Yes. As these men come in, they will do an intensive course of training before they are sent out. While I am on this question of re-arrangement, I would like to deal with a question raised by some Deputy about people who got Land Commission holdings of 15 or 20 acres long ago. That Deputy asked if these people were eligible. They are eligible and that is the simple answer to the question. In these days there were two borders in this country as far as Land Commission policy was concerned. Anybody west of the Shannon, once brought up to £10 valuation, was written off by the Land Commission. He was vested, irrespective of whether it was a scattered holding and, irrespective of the quality of land, he was supposed to have an economic holding.
That was a very wrong policy, in my view, because the people in the south could be regarded as uneconomic holders on valuations up to £35 while it was £10 in the West. That has gone and the new concept is the 40-45 acre family farm of reasonably good land or its equivalent in second-quality land. Any of these people not up to that standard, irrespective of their valuation or acreage or whether they got additions before or not, or whether they are migrants, come in under the new scheme of things.
There is, of course, the question of priorities and naturally the Land Commission will try to deal with the people who have been unrelieved and are waiting relief so long but if there is land within the policy distance for these people who have only 19 or 20 acres, whether from the Land Commission or otherwise, they are entitled to be considered under the new policy.
Let me turn to some matters raised on the forestry section of the Department. I think it was Deputy Flanagan who spoke about the provision of foresters' houses and suggested that no progress was being made on this front. I assure him this Estimate contains a provision of £85,000 for the construction and purchase of foresters' houses. That provision is almost double the amount spent for that purpose in 1965-66. As most Deputies are aware, foresters who do not have an official residence are paid an allowance in lieu for rent, an amount calculated in accordance with their conditions of service. I know progress was somewhat slower under this heading. I am not completely happy with it but it is a step in the right direction. It is not as easy as it may appear because problems arise about foresters' houses. Some do not want, as was formerly done, to live away up in the mountains in the midst of the forest. They want to live among the community and our forests are in the main in isolated areas.
There is no foundation for the suggestion by Deputy Flanagan that we are finding difficulty in filling the places in our training school at Kinnitty. We get our full requirements and the number coming forward in competitions to get into the forestry schools is as big as ever and competition among the trainees is extremely keen.
Regarding acquisition of land for forestry, the balance in the grant-in-aid fund on 31st March, 1966, was £141,000, which, with the amount of grant now provided in this Estimate of £140,000, brings the total available for acquisition of land for forestry development to £281,000. This figure is more than adequate to meet any foreseeable demand for land in the coming year. Expenditure, in fact, last year on acquisition was only £116,000. Over twice the amount of money is available this year for forestry land, if we get it. This has become more difficult year by year. The amounts becoming available are smaller in area; the cream of the milk has gone and where we could take in 200 or 300 acres of a big mountain at one stage, the plots are becoming smaller. Title and other difficulties slow up the intake machine but so far as money is concerned for the acquisition of land for forestry, there is more provided this year than has been spent. The Forestry Estimate this year is for £3,397,000, of which £281,000 is for land acquisition.
I regret I had to cut the programme to 20,000 acres this year. Deputies will appreciate that forestry is a capital expenditure and we know we had complaints from Deputies opposite and organs outside last year that the Government were taking too much money out of the national pool and starving the private sector for finance. However, in view of the increasing difficulties experienced in acquisition, if we achieve 20,000 acres of planting this year—as I have pointed out, we have the money to acquire and develop double that amount—despite the difficulties, we shall be doing a fairly good job.
I am sorry to have had to make that cut-back because it was since I came to this position that we achieved a planting rate of 25,000 acres per year and succeded in reaching that target steadily over a number of years. I particularly regret that the cut-back may affect employment. It does not as yet affect employment to the extent alleged here. Some figures were quoted on different sides of the House regarding lay-offs that were effected but it is not all due to this cut-back or financial stringency but simply to the fact that the men could not be further utilised and there was not land in their particular area in some cases.
