Deputy Flanagan to resume. There are 13 minutes remaining to the Deputy.
Private Members' Business. - Forestry Planting Target: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the cutting down of the forestry planting target of 25,000 acres annually to 20,000 acres, because of the hardships and consequential unemployment that will result to forestry workers and their families, instead of increasing the target for productive investment.
—(Deputy O.J. Flanagan.)
Án Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I will not take 13 minutes. Last night I was dealing with the failure of the Government to introduce, either in this House or in the country, a long-term forestry programme, a programme in which we could see the means of providing a large number of additional jobs in rural Ireland with the opening up of new forestry centres. There are extensive areas of land in this country not suitable for agricultural purposes, mainly mountain slopes and cut-away bogs, which, if suitably drained, could be planted. The Forestry Division appear to be leaving it to someone else to do the planting but it will never be done by private planting.
I venture to say that for the size of our country we have a vast amount of waste and unproductive land which represents a loss to the economy. If the soil is not sufficiently fertile to produce a crop, I suggest that there is no soil so bad that it cannot produce a tree of some type. No courageous effort has been made by the Forestry Division to present us with a progressive forestry programme under which every single acre of waste land could be used for the profitable production of timber.
The Fine Gael Party are perturbed at the failure of the Government's forestry programme both as a means of providing employment in rural Ireland and as a means of employing the thousands of acres of otherwise unproductive land that could very usefully be planted. On behalf of the Deputies whose names are appended thereto, I ask the House to accept the motion.
I wish to be associated with this motion. I joined with Deputy Flanagan and Deputy O'Higgins in tabling the motion: "That Dáil Éireann deplores the cutting down of the forestry planting target of 25,000 acres annually to 20,000 acres", and we gave as our reasons, "the hardships and consequential unemployment that will result to forestry workers and their families, instead of increasing the target for productive investment".
When the first inter-party Government came into office in 1948, we found that the Forestry Division of the Minister's Department was then planting 4,000 acres per year. We came to the conclusion that 4,000 acres per year was uneconomic, that it was not realistic, and we set a target, which we hoped would be reached in a minimum of ten or 12 years, of 25,000 acres per year. Once we got the nurseries going, we were able to step up the annual acreage from 4,000 in 1948 until it was in the region of 14,000 acres in or about 1956-57.
We must congratulate the Government who succeeded us in that they continued to try to hit our target of 25,000 acres. In or about 1960 I understand that the target of 25,000 acres per year was reached. Unfortunately, we have now fallen below that target and are back to planting a mere 20,000 acres per year. That is deplorable for many reasons. The acres which are being planted are acres of marginal land which is practically useless for any development other than afforestation, which is mostly situate in the congested and Irish-speaking districts of the depopulated west. Here we have the means of retaining and giving permanent employment to at least some of those who are left on the western seaboard.
Afforestation uses up marginal land which cannot be used for anything else, which cannot be brought into economic agricultural production, which cannot be used for hill grazing, which cannot be used for turbary and, for that matter, land which cannot be used for any purpose other than afforestation.
I remember that when previous Ministers introduced their Estimates they boasted of how the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes had been stepped up year by year. By afforestation not only do we do good to the lands actually planted, but we also drain those lands and the land surrounding the forests; we bring into production land which has been lying useless for years.
It has always been and will continue to be Fine Gael policy that in the land of Ireland lies the wealth of Ireland. We tried to improve it. We tried first of all to improve agricultural land by means of the Land Reclamation Scheme. Unfortunately, the present Government dropped Section B of that scheme, and land which could have been, and should have been developed, and would have been developed had the inter-Party Government remained in power, is now mere marginal land and is no longer being used for any purpose.
We believe that marginal land should be planted and we continue to show that belief by setting a target of 25,000 acres for plantation each year. During the period of planting a considerable amount of employment is given in the locality in which the forests are situate. As the forests grow and thinning takes place, permanent employment is given. As the forests mature and trees are cut down this employment continues.
I often think that Bord na Móna could do much more than they are doing with their cutaway bogland. In Germany, turbary has reached a very high stage of development. Immediately the turf banks are cut out, forests are planted on the cutaway bog. That should be done in this country.
While we are waiting for the bogs to be cut away, there are many thousands of acres of marginal land that could be planted. I live in a county the greater portion of which is an undeveloped area and portion of which is in the Gaeltacht. There is a dearth of employment in the locality. We are depending on the Minister, on his Department and on Roinn na Gaeltachta to provide employment there. Here is a source of employment which has never really been exploited.
