efficient local organisation and initiative. The schemes include provision for vermin destruction, that is, the control of predators, other than foxes. Grants are also made available for game-farms and for general restocking purposes. I want to emphasise once more, however, that the major part of the expenditure must be provided locally: my objective is to provide encouragement and incentive for local initiative.

Last year, a sum of £25,000 was provided under subhead L. In the course of the year, grants totalling £21,920 were made to assist schemes involving an aggregate expenditure of £42,000. In addition, grants amounting to some £3,000, applicable to some of the previous year's schemes, also fell due for payment. By 31st March, 1964, the financial provision for the year was fully expended and outstanding approved grants, together with any supplementary grants, which may arise, will fall to be paid in the current year. To meet such commitments and in anticipation of a greater volume of game development schemes, provision under subhead L is being increased this year to £30,000.

This is the fourth year of active State participation in game development and, while I am glad to say that good progress has been made in many respects, much still remains to be done at both local and national level. Nevertheless, I feel that the progress already made justifies a broader view of the objectives of game development and that the attraction of sportsmen from abroad can now be included in these objectives with resultant benefits, at both local and national levels. In reconciling the legitimate claims of native sportsmen with the provision of attractive sporting facilities for tourists, some practical difficulties will doubtless arise; but I am convinced that no real conflict of interest exists and that, given goodwill and understanding all round, these difficulties can be resolved.

The majority of the 24 regional game councils established to date are doing good practical work in a spirit of mutual understanding and co-operation of all local interests. I trust that this example will provide a headline for the few remaining counties. However, my repeated appeals for an end to faction and mutual suspicion in the sphere of game development planning on a national basis have not so far been as fruitful as I wish.

Having explained in some detail the major items of the Lands Estimate, I feel that the few remaining items— which are either unchanged from last year or else merely token provisions— do not call for any specific comment by me. However, should Deputies wish to obtain further information or clarification as regards any of them, I shall be glad to furnish it when I am replying to the debate.

As the House has been afforded— and will continue for some time to have—ample scope for discussion of various aspects of the Land Commission's operations, I feel that the customary detailed account of these activities is not called for this year. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to a very brief summary of the main results for the year ended 31st March last.

On the acquisition side, the total area inspected exceeded 102,000 acres, while the area for which compulsory proceedings or voluntary negotiations were instituted was approximately 55,000 acres. An aggregate area of some 36,800 acres was taken over by the Land Commission for division and at 31st March last the total area in the machine was in the region of 69,000 acres. As regards land distribution, a total area of over 34,000 acres was divided amongst some 1,650 allottees, including the provision of 95 fully-equipped new holdings for migrants and the rearrangement of some 430 fragmented holdings. In all, 158 new dwelling-houses and 261 new out-offices were provided for tenants and allottees during the year. A total of about 3,600 holdings, parcels and rights of turbary was revested in tenant purchasers and allottees in the course of the year. The collection of land annuities continues satisfactory: out of a collectable total of £2,686,952 for the year, the amount actually collected at 31st March, 1964, was £2,557,122.

I regard the results which I have just outlined as very satisfactory, particularly in the sphere of acquisition which will ensure continued progress in land settlement in the immediate future.

Turning to the Forestry Vote, Deputies will note that the Grant-in-Aid for the Acquisition of Land, subhead C.1, shows a decrease of £200,000. The only significant variations in other expenditure subheads are increases as follows:—

	£
Subhead C.2—Forest Development and Management	21,350
Subheads A, B1 and B2—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, Travelling and Incidental Expenses and Post Office Services	58,590
Subhead G—John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park	50,000

The decrease in the gross Estimate is £55,600. The Estimate provision for Appropriations-in-Aid, subhead H, is up by £106,000 leaving the net Estimate lower by £161,600 than in 1963-64.

I should like to deal first with a new subhead G—John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park. Shortly after the tragic death of the former President of the United States of America, a group of Irish-American Organisations came together to establish a fund to finance a fitting memorial to the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the land of his ancestors. It was decided that this would take the form of a Memorial Park incorporating an Arboretum and Forest Garden. The American group aimed at a target of 100,000 dollars and have already donated 50,000 dollars as a first instalment. The Government have indicated, on behalf of the Irish people, their willingness to meet the cost of the project in so far as it exceeds the American contribution.

It is proposed to provide the money necessary for the project in the Forestry Vote and provision of £50,000 has been made in respect of the current year. Receipts from the American societies are being treated as Exchequer extra receipts and will not, therefore, be offset against expenditure in the Forestry Vote.

Apart from our natural desire to support the American project to honour the late President, there has long been need for a full-scale arboretum, as now envisaged, in this country. This is a project that it would have been necessary to undertake sooner or later and the action of the American societies has provided the impetus.

I feel sure that Deputies on both sides of the House will join with me in welcoming the initiative which resulted in this arboreal tribute and will support the decision of the Government that the State would financially underwrite the success of the project.

Subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—shows an increase of £24,840 on the provision for 1963-64. The rise in requirements is due mainly to increase in forester staff, together with the usual allowances for incremental expenses. The Estimate was framed prior to the agreement on the ninth round of pay increases and does not, therefore, provide for these increases.

Subhead B1—Travelling and Incidental expenses—are £9,450 higher than the provision for 1963-64. The entire increase is attributable to increased travelling and subsistence costs arising from the steady expansion of the area of the State forests and the resulting increase in field staff requirements.

Subhead B2 is a new subhead providing exclusively for Post Office services. The direct provision for such services in 1963/64 was £5,900 which was included with incidental expenses. There is, therefore, an increase of £24,300 in the provision for these services in the current year. Of this increase, however, £22,900 is in respect of services formerly provided without repayment by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Subhead F—Agency, Advisory and Special Services—shows an increase of £12,820 over the amount provided for 1963-64.

In introducing the Estimate for 1963-64, I informed the House that subsequent to the framing of that Estimate, my Department had formalised arrangements with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards for the initiation of a programme of testing of Irish grown timber in the Institute's laboratories and that the costs for 1963-64 would be met by savings on other subheads of the Vote. In the current year's Estimate, specific provision is being made for the first time for this programme which is designed primarily to establish the mechanical properties of the tree species grown on a considerable scale in Ireland, and which will provide data of great use both in the development of markets for our future produce and in the settlement of forest management policies.

Subhead C.1—Acquisition of Land —is down by £200,000 but this does not indicate any curtailment in the land acquisition programme. The balance in the Grant-in-Aid fund on 31st March, 1964, was £264,900, so that a total of £384,900 will be available for land purchase within the year. The incoming balance was inflated because proceedings had not concluded for two large areas for which provision had been made in the 1963-64 Estimate.

The total area acquired for State forestry purposes in 1963-64 was 29,634 acres, of which about 26,000 acres were plantable. The area was acquired in 588 separate transactions —an average of 44 acres per acquisition, which is about the same as in 1962-63.

The effective plantable reserve at the end of 1963-64 was about 55,000 acres. While this represents an increase of some 3,000 acres on the reserve at the end of 1962-63, it is still insufficient and continues to give rise to management problems. Without an adequate reserve of land the programme of planting cannot be allocated on as wide a basis as is desirable. Consequently, stabilisation of employment is difficult and, with heavy concentrations of young plantations in some forests, the fire hazard is increased.

Further progress was made during 1963/64 in the advancement of land acquisition cases being handled under the Forestry Act, 1956. Proceedings were brought to a successful conclusion in four such cases involving an area of 422 acres. It is of interest to note that of 425 such cases on hand on 31st March, 1964, 2,984 interests were involved. This is indicative of how troublesome and time-consuming such acquisitions tend to be.

Despite the difficulties arising from the small average area of normal transactions and of the diversification of interests in commonage cases to which I have referred, my Department is pressing forward with all possible speed in its acquisition programme and the total availability of almost £385,000 for this year is an earnest of the Government's intention that the programme will not suffer through lack of funds.

A sum of £2,709,000 is being provided for subhead C.2—Forest Development and Management. This is an increase of £21,350 on the provision for 1963/64. Provision for labour represents, as usual, the major, part of the subhead. A total of £2,101,000 is being provided for labour. This is an increase of £20,500 on the provision for 1963-64. I wish to draw the attention of Deputies to the fact that the figure of £2,101,000 provided for labour does not include any provision in respect of the ninth round increase in basic pay.

Neither does it allow for the effect on operational costs of a pending reduction of the working hours of forestry labourers to 45 hours per week all the year round, whereas a 48 hour week was hitherto worked in Summer. Present indications are that the cost of the ninth round and of the reduction in working hours will make a Supplementary Estimate inevitable.

The provision for State forest nurseries at £226,000 is £11,500 greater than the estimate for 1963/64 and slightly less than the actual outturn of £226,393.

The provision for the establishment of plantations at £650,500 compares with a provision of £675,000 for 1963-64 and an actual outturn of £655,583.

The planting programme for 1963/64 totalled 25,940 acres and included 694 acres on State forest lands from which marketable crops had been removed. Planting was carried out on a further 930 acres of land, on which existing crops had been destroyed by fire.

By the end of 1963/64 the total planted area held by my Department had increased to 405,476 acres.

A further 25,000 acres are scheduled for planting this year. Planting will be as widely dispersed throughout the country as the level of land reserves held in the various areas allows. The western counties will continue to occupy a predominant place with a programme of almost 10,000 acres, 40 per cent of the entire national programme. Forestry development provides work for some 2,000, with a wage bill of over £800,000, in the western counties. There can be no doubt that opportunities for employment will continue to expand in these counties as land acquisition is accelerated and as crops planted in recent years reach productive stages of growth.

The provision for New Roads and Buildings—Head 3—is £488,500 compared with a provision of £450,750 in 1963-64 and an outturn of £438,406.

Some increase in road construction, over last year's figure of 191 miles completed, is expected and it is hoped to expedite the construction of official residences for forester staff.

A sum of £960,000 is being provided under Head 4 — General Forest Management — against £958,000 last year. Expenditure was £896,028 in 1963-64. There was a considerable reduction in the cost of grass cleaning during the year.

This head of subhead C.2, representing over one-third of the subhead, bears the cost of maintenance and protection in the State plantations. The extension of the State forest by some 25,000 acres per annum must inevitably increase the work of management and maintenance, including the cleaning of young plantations, repair of fences, drains and forest roads, pruning, fireline construction and so on. It is in anticipation that the savings achieved last year can be repeated in part in 1964-65, that the provision for forest management is being repeated at approximately the figure provided for that year.

