asked the Minister for Lands if he will state (a) the area of land which his Department have acquired for afforestation in each district of South-West Cork, (b) the date of acquisition in each case, and (c) the programme of planting and the number likely to be employed in each district during the current year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - South-West Cork Forestry Statistics.
25.
The lands acquired by my Department for afforestation purposes in South-West Cork are grouped into seven forest centres. The area of these forests at 31st March, 1964, together with details of the 1964-65 planting programmes, as settled so far, and the number of men currently employed at the forests is set out in a tabular statement which I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to have circulated with the Official Report.
It would not be practicable to furnish the date of acquisition for each of the many individual areas which were acquired to make up the forests or to give an accurate forecast of staff levels throughout the remainder of the year.
Following is the statement:
|
Forest |
Total Area at 31st March, 1964 (acres) |
Planting Programme 1964-65 (acres) |
Number of men currently employed |
|
Ballydehob |
1,923 |
203 |
22 |
|
Ballyvourney |
4,639 |
155 |
36 |
|
Dunmanway |
4,064 |
342 |
28 |
|
Glengarriff |
2,073 |
278 |
27 |
|
Gougane Barra |
2,636 |
113 |
25 |
|
Inchigeelagh |
3,163 |
184 |
21 |
|
Rosscarbery |
1,513 |
101 |
29 |
|
TOTALS |
20,011 |
1,376 |
188 |
Is the Minister aware that the Forestry Division acquired land some years back in west Cork which they have not yet utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired? Numbers of workers there are anxiously awaiting employment by his Department when work commences on these lands for afforestation.
Question No. 26.
The Minister must not have any brief.
I do not know what the Deputy wants me to be aware of. It did not arise out of the question.
It did. It arises under (b)—the date of acquisition in each case. Is it not inappropriate for a Department to acquire land in 1958 and to leave it over until 1964 without utilising it for the purpose for which it was acquired? Surely there is no justification for delays of five, six and seven years?
Acquisition and planting have gone on every year. There has not been a delay in the planting programme. There has been planting every year from 1959 to date, according to the figures before me.