In my own area, which is known as the Rosses, not one tree has been planted by the Minister's Department despite the fact that it is an area in which there is absolutely no employment whatsoever. Some years ago, Deputy Cormac Breslin, myself and the late parish priest, Canon Molloy, invited inspectors from the Minister's Department to the Rosses area. We pointed out to them where they could acquire at least 2,000 acres of land suitable for the planting of trees. Deputy Breslin and myself and the parish priest were satisfied that shelterbelts could be planted in this locality— Cloughwally, Doochery and Meenaweel districts. Despite the fact that the area was examined, not one tree has been planted there by the Department.
I have asked questions of the Minister and of his predecessor in office as to why the Rosses district has not been cultivated with trees and I have always been told in reply that the Department have lands for afforestation purposes and, when I asked where they were, I was told Meenaweel which is not in the Rosses district. Not one tree has been planted around Croveigh, Loughanuire and other areas which, in my opinion, are suitable for planting. No reasonable excuse has been given for their non-planting. Had these lands to which I have referred been acquired for afforestation purposes, permanent employment would have been available to people there who have to depend on public works in Scotland or on the tunnels of Wales or England for employment. They would have been able to remain in their locality and bring up their children in a Gaeltacht environment.
I can never understand the mentality of Departmental inspectors who refuse to see this point of view. The present Minister is responsible not only for Lands and Afforestation but also for the Gaeltacht and I make a special appeal to him to see that some lands in those Gaeltacht areas are immediately acquired for afforestation and consequent employment.
Grants are made available in these localities for many projects—projects which are uneconomic. Here is an economic project which could be of some considerable advantage to the locality. I remember that when the former Deputy Joseph Blowick was Minister for Lands he visited the Norse countries and came back here and told us what could be done with the end product of our forestry. I remember him telling us how pulp factories could be set up, how the paper industry could absorb the pulp and how many other end products of afforestation could satisfactorily be utilised. Nothing has come of that. We have heard nothing since the former Deputy Joseph Blowick left the Department—and the acreage is dropping to what it was prior to his becoming the political head of that Department.
The tragedy is that we appear to look upon afforestation as a lost cause. Those of us who go to the pictures cannot but note from time to time the amount of employment that is given in Canada and in the Norse countries through afforestation and the advantages of this very fine industry which we, also, could benefit from through prudent use of our marginal land.
Again, these forests could be used for game protection. Year after year, the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands advertise not only to locals but to foreigners the letting of shooting rights in our forests. The forests are fairly valuable as a game preserve. A lot more could be done about game in our forests. I have been the lessee of a forest for the past 20 years. I pay a rental for the shooting rights there—not that I get any birds of any description there because I simply have not the time to develop it. The Department could do a lot of good from the point of view of developing game in their forests and protecting the game there. Employment could be given by seeing that vermin is curtailed and possibly wiped out.
Most of our marginal land is in the lake districts. In my own locality, the local anglers' association are now planting the marginal land around lakes for the purposes of improving fishing. Forests are the source and the breeding ground of flies which eventually find themselves on our lakes and improve fishing. It has often been said that the most successful fishing in the west is the fishing adjacent to forests. I often wonder why the Department did not try to correlate in some way or other the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture with the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands so that they would work in unison to improve not only our fisheries but also the scenic appearance of the barren surroundings of some lakes.
When one motors, say, from Donegal down to Pettigo, one sees thousands of acres of barren land which is completely unplanted. I know that that land is equally as good as the land around Lough Derg for afforestation but no effort is made to acquire those acres. Surely we have sufficient nurseries in the country to raise the seedlings for planting — nurseries which should be and could be and I hope will be enlarged in the very near future. I know the labour potential of afforestation. I have a very good idea of the economic value of afforestation. I have a very good idea of the amount for which lands can be acquired for afforestation. For all of these reasons, I appeal to the Minister to accept the motion to try to step up the annual acreage for afforestation to the figure we in the first inter-Party Government set, of 25,000 acres per annum. The Minister should try not only to maintain that target but, if possible, to increase it.
I understand that at the moment about 4,800 people are permanently employed in our forests. There is no reason why this figure should not be doubled. These people are living in areas where there are few other forms of employment and they appreciate their work in our forests. It is for that reason that I second this motion.
This is a very important matter. It is easy to advocate an increased programme of this kind, as Deputy O'Donnell did, but we must ensure that the investment is viable. Investment in afforestation is long term, and at the same time, at the other end, we must consider the method of dealing with mature forests when they arrive. We cannot have a stock book programme in this matter and say that we shall increase our acreage to 30,000 or 40,000 a year. This may look well as of now, but surely we must keep an eye on the whole forestry programme and remember the situation in 20 or 30 years when the trees are mature.