The provision for Head 5—Timber Conversion—is £118,500. Provision for 1963-64 was £110,500 and actual outturn £113,649. £106,500 of the provision is in respect of labour. As the great bulk of forest produce is now sold standing, direct employment by the Forestry Division represents only a fraction of the total employment provided in felling and extraction.

Head (6) — Mechanical Equipment for Forest Development and Management—at £265,500 shows little change from last year's provision of £278,900.

A total of £2,101,000 is being provided in respect of Forest labour in 1964-65, against £2,098,000 in 1963-64. Actual outturn was £2,033,256, so that the provision for 1964-65 is almost £65,000 in excess of the actual 1963-64 expenditure.

The average weekly number of men in direct employment of my Department during 1963-64 was 4,773, against 4,663 during 1962-63.

Employment in 1964-65 is expected to average about 5,000 and I have already alluded to the probable need for a Supplementary Estimate to meet a wage-rise and reduction in working hours.

The provision for subhead D— Grants for Afforestation purposes—is the same as the figure for 1963-64 although actual expenditure in 1963-64 amounted to only £10,870. During that year, first instalments of grants were sanctioned in respect of newly-established plantations totalling 1,195 acres, a drop of over 1,000 acres on the previous year, the decrease being presumably associated with the very unfavourable weather in the winter of 1962-63.

The Department has continued its efforts to promote increased private planting during the past year. The Planting Grant Scheme was extensively advertised and lectures on tree planting were given at 23 centres during the planting season. The Department also co-operated with "Trees for Ireland" during the planting season just closed by providing a substantial subsidy in respect of each of a series of one acre demonstration plots which the organisation had planted throughout the country.

There are no significant changes in the provision for Sawmilling (Subhead C.3) and Forestry Education (Subhead E).

The total provision for receipts under Subhead H—Appropriations-in-Aid—at £684,000 is £106,000 more than the provision for 1963-64. Actual receipts for the latter year were £704,709—a record—so that we are, in fact, budgeting for some £20,000 less in the current year.

1963-64 receipts for Sales of Timber were very buoyant and it is in anticipation of continued buoyancy in the timber and pulpwood market that the provision for the current year was framed.

Last year's receipts of £647,349 for timber sales were the highest ever achieved by my Department. The total volume of material sold from State Forests in 1963-64 was about 6¾ million cubic feet of which about 2 million cubic feet was in the larger sizes that is of 8" quarter girth and upwards.

Revenue from Rents and Miscellaneous Receipts is expected to be on the same scale as for the past few years. An increase of about £5,000 is expected in Sawmill Receipts.

Over £20 million have now been invested in Irish State Forests and the present value of the investment is of the order of £45 million.

The greatest danger to our forests is fire. Last year almost 300 fires occurred in the vicinity of State forests. Watchfulness and hard work by forest staff, gardaí and voluntary workers prevented all but 10 per cent of these fires reaching State forests, but nonetheless over 130 acres of State plantations were destroyed. Every week news of further fires is being received. The protection of the State forest is the business of the entire community and I would close with an appeal for greater care by the public in this matter.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is probable that there will not be the usual lengthy debate on this Estimate this year because of the very great detail in which the Land Bill, 1963, was so closely examined. The debate on that Bill is likely to continue for some time.

It is extremely regrettable that the Minister for Lands should avail of every possible opportunity outside this House to use his eloquence in endeavouring to discredit the Opposition and, indeed, other Parties, who have opinions to express in relation to land policy. I want to assure the House that so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it is very far from our intentions to obstruct or to offer destructive criticism. We all realise that the Government have a great responsibility. The Opposition have an equal responsibility. When offering criticism of an Estimate or of the line of procedure adopted, we do so in order to make known our views as to what should be done.

The Minister for Lands has not helped to relieve the problem of congestion, which is his primary responsibility, by the unreasonable and very cheap type of speech in which he has indulged in recent weeks outside the House. We agree with the Minister when he says that it is the Government's duty to deal as effectively and efficiently as possible with the congestion problem but it is entirely wrong for him to say that there was an organised effort on the part of the Fine Gael Party, or, indeed, the Opposition in general, to obstruct his efforts in relation to this matter. That is unreasonable, and I hope that when this Estimate is passed and until such time as we get an opportunity of resuming the debate on the Land Bill, 1963, the Minister will cease his practice of availing of every opportunity outside this House to say that his efforts are being deliberately obstructed. That is not so.

I solemnly guarantee that to the Minister. This Bill is given the same close examination by this Party as any other Bill presented by any other Minister. We are as anxious as he is to assist in every way towards relieving congestion, but our policies for achieving it are different, particularly when it comes to some of the objectionable sections of the Bill. However, the least said about that until we have an opportunity of debating it, the better. I want to make this final reference to it. We propose to examine the Land Bill line by line and word by word. That is the duty of an Opposition interested in good legislation. We do that because it is our duty as an Opposition and not because we want to obstruct the Government. If the Minister introduced legislation we felt we could co-operate with, we would gladly give that co-operation. The Chair is aware that we are taking in conjunction with this Estimate the Land Bond Bill, 1964. It is only a Bill of two sections listed in today's Order Paper. Here is an example of our anxiety to co-operate and show commonsense, unlike the Minister's attitude towards those with whom he disagrees. We agree that this Bill is necessary and we are prepared to give it to him. Who is responsible for the Bill I do not know. There appears to be some confusion. I thought the Minister for Finance said he was responsible.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

He is, in fact, responsible for it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Anyway, we are prepared to give all Stages of the Bill. I hope the fact we are facilitating the Minister will deter him from making some of the foolish speeches he made recently.

The Estimate is more or less a re-hash of what we have had in recent years. I note with interest that there is an increase in the amount required under subhead B2, Post Office Services. The amount required this year is £46,000 compared with £38,000 last year. What is the position of a private industrial concern having to meet increased postage charges when we find one Government Department alone obliged to budget for an extra £8,000 this year? That increase is very high. It has been brought about because of the state of affairs the Government allowed to develop.

There is no reference whatever to the purchase of land by aliens. I suppose the Minister did not think it desirable that any reference should be made because he does not really believe there was or is a problem. It was ignored in the Estimates this year and last year and there is not even a two line section in the Land Bill dealing with the matter. I put it to the Minister that it has and is creating a problem. The public are alarmed at the extent to which land is being purchased by aliens, particularly when there is a vast number of uneconomic holders, well-prepared and financed to work land, but who cannot obtain it.

The policy of the Minister and the Government in relation to this matter is to defend the purchase of land by aliens and, by their silence and inactivity, to encourage the purchase of land by aliens. If I had my way I would prevent all aliens from purchasing land when we have such a congestion problem among our own people. More than anybody else the Minister will admit that we have a serious problem of congestion. Despite that, foreigners are purchasing large tracts of our agricultural land which should be used for the relief of congestion.

Reference was made in the course of the Minister's speech to the preservation and development of game. Any action taken by his Department in this regard is worthy of every support. A vast amount remains to be done. We have 24 active regional game councils doing excellent work. They deserve the continued support and good wishes of everybody interested in the preservation and development of game. Nevertheless, more can be done. I realise it takes time, patience, organisation and, indeed, money. I wonder whether the Minister has in mind any long-term policy in relation to the preservation and improvement of game, whether his Department are examining any legislation to set up a permanent game council and fix by statute certain areas where special improvement schemes would be carried out? This matter has been neglected down the years.

I also feel that we are not putting sufficient emphasis on the preservation and improvement of our game stocks. There should be greater encouragement for hatcheries and, indeed, substantial grants should be made available, not only to regional game councils but also to enterprising individuals, many of whom have been in very close touch with the Minister's Department. The equipment necessary for large-scale modern hatcheries is very expensive. Private individuals are prepared to interest themselves in, and perform, what I consider to be a great national service. They are prepared to spend their own money on the development of these hatcheries, and I believe a generous measure of State aid in the form of grants should be made available to them.

I am slightly disappointed in the Forestry Estimate because I expected that during the past year there would have been a greater effort by the Department to increase vastly the numbers employed in forestry. Forestry is quite capable of giving employment to at least three times the number engaged in it at the moment. We have something like 2,000 persons employed at present and there is evidence that in practically every part of the country, schemes of forestry development could be carried out. There may be something in the policy of having forestry schemes and plantations convenient to the large-sized State forests, but never-the less there are many parts of the country in which the development of forestry should be examined. Even ten to 25 men could be employed in those areas on the preparation of the ground and on drainage work. Consideration should be given to the selection of the various plants suitable for growing in the different areas.

May I say in relation to our programme of forestry that we have what can be described as the best foresters in the world? That tribute has been paid to them by world experts on afforestation. The Minister, I am sure, will agree that no more highly qualified foresters can be found in the world than the men in charge of our State forests. They deserve the gratitude of all who are interested in afforestation and forestry development. If the Department of Lands are to embark upon an extensive long term plan for afforestation, they would be wise to make it clear to young men who are anxious to take up that profession that there is a future in it.

I do not know to what extent—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us if it is convenient—there has been a response to the forestry training colleges. We have one of those training colleges in my constituency and there is excellent training to be had in it under probably the best management and the best supervision that can possibly be provided. We can justly pay tribute to the supervision, the expert advice and the surroundings available to those trainees. I often wonder whether our accommodation has been taxed to its fullest capacity.

I believe there is a very good future in forestry, and the prospects for the future should be made known. The Forestry Division and the Minister seem to be rather silent about that matter. Why, I do not know. Of all the countries in the world we hold out the greatest possibilities for forestry. When Bord na Móna have carried out schemes of bog development, large tracts of cutaway bog are left on their hands. There should be a greater liaison between Bord na Móna and the Forestry Division. I suggested before that a permanent committee should be set up by the Minister with representatives of his Department and Bord na Móna. At the turn of the year when employment in Bord na Móna is running short, if there were dovetailing between the two bodies, the Forestry Division could give employment. There may be bog land and mountain land which Bord na Móna have surveyed and which does not come within their scope for development purposes. That territory could be utilised by the Forestry Division, and employment could be provided on work which would beautify the country. Nothing beautifies a country more than growing trees.

I suggested last year, and I think, two years ago, that the Department of Lands should make an effort to give more publicity to forestry. The Minister has undoubtedly made a tour of our major forestry centres, but I venture to say that there are many Deputies, particularly those who represent areas in which there has not been full-scale forestry development, who would be astonished and amazed to see the beauty of the country, the beauty of the plantations, and the layout of the forests. Efforts should be made to encourage people to visit those areas and see the wonderful developments that have taken place.

I know that it can be dangerous to welcome visitors to State forests, and it is extremely regrettable that such an amount of damage has been caused by forest fires. People are careless. They do not seem to realise that one single match can be responsible for tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage. In addition, the beauty of the country can be ruined. Publicity should be given to this matter; observations in this House, or five or ten minute talks on the radio are not sufficient.

I do not think the Forestry Division notices are sufficient. Usually the notices merely say "Keep away", "Do not light fires" etc, at the entrance to a State forest. I do not think we have sufficient notices convenient to all State forests and, in addition, these notices should be more spectacular. The notices we have are rather like the old notices saying "These lands are poisoned" or "No trespassing allowed" The present form of notice has not proved effective and some thousands of pounds worth of damage has been caused through people's carelessness.

How are we to impress on the people, more than we are doing, their duty not to light fires near a State forest? It would be wise for the Forestry Division to have a fire prevention staff. They may have one or two of their men out on Sunday afternoons in the summer to see that there are no fires but there is nothing to stop a person from lighting a fire, then kicking it out and the sparks being responsible for destroying tens of thousands of pounds worth of valuable work. It is penny wise and pound foolish for the Department to curtail staff of that kind because 20 times the amount given to one or two extra workers employed to do this work would be saved by preventing fires.

The Minister and his Department should get down to examining this matter seriously because there has been too much carelessness and the losses have been too great. That has been particularly noticeable in the past few years. A team of workers will have to be devoted to this work permanently during the summer months and particularly to keep a careful watch at week-ends. The Minister will find if he goes back over his statistics, that most of the fires take place on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon or on Sunday afternoon. Wednesdays and Thursdays are usually the half-days in the large provincial towns and are days on which people go out for picnics and to view the scenery.

Every forester should have the right and the authority to see that his forest is protected. All of us who have property like to protect it but we find the Department of Lands, for some reason or other, do not seem to be protecting their property in the manner in which they are expected to protect it. The Minister feels he must economise and cut down but cutting down or economising on the safeguarding of forests against fire damage is penny wise and pound foolish. We will always have careless people and it is necessary that there should be sufficient staff to prevent these fires.

I welcome the proposal regarding the Kennedy Memorial Park. I can assure the Minister that we on this side of the House will readily and wholeheartedly co-operate in this matter. We are very glad that the Memorial Park has taken this form. The amount provided in the Estimate for that purpose is £50,000. The Park will be a small contribution to the memory of, I suppose, the greatest man the modern world has known. For that reason, we hope this Memorial will be a fitting one to his memory and that so far as beauty and design are concerned, they will be firstrate, that only the best and most expert advice will be availed of and that expense will not be spared so that the Memorial will be a credit not alone to this great statesman but to the country. As time goes on and as the Minister realises what expenditure will be required, he will find when he comes to the House for the necessary money, he will be well received by us.

There is still ample room for considerable improvement in regard to forestry workers. Deputies who have State forests in their constituencies are familiar with the fact that this is definitely very skilled work. Not every labouring man can undertake the very special type of work which a forestry worker must undertake. I understand the question of a five-day week for forestry workers is still under consideration. In addition, there has been considerable delay in providing forestry workers with a comprehensive pension scheme.

Forestry workers, because of the specialised work they do, should be provided with protective clothing to a greater extent than they are. The present provision is niggardly and I say "niggardly" because I know what I am talking about. They should also be given shelters in the forests in which to have their meals. Neither do I agree with the system by which one or two pairs of boots are used by different workers on drainage work. That is wrong. I do not know what the views of the Minister for Health would be in this regard, when one worker is asked to step out of boots and another worker is asked to step into the same pair. I cannot understand why a State Department such as this cannot ensure an ample supply of protective clothing for its workers and an ample supply of the thigh boots required for the work that must be undertaken.

It is wrong that workers should be asked to use their neighbours' boots and that there is not a sufficient number of boots available for the men engaged in drainage work. I understand it is only for drainage work that such boots are required. If there were proper planning, a certain number of men who specialise in drainage work could be chosen and the boots provided for them and nobody else allowed to wear the boots except the workers to whom they have been supplied. The other practice is unsatisfactory and unhealthy and one which ought to be discontinued. This House would have no objection to having funds made available so that our forestry workers would have the best possible protective clothing. There is a great deal to be desired in that regard.

The huts which can be seen near some of our State forests in which the forestry workers shelter in bad weather and in which they have their lunch or afternoon meal are no great credit to the Forestry Branch. They should have seating accommodation and should be reasonably comfortable for the workers. We have gone beyond the stage in this country when workers can be treated like animals. It is time the Forestry Branch moved into line with outside concerns. One can see the canteens and beautiful recreation rooms provided by some of our industrial concerns for their workers and the hovels set up for forestry workers where they sit down and have their meal. I would ask the Minister to get some of his forestry inspectors to visit the State forests for the purpose of checking up on the facilities available for forestry workers convenient to these State forests. A contented staff means a great deal.

Nowadays when so many people in other walks of life are losing pride in their work, it is refreshing to notice the interest the forestry worker takes in his work. Some of the old forestry workers who have now gone beyond their working years stand back near the State forests and take pride in what has been achieved. They remember when there was not a twig there. They can remember helping to drain the land and seeing the plants going down. They remember participating in the thinning of the plants, and now they can see the beautiful trees they helped to plant. Forestry workers take particular pride in their work. Like the people on the land, they are very close to nature. They love looking at the trees growing, knowing they have taken an active part in their production.

I am glad to say the great interest forestry workers take in their work is due in large measure to the amount of useful knowledge the State foresters have imparted to them. A great tribute is due to the foresters for the advice and guidance they have given. That is in contrast to the great degree of covetousness to be seen in other trades and which results in the apprentices not being educated properly in the trade they are prepared to follow. The amount of knowledge imparted to the workers by the State foresters has been mainly responsible for the splendid advance taking place in most of our forests. In order that that may continue, forestry workers ought to be given recognition over and above that given to any other section of workers. That is why I hope at some future date the Minister will concentrate on securing better facilities and a greater degree of co-operation from his Department for the benefit of those who have given their best years in this great national work of afforestation.

Perhaps the Minister would let us know about a comprehensive pension scheme for forestry workers. Perhaps he would also let us know whether there have been any talks with Bord na Móna in relation to the planting of cutaway bogs. There are many parts of the midlands in which very valuable local employment can be given. It may be over a scattered area but with the transport facilities we have, the local State foresters would still be in a position to keep a close eye on a very small number of men three, four or six miles away from them. Having regard to the fact that forestry workers have now become skilled at their job, they do not require to have the forester at their side always when they are carrying out their work.

I hope the Minister will take these few remarks in the spirit in which I make them. I make them in the intimate knowledge that the constituency I have the honour to represent contains some of the finest and the most beautiful forests in Ireland. An effort should be made to invite the Press, including the British Press, if necessary, to look at these forests and to write them up in order to make it known that there is one thing of which we can boast, that is, the manner in which our country has been beautified by the State forests.

I am glad to note the position in regard to the sale of native timber. We heard some time ago that one of the master builders had commented that we had reached the stage at which Irish timber for constructional purposes could be ranked as being superior to the timber imported for these purposes. That is a great tribute to the foresight of those who 30 or 40 years ago were responsible for the commencement of afforestation in Ireland. I pay a tribute to the members of the first Government of this State, the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, who realised the value of afforestation. The trees that have been grown and used since for building purposes are the very small plants that were put down by the first Cosgrave Government. The foresight and initiative of that Government have borne fruit and are likely to continue to do so.

I do not intend to detain the House any further on this matter. I have no objection to letting the Estimate go through, for the simple reason that the unfinished Land Bill is available to us for debate on these matters. The debate on this Estimate this year is what I might describe as hampered by reason of the fact that there has been such lengthy debate on the Land Bill and that it is likely to continue. Good work has been undertaken in afforestation. The money allocated to it has been well spent and is being well spent.

The only faults I can find I have pointed out to the Minister already and I hope they will receive his favourable and sympathetic consideration. We are all anxious to get ahead with extensive new schemes of afforestation and I hope the Forestry Division will in the near future be able to give us long-term plans for increased employment under this heading. Five thousand people employed in forestry in this country are too few. In a new energetic programme, I would expect that 10,000 men would find employment in the first stage, progressively increasing to 20,000.

I recall that the Minister for Lands —I seem to remember that the present Minister for Transport and Power occupied the office at that time— promised to examine the possibilities of planting the Shannon Valley. Perhaps the Minister would now tell us what progress has been made in that matter. He did not refer to it either last year or this year. As I say, it was the present Minister for Transport and Power who promised us to have a survey made of the Shannon Valley for afforestation purposes.

Mr. T. Lynch

I would not mind very much about his promises.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I have been wondering whether any such survey was carried out, whether there is a scrap of evidence in the Department that inquiries were made. If they were, to what extent? I submit there is great scope for a comprehensive afforestation scheme in the Shannon Valley. In the country generally, greater development, greater drive are needed in afforestation which can become such a great national asset, apart altogether from the potential employment content.

Mr. Tully

Because the Land Bill has been discussed at such great length, I do not intend to detain the House very long on that aspect of the Estimate. I shall endeavour to keep within the agreement made among the Parties and confine my speech to 30 minutes.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Was I so long?

Mr. McQuillan

How could anybody expect Deputy Flanagan to keep to that limit?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am sorry; I did not think I was so long. Anyway, I have not been in touch with my Party Whip and was consequently not aware there was a limit. If I had been, I would have been only too delighted to have finished earlier. I am very busy and could have been much better employed doing some other work than sitting here.

Mr. McQuillan

The Party Whip has no control over you.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would not say that. I have not as much respect for any man in the Party as I have for the Party Whip.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Estimate.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Nevertheless, he is a very likeable man.

Mr. Tully

The Estimate refers in more than one place to the 1963 Land Act. I would remind the Minister, and through him, the Land Commission, that the Bill has not become an Act yet. Apparently this is not realised or appreciated by some of the Land Commission inspectors because on at least three occasions in the past few weeks, I have been approached by people who have been told: "Even if you get land from the Land Commission under the new Land Act, you will have to pay the full annuity and you would not be able to afford that."