Therefore, it would not be economic to have trees maturing unless we have the capacity to deal with the acreage we plant when they come to maturity. In others words it would be uneconomic to have 50,000 acres coming to maturity in one year when all we can handle is 20,000. It is not as simple as Deputy O'Donnell makes it out to be. Though we get interim dividends from afforestation, one of the most important dividends comes after the appropriate number of years, depending on the variety of trees we plant. I feel sure there is a very good reason for arriving at the figure of 20,000 or 25,000 acres but I am equally sure that this was the optimum acreage that could be utilised fully in the year of their maturity, with the handling facilities we can provide.
I hope the Minister will give realistic reasons for the figure of 20,000 or 25,000 acres. If these figures are restated, and if progressive policy is based on a certain figure, whatever it may be, rather than using this matter as a political football—one Party bidding for 20,000, another for 30,000 and so on—we will be realistic and will reap profits accordingly.
One thing I urge on the Minister is that he be more selective in his planting programme. We must remember that afforestation serves a number of purposes, one main purpose being that it helps to relieve flooding and erosion. Some years ago I read an excellent book, The Rape of Ireland, by John Mackey. It is one of the best books on the subject one can hope to get because the author goes into much detail on the questions of flooding and land erosion and on the effects on them of afforestation. We all know of our priority drainage schemes and we know in advance the arterial drainage schemes for major catchment areas and for intermediate rivers.
I suggest that planting in these areas should go hand in hand with drainage. The importance of that is very well explained in the book to which I have referred in relation to afforestation here and in other countries where it is utilised. A greater time lag occurs between the time rain hits a mountainside and reaches the river or the sea where there has been afforestation: the forest helps to slow down the speed at which the rainwater eventually reaches the sea. As a result of the slowing down and dispersion of the flow of water, less erosion occurs and valuable soil is saved in the lower areas. Therefore, there should be collaboration between the Forestry Division and the arterial drainage section of the Board of Works.
Afforestation also affects temperature and this is one of the interim benefits we look for from it. Of course, employment is of very great consideration, as is the utilisation of otherwise unproductive land which is probably one of the greatest benefits derivable from afforestation. We know that the Department of Agriculture have given very substantial grants for hill fencing to farmers and that they are now about to use barren land, which heretofore could not be used, for sheep grazing. The old system of a man and his dog roaming the mountains where there was no fencing is not an economic method of sheep raising. The introduction of grants for hill fencing, subsidies for hill lambs and in some areas grants for broadcast re-seeding of mountain land is making it profitable for farmers to use land which up to now was no good for anything except forestry although there is a stage where the profitability of keeping sheep on moorland would have to be weighed against the profitability of afforestation. There is already a decision that land which is potentially suitable for agriculture will not in any circumstance be taken over for afforestation. A similar decision may also have to be taken in the case of certain lands which carry x number of sheep. If they carry less than x number of sheep then they can be taken over.
As far as I am concerned and as far as the area which I represent, that is, the Inishowen peninsula, is concerned, I have nothing but the highest praise for the speed with which the Forestry Division are undertaking the job there. Admittedly it is not very many years since the forestry people first entered the peninsula, but I can say that in this area since then great strides have been made. I understand that land acquisition and proposals for land acquisition are proceeding satisfactorily. I hope this will continue.
Of course the provision of money is necessary but I think we should, once and for all, estimate in the long term the optimum acreage to plant per annum. Afforestation improves the appearance of the countryside but this is not everything and eventually we will look for a return from the expenditure. Certainly in some of our forests more could be done to ensure that they are looked after although I would say that in the last ten years a great improvement has taken place in this regard.
In the Six Counties some—not all— of the forestry areas on the mountains and beside lakes, are cleared for picnic parties and for tourist development. Going through Northern Ireland one sees direction signs pointing to forests recommended as beauty spots. Some of this should be done here because there are many forests which have reached a stage where they are attractive places to go. Indeed, in other countries tours are organised through forests.
The letting of rights in the vicinity of forests leaves much to be desired. The last speaker said he had a lease of a forest but unfortunately had not the time to deal with vermin control et cetera. It should be a condition of any letting that certain things would be required of the lessee. I know this is not happening, that groups are taking lettings of forests and doing nothing in return.
I know the Minister will be anxious to continue the progress which has been undoubtedly made but I should like to know if it is physically possible to deal with larger areas of planting if in the years ahead forests mature at the rate of 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 acres.
I have no hesitation in assuring the House of the whole-hearted support of Deputies on these benches for the motion at present before the House.