For goodness' sake, will those people have a little savvy and realise that until it is put through this House, passed by the Oireachtas and signed by the President, the Bill is not the law of the land? I was afraid something like that would happen and I expressed it during the debate on the Bill—that people would be frightened off because they lived in a certain area. I would accordingly ask Ministers to see to it that at least until the law is passed, those people do not use that argument. Surely they have sufficient arguments to use against local people without that one.

As far as land division is concerned, I had hoped there would be a sizeable increase in the amount of money allocated this year for the acquisition of land. As we know, land values are rising and we must assume that higher allocations of money will be necessary to acquire more land. If the Minister's ambition to take over much more of the land which is not being used properly is to be realised, there must be bigger allocations of money.

Deputy Flanagan referred briefly to the acquisition of land by aliens. This has been discussed at length on the Land Bill, but may I again ask the Minister what machinery he is employing to prevent the second or third wave of alien acquisition which is now in progress? He knows from recent incidents how extremely difficult it is to get back land from aliens who have acquired it, for the purpose of division.

I shall cite an instance in my constituency of which the Minister is aware and in respect of which questions have been asked in the House. The reply to such questions is always the same: "Negotiations are at a delicate stage and it is not in the public interest that such information should be made available here. If the Deputy repeats the question in a few weeks, the necessary information will be forthcoming". That was months ago and I gave up asking questions on the subject. Somebody went into the area, bought a farm but is not using it. Consequently, the employment has dropped from 40 temporary men at times and 20 regulars to two or three. I do not think the Minister is personally slipping but the onus is on him to see such farms are not allowed to go into the hands of people who will neither use them nor allow the Land Commission to get them. These lands are simply being used as an investment by these people in the belief that if they buy a farm and leave it for a number of years, its value will grow so that they will be able to make a fat profit on it and it does not matter whether it is used or not.

Reference was made to lands being taken over by the Land Commission, but one thing was not mentioned— perhaps because it is too delicate a subject—the manner in which the lands are used. The Land Commission have been taking over farms—I think this cannot be repeated too often—and holding them year after year. The Minister says, and we must take his word for it, that there is good reason for that, but how the Land Commission or anybody can justify the taking over of a sizeable farm because the owner has been setting it for a number of years and its being then set by the Land Commission for four, five, six or seven years, is beyond me. It cannot be justified. If the Land Commission decide to take over land, they should take it over in the shortest possible time. I know there are legal complications, but when those are eliminated, there should be an effort to have it allocated as quickly as possible.

I want to refer here also to the question of tree planting and to what happened in Boyne Valley when an estate was taken over there. This was dealt with by way of question and the Minister told me that 498 mature trees on the Beauparc estate in Boyne Valley were sold for £800. The purchaser was allowed to go in there and indiscriminately knock down some of the most beautiful trees in the country. If the trees of Boyne Valley are not worth 35/- or 36/- each standing up, we should give up planting trees. This was an act of vandalism and the greatest complaint I have about it is that apparently it was done without consultation with any outside body or interest. I asked the Minister for a guarantee that it would not recur, that other trees in the area would not be knocked down, and he could not give it.

I am aware there was a meeting last week of local members of Muintir na Tíre at which an inspector attended and from what I am told, he was not prepared to listen to the local views. I gather he had a host of smart answers. We do not like people with smart answers in County Meath. We are very reasonable and we will discuss anything with those in authority who come there. The only object of the local people was to point out to the Land Commission inspector—I do not know who he was—that it is not desirable to have this sort of thing happen. I ask that the matter be dealt with as it should be dealt with and that there will be no more codology of this kind.

The question of who gets land is one which I have discussed again and again with the Minister by way of question and on the Estimates. I am intrigued by one statement made in his opening remarks when he referred to displaced employees. "Displaced employees who are competent to work land," he said, "are automatically considered for allotment. Indeed, this is only right and proper." How right the Minister is, but if that is laid down by him, why is it that so often such people do not get allotments?

There was a very recent case which I brought to the Minister's attention of a man living on an estate for a long number of years in a house belonging to the estate. He was approached by a Land Commission inspector who offered him something over £400 in return for vacant possession of the house. The man with his wife and family were supposed to find housing accommodation for themselves and find a new job, just like that. The Land Commission and the Minister must not be aware of money values if that is how they think. This was a man with a growing family.

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

Mr. Tully

I was pointing out how this man, with a wife and growing family, was offered something over £400 for vacant possession of the lodge in which he was living and was told this was compensation for the loss of his job. That is not the way people should be dealt with if we are to bear in mind the words of the Minister's statement I have quoted. I agree with the Minister's point of view as quoted but it is entirely contrary to the action taken by the Land Commission in this particular case. I gave the particulars to the Minister and I am sure he will have the matter investigated or perhaps he has had that done by now.

In a number of cases we find something extraordinary happening: the Land Commission make it known they are interested in an estate and the employer, that is, the owner of the estate, reduces the number of the staff and knocks off all of them except those he can just struggle on with. When the Land Commission take over the estate, they claim they are responsible only for those who are left there and who are displaced as a result of their taking over the estate. I suggest to the Minister that everybody who was employed by the estate, not alone those who are there when the Land Commission take over but who were there before that, are entitled to compensation. When I say compensation, I do not mean what is being offered to them at the present.

The average compensation is so terribly small that I am sure nobody would suggest that it is any use at all for the people concerned. Forty-five ex-employees were paid £9,532. First of all, we are to assume that in the case of all the estates taken over last year, only 45 people were dispossessed, only 45 people lost their jobs. I suggest to the Minister that a quick check will prove that that is entirely wrong. Secondly, the average amount of money paid in compensation was £212 each. Let us assume that some people must have got very much less and that a few people must have got much more.

I would refer the Minister to the action of the Department of Health who sanctioned for ex-employees of a hospital in County Wicklow which was closed the payment of sums of money amounting to more than £2,000 for loss of employment. We must be realistic in this matter of compensation to people who have lost employment by reason of the taking over of estates by the Land Commission. If the Land Commission for good reasons known to them decide they will not give farms to ex-employees of estates, then I believe the onus is on them to give decent compensation to them, not £212 which cannot be called decent compensation for anybody. I suggest if the Minister has a look at that, he will agree with me that there is something very wrong.

I want to refer to the people who get land locally. This cannot be said too often. While we all appreciate the difficulties of people living in congested districts, nevertheless we believe that people who are smallholders or who have a knowledge of the working of land are entitled to some land when the Land Commission are dividing farms in their area. There is another thing, and one of the inspectors in my constituency has been doing this recently: no matter how small a farmer may be and no matter how hard a man may find it to live off that farm, when a farm is divided locally, that man is told: "You are not a married man."

Will the Minister say if it is a fact that there are no unmarried men getting farms? Will somebody tell the inspector he does not make the allocations of land and he does not make the regulations governing the allocations? His job is to seek out what farms there are and to report on them. He should be stopped from making comments which tend only to irritate people. I am not accusing the Minister of anything in this matter but I think these are things he should look into.

The Minister will have to look into the provision of access roads, fencing and drainage and the provision of water supply for domestic and stock requirements. It is a common thing over the years to find that a pump was set up somewhere where it would be convenient for a group of farmers, but very often the pump did not last too long. There was water there in the winter months but when it came along to September and October, there was no water. There is another aspect of the matter. We all know, unfortunately, a communal type of pump does not work too well in this country. It is a cumbersome type of machinery and we have one case where one farmer has a pump on his land and he does not want anybody else to use it.

Would it be possible for the Minister to ensure that where houses are being built there will be a water supply for each one of them? There should be cooperation with the Department of Local Government to ensure that water schemes, even if they are group schemes, are put into operation so that there will be an adequate water supply. As some of the farmers in his Party will tell him, there is nothing so useless as farmers not having an adequate supply of water. We see all sorts of rows cropping up because somebody has not got an adequate supply of water and his neighbour has.

I am very glad to see that the Minister considers the introduction of the bonus incentive scheme for the Land Commission workers was satisfactory. May I also state at this stage that I am glad the Minister has used his good offices with the officials to have the 5day working week introduced as from 14th July next. It is a step forward. The incentive bonus scheme not alone put £35,000 into the pockets of the workers but in addition, it has saved the Land Commission approximately £35,000 in the year. The incentive bonus scheme was a good idea and I congratulate everybody associated with its introduction.

Let me say, as far as I am concerned, personally, I get the greatest co-operation from the Establishment Officer and the officials of both the Forestry Division and the Land Commission. I am glad to say also that because of numerous rows by myself and others in this House, the system of replying to letters about recommendations for land has been altered. Some of us were not getting replies for months and eventually when we got a reply, it was a stereotyped thing which did not mean very much to anybody. I am glad to say that system has been changed and that we are now getting replies in a reasonable time. We are also getting replies which make sense.

This is a step forward. It may be additional trouble to the officials concerned. I am quite aware that may be so but I believe a public representative when looking for information is entitled to an intelligent reply. I am glad to see that the decision has been taken to give that reply and to give it in good time. I am grateful to the Minister if he has taken a hand in having that done.

There is another thing about the Land Commission which I should like to mention. I would ask the Minister if he has the details available to give them to me and it will save me putting down a question. There is an estate in County Meath called the Wooton estate, The Ward. There have been all sorts of charges made about the allocation of the land. Would the Minister be able to say if a scheme has been drawn up and, if so, what type of scheme has been introduced on that farm? As the Minister may have heard, there are allegations that someone with influence has got 150 acres because of the fact that he had pull in the Department. I do not believe that, but I should be glad if the Minister would deny it publicly because it is doing no good to him, the Land Commission or to anybody in public life.

We all agree with the John F. Kennedy Memorial Park. It appears some money will be required from the State for the purpose of completing the Park, but it may not be very big, as suggested here. Even if it is, nobody will quarrel with the idea, and this Party will give it full support.

I notice the Minister says that :

subhead C.1—Acquisition of Land— is down by £200,000 but this does not indicate any curtailment in the land acquisition programme. The balance in the Grant-in-Aid fund on 31st March, 1964, was £264,900, so that a total of £384,900 will be available for land purchase within the year. The incoming balance was inflated because proceedings had not concluded for two large areas for which provision had been made in the 1963-64 Estimate.

I was wondering what had happened. I am glad this is the explanation and that there will be no reduction in the amount of money available for the acquisition of land.

In regard to State forests, I should like to say there seems to be a turn for the better in everything connected with forestry over the past few years. I am interested in the suggestion made by the trade unions on more than one occasion that a pension scheme should be introduced for forestry workers. We have now reached the stage at which the only type of rural worker employed by State or semi-State bodies, who has not a pension scheme, is the forestry worker. Many of them should qualify for a pension after very long service, and I would ask the Minister to give his attention to the matter in order to do what he can for them.

Reference has been made to the use of rubber boots. Perhaps Deputy O.J. Flanagan has more up-to-date information than I have. The trade unions have objected, on medical grounds, to the use of rubber boots by more than one person in rotation. We have always insisted that the boots, once used, should not be used by another person. A perfectly clean, healthy person may have worn a pair of boots but then if they are passed on to somebody else, it is common knowledge that there is a grave danger of dermatitis being contracted. This is the medical advice given over a number of years. It was understood that the Forestry Division had accepted similar advice and had stopped the wearing of a pair of boots by more than one person. I am surprised that this practice appears to continue, and I should like to ask the Minister to see that it will be stamped out, if, in fact, Deputy O.J. Flanagan is correct in what he says.

According to my information, the number of forestry workers rose to approximately 4,700 during the last year. I understand the figure will increase to over 5,000 this year. The fact that over 2,000 of these workers are employed west of the Shannon is not surprising because there is substantial land available for forestry purposes there. From time to time complaints arise, but, as I said earlier, a very good feeling exists between the trade unions and the Establishment Section and most of these complaints are straightened out before reaching the Minister. In fact, foresters in practically every case seem to be prepared to perform their job in a reasonable way.

It is a pity that so much damage is still being done by forest fires. Perhaps the general public will in time become educated in the danger of allowing any fire near a State forest, or any type of forest. It would be a good thing if we reached the stage where no damage will be done. These fires double losses as they damage the growing timber and this means the whole forest has to be replanted. Perhaps the Minister would say whether there is insurance cover against loss of this sort. To put it plainly, it would be too bad if the loss is a dead loss. I think some attempt should be made to try to insure against losses through fires, and other types of vandalism, whether intentional or not.

During the period of the last inter-Party Government, a decision was taken that timber would be sold standing instead of sold when the forestry workers cut it down. I quarrelled with this decision at the time, and I still think it is not a good idea. The Minister is well aware that from time to time when people buy timber in a forest, they are interested in getting it out as quickly and as easily as they can. A lot of damage is being done to the standing timber by people who go in and, in getting their own timber down, do not mind what happens to the standing timber. Of course, people engaged in this work are paid very poor rates. The Minister has nothing to do with that particular aspect of it but it is a pity that the decision to change over was ever taken.

One of the matters mentioned here is the question of sawmills. I have not been able to get entire agreement with the Forestry Division on the question of wage rates in State sawmills. The Minister is aware that the sawmills are in an area where other mills are run by private concerns. I believe the rates should at least be as much as those paid in private concerns. I think there is nothing unreasonable in asking that this matter should be looked into.

On the question of postage, perhaps I have misread the Minister's document, or perhaps Deputy O.J. Flanagan misread it. My reading of it is:

Subhead B.2, is a subhead providing exclusively for Post Office services. The direct provision for such services in 1963/64 was £5,900 which was included with incidental expenses. There is, therefore, an increase of £24,300 in the provision for these services in the current year. Of this increase, however, £22,900 is in respect of services formerly provided without repayment by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

This, in fact, means there is not such a big increase. The estate paying for it means that, in fact, it is changed from one Department to another. Therefore, the increase is not of the amount suggested by Deputy O. J. Flanagan.

We have not made provision in this Estimate for the 45-hour week, or any reduction which may occur, or any increase which may result because of the ninth round. Am I to assume that we have made provision for the increase in postal charges? They will increase by roughly one-fourth. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he has information on this.

I shall conclude by saying that the information given by the Minister, even though put in an abridged form, has covered a wide field. The discussions which took place on the Land Bill earlier have reduced the amount of material which could usefully be used in this debate. I believe that money spent by the Land Commission and on the provision of State forests is money well spent. We shall not quarrel with it. I believe the new Bill for the provision of additional money for land bonds is a step in the right direction. This had to come because of the falling value of money and the extension of services, and we give it our full support.

Mr. Geoghegan

Like other speakers I welcome the introduction of this Estimate and congratulate the Minister on the very interesting document which he produced this morning. As regards resettlement of people on the land, I should like to compliment the Minister's Department for the wonderful work they have achieved in my constituency in the past few years in the resettlement of people on the land. The amount of land in the west is very limited and with little fields here and there mixed up with one another, it is very difficult to reach agreement with the owners. However, I wish to compliment the Minister on the great work done in the past few years but I should like more people to be taken out as migrants so that the land they leave, such as it is, can be distributed amongst the people who remain.

There is one point on which I feel very strongly. Where there is resettlement in different townlands, the position is that any person transferred for resettlement will get a new house. We all know that no matter what part of the country you go to, you will come up against the case of the individual with the large family and in poor circumstances who cannot avail of the grant to build that new house. In cases of hardship such as that, the Department should build the house. I know of a few of these hardship cases that are at present awaiting decision by the Department and the decision should be that the Department will build the house. Some of these people have families of ten or 12 and they could not afford to embark on the building of a new house. In these cases the Department should build the house.

We welcome the improvement in forestry as a whole and we cannot stress too often the danger of forest fires. If you light a match in any forest in the west of Ireland, the fire could travel 15, 20 or 30 miles without stopping. More notices should be erected, especially if the forest is near a main road. These forests cannot be signposted sufficiently. Foresters generally leave a belt of about eight feet around a forest. To my mind, that is not enough to prevent a fire getting into a forest and destroying the whole place.

Where areas are offered to the Department for afforestation, there is sometimes considerable delay before the Department investigates. Then the people offering the area may get a reply that the land is unsuitable for planting, that the soil is either too poor or that the bog is too deep. I wonder if there is any kind of tree that could be grown on such soil and if the Department have tried to test trees that would grow there or that would form a shelter belt. My information is that bamboo will grow in a bog, no matter how deep it is and I believe bamboo is very valuable. The Department should investigate that matter. If bamboo can be grown, it should be grown as it would overcome some of the difficulties that face us.

Where land is offered for afforestation and is found unsuitable because the bog is too deep to grow trees, I wonder if the Department have ever thought of turning it over to a number of tenants who may be crying out for turbary rights and making arrangements with those tenants to cut it to a certain depth. The Department could get the tenants to cut the bog for five, six or eight feet and leave the rest there. The Department could then come along in four, five or even 15 years time and plant what is left. A bog 12 or 14 feet deep could be cut for seven or eight feet down and it could then be replanted some years afterwards.

I am seriously concerned at the moment that some of my constituents are still awaiting turbary rights. If there are areas such as those I have just mentioned, they could be handed over to these tenants who could use them over a number of years and then they could be replanted.

I am also concerned about the making of roads into turbary plots. The Department should get these roads made as soon as possible. There is little use in giving a person a turbary plot a quarter of a mile from the road. He cannot take a tractor in and the only thing he can do is to carry out the turf on his back.

I will conclude by saying to the Minister that where there is rearrangement in any townland and where there are hardship cases such as I have mentioned, a woman whose husband has died leaving her a family of eight or nine children, the Department should consider building a new house for such a person who could not undertake to do it herself. I wish the Minister and his officers in the Department the best of luck in their programme of work.

Mr. T. Lynch

I shall not delay the House very long but I should like to say to the Minister that I appreciate the fact that when I came in here this morning, there was a copy of his brief available to members of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. I want to thank him and the officers of his Department for that. I have not much to say on this Estimate except to deal with the matter of forests and forest fires. I join with Deputy Geoghegan and Deputy Cunningham in urging that more and bigger notices should be erected around forests, warning people of the danger of fires. I would also suggest that the notice should indicate the location of the nearest telephone and the nearest forest ranger or fire station. The forests are coming on in recent years and they are beautiful. I had the experience of seeing where there was a forest fire last year. It left a scene of desolation and was a blot on the landscape in addition to being a loss to the nation. The Forestry Commission are doing great work in planting these forests. That would be a way, possibly, to ensure that a forest fire could not spread.

I shall not go over all the details already covered by Deputy O.J. Flanagan and Deputy Tully. I should like to make a suggestion in regard to the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park. Any Irishman must discuss a matter such as this with deep regret and great sorrow. We gladly give whatever money the Minister wants for this purpose with the greatest of sentiment. I have no doubt the Forestry Commission will do a magnificent job in the landscaping of this area.

When the late President John Fitzgerald Kennedy addressed the Oireachtas, he mentioned the Battle of Fredericksburg and our countrymen going into action that day behind their General Thomas Francis Meagher and the fact that they plucked sprigs of green from a box hedge there and put them in their hats and pinned them on their flags. I suggest that the Minister should write to the Battlefield Curator in Fredericksburg and also to the forestry authorities in the United States asking them to send some box cuttings from the field of Maryes' Heights in Fredericksburg. They should be planted in a special place in the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park.

The Minister said we are obstructing his Land Bill but we do not obstruct when he is reasonable. If he wants his Land Bill to go through this House as quickly as this Estimate will go through, I suggest he look again at sections 11 and 12 under which the rights of landholders will be in jeopardy. I would again thank the Minister for providing copies of his brief. The Minister for Transport and Power should do likewise rather than to send over only one copy.

Mr. O'Connor

At the outset, I should like to compliment the Minister on the short and precise way in which he presented his brief to us. The Department of Lands require much larger sums than are indicated in this Estimate to carry out the vast amount of work which still remains to be done. Travelling around the country, one cannot but notice that it is a pity that very large sums are not channelled for the drainage of small streams and rivers which do so much damage to our land through flooding. If that were done, a high acreage of land could be made fertile and would add to national productivity.

In my county, vast sums were expended on two major rivers. Nevertheless, four-fifths of the land damaged by water and some of which is totally under water, has not been touched by either of these schemes. Furthermore, the very areas that are still under water, and probably will be for many years, are owned by the smallest and poorest of our holders. The Minister should take the drainage of land under his wing and try to get the necessary money for this purpose. A survey of the areas of land subject to flooding should be made by his Department and the money should be available for the job.

We are on the eve of great things in this country and it is important that our farmers should be able to develop to the full the amount of land which they have. Even in the very best of farms, there is always at least one-quarter or one-third affected by rivers or streams at certain times of the year. When animals have to traverse lands which are under water it becomes cut up and there is a consequent loss of grass and feeding material. There is much room for development in that respect.

The Minister is doing a very good job of work particularly as regards his recent scheme for purchasing lands at market price. We are making very good progress in County Kerry in that direction. A large number of people there are seeking to extend their holding and others are seeking to get into new holdings. We need much more land than is available in the county or outside it but I think the best opportunity offers itself within our county if extensive drainage is carried out.

The Minister's Department should also carry out a survey of lands held by old people who are not able to work them and who, in the ordinary way, would be very slow to hand over those holdings. Contact should be made with them by the Minister's officers. If he has not enough of them to carry out a survey and to make the necessary contacts, then certainly more staff should be recruited by his Department for this purpose.

Quite a number of holdings, good holdings, are held by elderly people who are not working them or making a serious attempt to work them. This naturally has a deleterious effect on productivity and output generally from the point of view of our agricultural economy. The situation is being dealt with, but to a limited extent only, and it would appear now that we have only a short few years in which to gear ourselves to get a footing in that last outside market which will be available to us, provided we have enough livestock to export, either on the hoof or processed. The actual organisation to meet the situation is moving rather slowly and it is hindered to a great extent by the loss of feeding possibilities.

Last Monday some of us visited some of the Foras Talúntais farms in Limerick and Mallow. We saw a farm which was taken over about three or four years ago; it was then in a very indifferent state and pretty well waterlogged. It is now able to feed an animal to an acre and a quarter. If we could bring the bulk of our land—this is what we should be aiming at—up to that state of production, we should certainly increase national productivity many times above what it is at present.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the progress and advance made in the development of afforestation, particularly in my own county. Numbers of workers are engaged in afforestation. I think that the takeover of the lands is, perhaps, somewhat slow. Some method should be devised whereby lands offered would be taken over as quickly as possible, certainly quicker than they are taken over at the moment. It sometimes takes as long as three or four years before the lands are taken over for afforestation. I do not know the reason for the delay but it should be possible in this year of 1964 to speed up acquisition. The Minister should take whatever powers are necessary to speed up acquisition of land offered for forestry purposes. It is one of the best methods of providing work for people in backward areas, people who have very little means of making a livelihood otherwise, and who, in the past, had no option but the emigrant ship.

Mr. Meaney

I should like to pay tribute to the work carried out by the Minister and his Department, both in relation to the acquisition of land and activities in connection with afforestation. I am always gratified by the courtesy that I at all times receive from the Minister and his officials when I have occasion to approach them in connection with matters relevant to the Department of Lands.

When it comes to the acquisition of land, there is to my mind a good bit of difficulty, difficulty which the Minister and his officials are trying to surmount. It is to their credit that they have made progress. I should like to suggest that people who are displaced by acquisition, especially farm labourers living in the immediate vicinity of some of the larger estates, should get allotments. As a country man, and knowing conditions as I do, I know that the farm labourer who has enough land to sustain a cow is in a much happier position from the point of view of rearing his family than is the man who may have a bigger pay packet but no land. The man with the bit of land will always have new milk and butter.

With regard to the division of land acquired, I am in full agreement with the system practised. It is very clear that in the division of estates the object is to try to bring those who are adjacent to the estates up to an economic standard. It is better to bring a few up to the economic standard than to give dribs and drabs to everyone. There will be at least one good job done if there are three or four uneconomic farmers rendered economic.

I have nothing but praise for the afforestation work that is taking place. Some persons may hold the view that progress is not sufficiently fast, but, in my view, tremendous progress has been made over the years. According to the copy of the Minister's speech which has been circulated, there is a provision of £20 million for acquisition of land for afforestation. That is a good thing. Our forests have become a great national asset and I join with others in expressing the view that all precautions possible should be taken by the officials of the Forestry Division and the general public to prevent devastating fires and where, unfortunately, fire breaks out to confine the damage to the smallest possible area.

I have noticed along the mountainsides near where I live that the ground adjoining plantations is made fireproof by the removal of vegetation. It would be no harm if that system were developed. I do not know whether the forestry people do so or not but in my view it would be a very good thing to use a system of chemical spraying where vegetation has been removed to prevent regrowth.

It is a gratifying feature of the Estimate that the amount to be spent on labour for the coming year will be of the order of £2,101,000. I am also pleased that terms more closely related to those obtaining for county council road workers are being provided for foresty workers. Forestry workers have a pretty tough life. The majority of afforestation takes place in exposed districts where there is little or no shelter from the elements. Forestry workers must brave the elements. They do very good work and they are entitled to the consideration that any worker is entitled to get. The labourer is worthy of his hire. He is also worthy of decent conditions of employment.

I have noticed in my district lorries and trailers going long journeys hauling thinnings from some of the forests in the south. I do not know whether the lorries belong to the Department or not. On a few occasions I have seen in the town where I live a lorry and trailer loaded with nice handy timber parked overnight because the distance involved and the time taken in loading would make it impossible to make the return journey in one day. I regard that as a waste. Factories should be established closer to the source of supply for the conversion of such timber. It may be that it is impossible to avoid haulage of timber over long journeys.

I hope that the co-operation which has always prevailed between forestry workers and the officials of the Department and the Minister himself will always remain at the high standard experienced in the past. I wish the Minister, his officials and all concerned the best of luck in the work in which they are engaged.

Mr. Dolan

Níor mhaith liom an deis seo a ligint tharm gan focal molta agus cógháirdeachais a ghabháil leis an Aire agus leis na daoine atá ag cooibriú leis as ucht na hoibre atá á déanamh sa Roinn seo. Tá a fhios agam gur obair an-thábhachtach ar fad í, go bhfuil a lán fadhbanna le réiteach agus go bhfuil na fadhbanna sin andheacair ar fad, go mór mhór na cinn a bhaineann le feabhas níos fearr a chur ar na feirmeacha ins an tír seo agus an deacracht atá ag an Aire níos mó talaimh a fháil chun na feirmeacha seo a mhéadú.

Tá a fhios agam gurab í an phríomh-dheacracht atá ann go bhfuil níos mó ná 60,000 feirmeoirí ann nach bhfuil a ndóthain talún aca. Tá siad ag iarraidh feirmeacha níos fearr d'fháil. Fiú amháin dá mbeadh na Sé Contaethe atá gearrtha amach ón chuid seo den tír istigh againn ar maidin agus gan daoine nó tithe leo bheadh againn an talamh go léir atá ag teastáil uainn chun an fadhb seo a réiteach.

Tá an tAire ag déanamh sáriarracht chun cuid de na deacrachtaí seo a laghdú. Tá stair na tíre fite fuaite tré thalamh na tíre agus is eol do gach duine a bhí ar scoil an scéal— teacht na stróinséirí agus díbirt mhuintir na hÉireann go dtí na portaigh, na sléibhte, na h-oileáin agus na h-áiteanna iargcúlta. D'fhan na daoine ansin agus tá a fhios againn nach raibh na feirmeacha beaga nua a bhí acu ábalta iad a chothú agus go raibh saol cruaidh deacair acu leis na céadta bliain anuas. Nuair tháinig ár Rialtas féin thosaigh siad ag déanamh iarracht chun an cheist sin a réiteach. Le cúpla bliain anuas, bhí an Rialtas sásta níos mó airgid a chur ar fáil gach bliain chun iarracht a dhéanamh cuid de na daoine seo a thógaint amach as na h-áiteanna iargcúlta sin agus feirmeacha nua agus tithe nua a thúirt dóibh in áiteanna eile. Is fíor a rá go bhfuil sé níos deacaire breis talaimh a fháil. Tá luach an talaimh ag méadú anois.

Rud eile, de bhrí go bhfuil innealra feirmeoireachta ar fáil anois tig le daoine saibhre breis oibre do dhéanamh gan líon a gcuid oibrithe a mhéadú dá réir. Dá bhrí sin, tá sé deacair don Aire an fhadhb seo do réiteach. Tá sé de chiall ionainn a thuiscint nach dtig leis an Aire é seo do dhéanamh i gceann míosa nó bliana. Táimid sásta go bhfuil sé ag déanamh iarracht é sin do réiteach.

Do throid muintir na hÉireann go fíochmhar fadó chun tailte agus talamh do chaomhnadh. Uaireanta, is oth liom a rá, bhí daoine ann nach raibh sásta nuair a tháinig daoine ón iarthair agus gur tugadh feirmeacha dóibh in áiteanna eile sa tír. Ní ceart é sin. Ba cheart go mbeadh fáilte roimh na daoine sin.

Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil athrú déanta ag an Aire. Anois nuair a dhíolann fear talamh leis an Roinn bíonn sé ábalta a chuid airgid féin a fháil. Ní mar sin a bhí an scéal go dtí seo agus ar an ábhar sin bhí ar na daoine seo an talamh a dhíol le daoine eile. Ní rabhadar sásta an talamh a dhíol leis an Roinn, agus ní fhéadfaí milleán a chur orthu. Tá anáthas orm go bhfuil athrú scéil ann anois.

Chítear dom go mbeidh airgead le fáil as seo amach ag feirmeoirí nó daoine go bhfuil taithí acu ar obair a bhaineann leis an talamh nó atá ag obair go dícheallach sa pharóiste agus nach bhfuil a ndóthain talaimh acu. Tá an Rialtas sásta airgead do thabhairt dóibh chun feirmeacha do cheannach. Tá a fhios agam, nuair a rithfear an Bille seo go mbeidh athrú eile ann. Maidir leis na sean daoine go bhfuil cúpla céad acra talún acu agus nach bhfuil sásta an talamh sin a dhíol, beidh scéim nua ann. Tabharfar pinsean dóibh agus roinnfear an talamh ar dhaoine eile. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil eolas mór ag na feirmeoirí ar an scéim seo. Sílim féin gur ceart fógraí do chur ins na páipéir áitiúla nó ar an radio nó ar TV. Dá ndéanfadh oifigigh na Roinne an méid talaimh atá ann a liostáil dhéanfadh sé maitheas dúinn, nó b'fhéidir go mbéifí in ann an scéim do mhíniú. Nuair a chloiseann daoine an nuacht ó na comharsain b'fhéidir nach dtuigeann siad go bhfuil scéim den tsaghas sin ann.

Maidir leis an bhforaoiseacht agus scéim na gcrann i gcoitinne, sílim go bhfuil dul ar aghaidh íontach déanta. Tá i bhfad níos mó acraí fé chrainn anois ná mar a bhí le blianta anuas. Tá go leor airgid le fáil ach sílim go mbeidh sé níos deacaire an talamh d'fháil ins na blianta atá le teacht. Tá a fhios agam fosta go bhfuil an praghas ag árdú. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil scéim nua deontas ag an Rialtas. I gContae an Chabháin agus ins na contaethe eile tá na feirmeoirí ag cur crann. Amach anso ní bheidh an talamh le fáil. Sílim go bhfuil lucht na foraoiseachta ábalta socrú a dhéanamh leis na daoine atá ina gcónaí imeasc na sléibhte chun chrainn a chur i ndruileanna. Deineann na teinte móra damáiste do na crainn agus don tír ar fad.

Nuair a thagann cuairteoirí ba chóir do Bhord Fáilte cúpla líne a chur isteach ins na fógraí a chuireann siad amach ag innsint do na daoine sin go bhfuil muintir na hÉireann ag iarraidh na coillte a chosaint agus gur cóir dóibh bheith an-chúramach nuair a théann said amach agus gan teine a lasadh comhgarach do na coillte sin.

Na feirmeoirí féin atá in a gcónaí comhgarach do na coillte tuigeann siad an baol atá ann agus tuigeann siad fosta gur comharsain mhaithe iad an Roinn Tailte, go dtugann na coillte fothain dona ba agus na caoirigh. Ach anois agus arís lastar teine agus ba chóir go mbeadh deontas le n-íoc ag an Aire nó ag na h-oifigigh d'éinne a mhúchfadh teine nó a innseochadh do na gardaí nó do lucht foraoiseachta go raibh teine comhgarach don áit agus go raibh baol go rachfadh an áit ar fad tré theine.

Chomh maith leis sin, tá dualgas ar gach duine atá ag obair ins na coillte aire a thabhairt. Mholfainn don Aire, b'fhéidir, breis airgid a thabhairt dóibh má bhíonn a súile ar oscailt acu, fiú amháin nuair nach mbíonn siad ag obair, chun bheith cinnte nach mbeadh aon teine mhór againn ins na coillte.

Measaim go bhfuil obair an-mhaith dhá déanamh ag an Aire. Tá a fhios agam gur fear tuisceanach, stuamdha an Aire, go dtuigeann sé go maith na deacrachtaí atá ann maidir leis an ganntanas talún agus go bhfuil sé ag déanamh sár-dhíchill na deacrachtaí sin a réiteach.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

It was inevitable that a great deal of the material relating to the land problem should have been discussed pretty fully on the sections of the Land Bill that were before the House for some time. Many of the matters that would normally be debated on this Estimate were debated then and indeed quite an amount of statistics were given by me in reply to some of the points made by Deputies.

During the debate on the Land Bill I dealt very extensively with the question of alien purchases. The statistics which, let me reiterate, are there in the statutory register kept under the provisions of the 1961 Finance Act do not indicate any change from the position I indicated to the House in the debate on the Land Bill. There is no great trend one way or the other and the position still is that these transactions comprise between 6,000 and 7,000 acres per annum. That still is the picture and, as I indicated to the house before, if that picture changes or if the Government feel that any further steps are necessary to deal with any emergent problem, these steps will be taken. The position does not create a problem from a national point of view and is not the problem from a national point of view that those exploiting the sensitivity of our people on this issue would have us believe.

It is untrue to say that the new Land Bill has not some provisions that would be of assistance in dealing with this alien problem, should it get out of hand. Deputy Tully stated he had no objection to aliens buying land, provided they gave good employment, but he did object to any person who bought land going away and leaving it in the hands of others. So would I, and there is a section in the new Land Bill which provides that the Land Commission can use their new powers where an owner is not resident on or in the immediate vicinity of that land. That is the section which could certainly effectively be used against the undesirable type of alien mentioned by Deputies,

I do not think it necessary for me today to devote very much more time to this question of alien purchase. As the House is aware, some of the purchases by aliens are exempted from the 25 per cent stamp duty on the recommendation of two Commissioners of the Land Commission to the Revenue Commissioners. I have given before the figures covering all types of transactions that have taken place, and the picture of the sale and purchase of agricultural land is about the same and is still within the same limits. I notice that on this question of completely prohibiting purchases of land by aliens, Deputy Flanagan said he was expressing his own view. I take that to be his personal view, because I could quote some of his colleagues— including Deputy Donegan on 22nd April, 1964, Deputy MacEoin, and other Fine Gael Deputies—who have taken an entirely different view from that of Deputy Flanagan on this issue. It therefore appears to me that the Fine Gael Party as a whole are not of the opinion, as we are not, that the purchase of land by aliens presents any national problem, requiring any further special measures to deal with it than those we have already taken under existing law. Time and again I have reiterated that should a different picture emerge, the Government will take steps to deal with it.

Inevitably we had references to some sections of the Land Bill. We will have another day to deal with that Bill. Immediately the debate on this Estimate is over, I propose to move the Second Stage of, and the necessary money resolution in respect of, the Land Bond Bill. In passing, I may say that as a result of Deputy Flanagan's efforts in his obstruction of the Land Bill, he has succeeded in compelling me to bring in this Land Bond Bill which provides for the creation of £10 million in land bonds to carry on the work of the Land Commission. The present issues of land bonds are coming to an end and we would not have enough money to carry on with the ordinary programme of land acquisition by the Department, unless this Bill were passed. There was a section dealing with the matter in the Land Bill but due to the long delay in the passage of that Bill through the House, it was clear to us that we could not have it before the adjournment. Therefore it became necessary to introduce this two-section Bill to provide us with the necessary land bonds to continue with the programme of the Land Commission up to next October and, indeed, from then onwards.

Deputies will notice that while the amount mentioned in the Land Bill, 1963, for land bonds was £5 million, we have made that figure £10 million in the Bill. That is an indication of what we consider will be the increased activities of the Land Commission in the acquisition of land when the new Land Bill becomes law. There are some subheads in the Estimate which we are discussing which indicate that increase. The Bill in itself creates a new ceiling of £10 million in land bonds for the purpose of land acquisition. It is introduced in the way I have described to implement what we believe will be the increased activity in land acquisition when the new Land Bill becomes law.

The fact remains as I have said outside — and, indeed, I have said nothing outside that I did not say here—that a tremendous amount of parliamentary time was taken up by Deputy Flanagan and his friends on section 12, which, in my view, is a completely non-controversial section. Repetitive speeches were made here time and again on that section, and the result has been that while all that was going on here in Dáil Éireann, hundreds of derelict farms throughout the length and breadth of the country, and farms the owners of which have been abroad for many years, have been sold in anticipation of the powers the Land Commission will have to acquire land under the new Bill. There has been that move in the ownership of land.

We heard a lot of talk about the few thousands of acres acquired by aliens which would not compare in any degree with the holdings that have changed hands in anticipation of the passage of the Bill. The congests who are living in those areas are well aware, as I am well aware, of this movement in the sale of land in anticipation of the passage of the Bill and they will, no doubt, in due course fix the blame for that situation, and will consider the amount of unnecessary time that has been taken up in this House in giving the Land Commission the necessary powers to deal with the situation by the enactment of the new Land Bill.

It is the height of absurdity for people to argue here that these powers should not be taken and, at the same time, talk about the relief of congestion. As I explained, and will continue to explain, these powers are necessary in this day and age if we are to make any impact on the hard core of congestion that is left in the country. We will deal with those powers when the House re-assembles and meanwhile, I suppose, those people who are jumping the gun and getting rid of their lands before the Land Commission can acquire them will continue that practice. However, the Land Commission will, in some cases at least, be able to reexamine those quick sales that have taken place of derelict farms of which the Land Commission had made preliminary inspections but, due to the present cumbersome machinery, were not in a position to have the necessary notice published in Iris Oifigiúil before the lands were sold.

Dealing with the training of foresters, Deputy Flanagan inquired as to whether my Department had difficulty in interesting our young people in this work. Indeed, the contrary is the case. There is a tremendous interest in forestry and we now have 30 boys in Kinnity and 60 in Shelton Abbey. These young men are recruited through the Civil Service Commissioners for our service, and they are turned out from our schools, knowing that there is employment for them in the State forests.

I am having another look at the position in our forestry schools and considering whether some form of recognition should be given to those trainees when they are qualified. I am having another look generally at the educational side of our forestry training service. When vacancies in our schools are advertised, the Civil Service Commissioners are in the happy position, I am glad to say, of getting a great number of applications and first-class material applying for entrance into the service. I can assure the Deputy and the House that there is a very wide awareness of the forestry service as a career and a very wide interest displayed by young men who wish to devote their lives to the service.

Several Deputies, including Deputy Dolan, referred to this question of forestry fires and the matter is causing me some concern. I have already had an examination carried out and certain new proposals are being examined to try to deal with this hazard. Generally speaking, where fires have occurred, it is not mainly the fault of what we might call trippers for the day, as some Deputies appear to think. In many instances, the worst fires have been started by adjoining landowners burning heather on their land or starting fires on their land, without complying with the regulations, giving the necessary notices and so on. That is not done deliberately but mainly through ignorance and, in particular, through not ascertaining what the effect can be, for instance, if there is a change of wind or an increase in wind velocity once they have started fires to rid themselves of whins or unwanted heather. It is in many cases like this that we find great damage being done. Of course it should not be necessary for me to re-state that these people are committing an offence by starting the fire without giving the prescribed notice to the Garda. If that were done, and if we could get them to appreciate the great danger, then we could substantially reduce the fire hazard.

As I said, there are different proposals under examination at present in regard to what further steps should be taken to deal with the fire hazard and some of the proposals have been reiterated from time to time in this House by different Deputies. I think it was Deputy Lynch who suggested there should be a number which anybody could telephone immediately a fire was spotted. Another suggestion was that streams in forest areas should be banked up so that a water supply would be available. I can assure the House that all these suggestions are being actively examined at present. I will also have the suggestion about the inadequacy of fire notices in our forests examined. Deputy Tully wanted to know if we insure against forest fires and the answer is "no". I do not know whether insurance companies would be likely to accept this hazard but at all events the practice has been that we do not carry insurance and must bear the loss if we have the misfortune to have a fire, large or small.

Deputy Tully's interpretation about the reference in the opening speech to Post Office services is correct. The major portion of the charge included in this year's Estimate covers services in connection with the purchase by the Post Office Stores of machinery and equipment, wire fences and so on used in forestry work. The cost of these services will not be affected by the change in the Post Office charge and has nothing to do with it. In previous years, there was no direct charge for these services.

Deputy Tully also made some allegations against Land Commission inspectors in his area. This is a practice which I deplore in this House, unless of course there is reason and unless some notice of the matter has been given. It is unfair to attack people here who cannot defend themselves and, in particular, it is most unfair that an attack should be made on an individual inspector in the course of an Estimate for the Department without making that complaint to the head of the Department or to me. I am confident that most of these attacks on individual inspectors are ill-founded and exaggerated.

People who know the work inspectors have to do appreciate that it is a very onerous and difficult job. Indeed, as far as complaints about land division are concerned, we will always have them and I have often heard it said, and I believe it is true, that the only successful division of land is the one in respect of which no applicant is satisfied. Otherwise, all kinds of allegations are made against inspectors and those responsible for the division scheme and the allocation of the land on one ground or another by disappointed applicants. While I would not for a moment stand over any public servant who did not do his duty, at the same time, it is most unfair that allegations should be made against individual inspectors without being substantiated and without these men being given an opportunity at least to let me know their side of the story.

In regard to re-arrangement cases, some Deputies, particularly Deputy Geoghegan, suggested that the Land Commission should build the houses for the applicants. In these cases, a special grant is given by the Land Commission for the different types of houses which is much larger than the ordinary assistance provided by the State for other people. I fear, however, that it would be impossible for the Land Commission to carry out the Deputy's suggestion. It is one which I would be very much taken with, except for my personal experience as Minister for Lands in connection with our building programme. We have had grave difficulty in completing houses for migrants because of difficulty in getting contractors and indeed we have had to take on direct labour ourselves and try to get these houses completed. There has been a break in our migration programme because we are not equipped to do this job and I fear it would be impossible for the Land Commission, however much they might desire it, to erect houses directly for people in re-arranged holdings. It may be of some benefit, but I do not suppose it would cover all the types Deputy Geoghegan had in mind when he referred to the new house building provision whereby a local authority can erect a house for a man who has a £5 freehold, and let it to him at 7/6 a week until he becomes the owner.

I am afraid that innovation will not cover all the types of case Deputy Geoghegan has in mind. However, I am satisfied my Department are not geared to go into this business of house-building directly. If it becomes necessary that such a scheme should be operated, my simple answer is that some other Department should become geared to do this job. I do not know how local authorities propose to implement this new £5 housing scheme— I do not know what they are doing in the different areas. No doubt local authorities, if they are to make progress with the relevant section of the Act, will have to start a building force of their own. That is my personal view. I know that we are not geared to do any more housing in a direct way than we are doing at the moment.

I cannot accept the allegations made, particularly by Deputy Tully, on the question of protective clothing. This matter has been raised in the House before, particularly the provision of boots for forestry workers. With all respect to Deputy Tully, and acknowledging my lack of expert knowledge of medical matters, I cannot accept from him that dermatitis can be contracted by a man wearing a pair of boots worn by another man. As far as I know from my experience in dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act cases, dermatitis is a disease brought on by some allergy. In forestry work, perhaps the man would be allergic to some growth or pollen and contract dermatitis in that way.

Cases of dermatitis are few and far between among our forestry workers. I do not accept that dermatitis is contracted by a man using another man's wellingtons. Indeed if that were so, I should have got it a long time ago from wearing other fishermen's boots when fishing, which is quite a common practice in the sport. I do not think the suggestion is serious that if a man wears a pair of wellingtons provided by the Department only once, the boots must be scrapped immediately. That is not logical and I do not think it will be seriously contended. As it has been raised, however, I shall make inquiries into it. When that matter was raised before, the information I received——

Mr. Treacy

Surely the Minister will agree it is unhygienic in these modern times for one worker to wear another's boots, particularly working boots?

Mr. Moran

Wellingtons are provided for forestry workers engaged in drainage operations. Normally, like other workers, they should provide their own boots. The quality of the boots also enters into it. I do not know where this idea has come from that there is something terribly dangerous in a man wearing another man's boots. Forestry workers are supposed to have these boots only while engaged in drainage operations. However, I can have the matter checked, but, as I have said, if this practice of exchange of boots is not unduly abused, I cannot see why there should be objection to it. Of course Deputies may have a different view on it.

A complaint we have also had before is about the Boyne Valley and the cutting down of trees there. I gave full details to the House, in reply to questions, about this some time ago. Those lands were taken over and were in the hands of the Land Commission only for a short time before being divided. It seems illogical that the Land Commission should not cut down mature timber rather than make a present of it to the tenant, who would cut it down anyway. Any man in possession was entitled to cut down trees and what the Land Commission did was to cut down trees from land which they knew was good land which should be put to agricultural uses. Therefore it should not have timber growing on it. I do not see any reason why the Land Commission should not have taken the action they took in that instance.

Deputies referred to the work in progress under the Game Section of my Department. I am glad we have been able to report such progress in this field but I warn Deputies who spoke on this matter that it is far too early to start thinking in terms of national game boards. At the moment we are only scraping the surface in the matter of organising all our people in this connection. I am sorry to say that there is some disunity among some of the bodies concerned. Still, a great deal of progress is being made, county by county, through the development of regional game councils, in the matter of game protection.

Good progress is also being made in the establishment of game farms, hatcheries, the introduction of new species, but there is a tremendous amount of work still to be done, including the examination of different types of heather so that the regional game councils can attack the other aspect of game-rearing—trying to improve conditions in local habitats. I repeat that we have a long way to go in this field before we get the country fully game conscious and to the stage in which the work of a national game board would be effective. I ask Deputies to give their full co-operation and help to the game councils throughout the country who are doing such fine work in this field.

Deputy O'Connor and some other Deputies referred to the necessity for drainage. No doubt such need exists, but, by and large, it is a matter for which my Department is not particularly geared. Drainage in different parts of the country, depending on the Arterial Drainage Act, has gone on with greater or lesser speed, according to the catchment area being dealt with. I can quite accept that in Deputy O'Connor's county, there is urgent need for this minor type of drainage. Where the Land Commission are doing a rearrangement scheme they do a limited amount of drainage, particularly in opening outfalls to main drains, but to do it on a larger scale would require the expert staff and equipment we now see employed by the Board of Works on drainage work. I shall have the Deputy's suggestion examined, but if it were to be carried out on a large scale, my Department would not be geared for it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister may have overlooked one point. He was asked what roughly is the acreage of mature timber that we can take off our forestry lands each year?

Mr. Moran

We sold roughly £600,000 worth to date this year. I think that was the biggest amount sold since the beginning of forestry here. A survey has been partially carried out to try to get a very accurate picture of what timber will become available from time to time. So far as the intense afforestation that has taken place in the past seven or eight years is concerned, it is easy enough to estimate, but in the case of previous plantations and old woodland, it is not easy to know what amount will be mature in three, five or ten years' time. Material from the survey is in process of compilation and we will have it very shortly.

There are other factors that affect this, such as very heavy storm damage, and in one particular year you will have much more timber being sold than would otherwise be the case.

Again on the land side, we have had a very good year. I regard it as a very successful performance on the part of the Land Commission that they got an area of some 36,800 acres for division in the intake machine and that approximately 34,000 acres were, in fact, divided. That is a pretty good record for this difficult work and those Deputies who say the Land Commission should not be landlords but should divide the lands as soon as possible are simply reiterating my personal view and the instructions Land Commission officials have got from me.

The quicker the land is divided, the better for the Land Commission and its staff but Deputies familiar with the problem realise that in some cases it is very difficult for the Commission to achieve division because of the noncooperation of the people themselves where there is a rearrangement scheme. Where such a scheme entails the surrender of part of his land by an individual so as to make a neighbour's holding more compact, one contrary man may hold up his neighbours and the Land Commission for years. We have such cases and there is no answer to them, apart from compulsory rearrangement, which would not work, as everybody knows. In such cases the Land Commission very often must leave these cases rest for the time being and consequently land acquired for that purpose is on hands and there is nothing they can do with it.

In other cases, they get one holding in an area and they know that to make a reasonable job, they need another which they are watching and expect to acquire in the course of a year or two. In these cases, it is necessary to wait and let the land because they have not sufficient raw material to produce any kind of a workable scheme. Invariably, Deputies will find that it is in cases of that type that long delay has occurred, unless there is some particular local difficulty regarding a particular case.

Let me repeat what I have said before: the Land Commission do not let land because of any income from it. The longer it is on their hands, the greater its nuisance value to them and the greater the drain on their resources. It is a popular misconception to think that the Land Commission are letting land so as to "get their own" out of it, as is said. That is not so, because the amount of revenue derived from letting of land in comparison with the national picture of the expenses of the Land Commission is infinitesimal. I agree entirely with Deputies who say land should be schemed out and divided as quickly as possible after acquisition. That is the instruction the Commission have from me and they must give me a special explanation if cases are pending for more than three years as to why there should be such delay.

Finally, when the idea of the Kennedy Memorial Park was first mooted by societies in New York, they felt that a good form of memorial would be something connected with forestry in Ireland. When I made the suggestion that we needed a national arboretum, those concerned agreed and adopted the idea because they felt that we would have a Memorial Park that people would visit, particularly Americans when they came here on holidays. We were fortunate in having lands at Slieve Coillte near the area from which President Kennedy's ancestors came. We, in the Forestry Section, have appreciated the need for an arboretum for many a day. The Botanic Gardens are most unsuitable in area and location. The fact that this occasion arose and that we have suitable land will make it possible suitably to honour the memory of the late great President of the United States. When we have to come to the House for further finance in this connection, I am sure the House will give it to us.

I wish to pay tribute to the American organisations concerned who have made such wonderful progress in this connection in such a short time. They set their target at 100,000 dollars and, as Deputies have seen, one of their officers came over here and gave me a cheque for 50,000 dollars, half the amount which they propose to raise. He assured me that they will have no difficulty in reaching their target and we are proceeding with the planning of this work as quickly as we can.

I will have the suggestions made by the various Deputies in this connection carefully examined. We are making a study of what is happening elsewhere and we are fortunate in the soil and the climate in the area chosen. We believe that most species of trees from any part of the world will grow there. There will also be an agricultural school, if there is sufficient land available in the area. When we get this under way, I am quite sure that the national arboretum which overlooks Dunganstown, the birthplace of the forefathers of the Kennedy family, will prove a big attraction for our own people and for foreign visitors to our shores, particularly those from the United States of America. I wish to thank the Deputies for the manner in which they have received this Estimate and for its speedy passage through the House.

Vote put and agreed to.