The fact that the very moderate target of 25,000 acres of afforestation per year has had to be cut back is an extraordinary indictment of the policies of the Government. I cannot think of anything that it would be so easy to plan for as afforestation. The last speaker tried to make a case for the cut back of this programme from 25,000 to 20,000 acres. The case he made did not in any way coincide with the case the Minister made when he was opening the debate on his Estimate last October. The reasons the Minister gave were that our plantable reserves were not sufficient to continue at the rate we were going, that we had not acquired enough land in recent years.
Surely these two reasons could easily have been foreseen and steps to overcome them could have been taken in time? It is admitted now that the reason the land for forestry could not be readily acquired was that inadequate prices had been offered for it, that they persisted for far too long with an unrealistic ceiling of £10 per acre. My indictment of the Government is that this was something they could easily have foreseen. Instead of that we have had to cut back our very moderate programme. Now we are told that only £123,261 was spent and only 14,713 acres were acquired for afforestation in the year 1967/68 and that in April of 1968 we had a balance of £204,000. This year the sum available to us is £354,000 because of that balance left over but the question we now ask is, will that £354,000 be capable of being spent because of the short-term policies the Government have operated with regard to afforestation down through the years. The ceiling of £10 per acre was an unrealistic one and it should have been realised much sooner that £10 per acre was a figure which could not be applied generally if the right type of land was to be acquired. The result of this ceiling was that only the very worst land was being offered for afforestation and very often land was acquired which was not suitable for afforestation.
A condition of planting for afforestation was that this planting should be capable of supplying a reasonable yield of timber. All this should have been taken into account before we decided to cut back the modest target for this country of 25,000 acres. I hope the farmers will not take as long to react to the Minister's new approach to this question as the Minister took to realise that there was need for that new approach. It is extraordinary that this should have happened in this country when it is so clear that there is a demand for timber and timber products. It has happened in a climate which is particularly suitable for the growing of timber and which could place us in a position where we could compete with European countries. It is extraordinary that we did not take advantage of this. It happened too in a tourist country where widespread planting would have improved the scenery. It is extraordinary that all these things were not foreseen by the Department and that we should now have to table a motion such as this.
I am anxious also to support the motion from the point of view of the people who earn their livelihood in our forests. These workers have our whole-hearted sympathy. They are people who have been very unfairly treated, they are lowly paid, below the average run of workers in every aspect, and now they are faced with this danger of additional insecurity. They have no pension scheme, no scheme of conciliation or negotiation, no PAYE. Last year when a scheme of service pay was introduced for other lowly-paid State servants and which operated from 1st April these people were paid that service pay only from 1st June. They have no bargaining power and because of that they are being exploited by a State Department, which is a shame. These people are lowly paid and the security of continual employment is most important to them.
I would appeal to the Minister to introduce as soon as he can a pension scheme for these workers. To delay such a scheme any further is not fair and no case can be made for delaying it further. They may be termed casual workers but many have given service of 30 and 40 years to the Department. Their records are there and can be traced and so there is no case to be made for denying them a pension any longer. We must appeal to the Minister that he should take every step that can be taken to prevent this disgraceful thing happening again to the lowly-paid workers of this State Department.
Forestry is a matter of great concern to all of us. It is a long-term national asset and is something for which it should be easy to plan. It is a matter for which we can plan at leisure but we have not succeeded in doing that and, as a result, we now have workers whose jobs are in jeopardy. There are people who are very concerned about this trend in this employment. This is not the first time that this has happened. Last year a number of forestry workers lost their jobs because the labour content of many schemes, such as the making of roads, was cut back. No steps have been taken to see that that trend does not continue.
This trend has been evident in areas adjacent to my constituency, in Bandon Kinsale and Macroom. In Macroom there is a development association keenly concerned with the setting up of a chipboard factory in the town. Members of that association came on a deputation to the Minister for Industry and Commerce about that project which is based on native raw material. It is poor consolation to them and to other people like them concerned with the development of industry that forestry is being cut back and that the Government's policy in relation to forestry is only a short-term one. I would appeal to the Minister to do all he can to remedy the defects of that short-term policy and to do everything he can to restore the target of 25,000 acres annually. This is a much lower target than should be the aim in this country, which has an ideal climate and so much land not suitable for other purposes, in which there is so much need for employment in rural areas and in which there is so much need for native raw material.
I want to support the motion. I was appalled when I read that the target had been reduced from 25,000 to 20,000 acres per annum. Every Deputy in this House should realise the value of forestry to this country and also that any action taken by anybody to reduce the planting acreage is detrimental to the country, to the people and to the economy. Here we have a raw material in timber and we have a market beside it, a valuable market where every type of native timber can be sold at a profit. Any action that tends to reduce planting should be deplored by the House. There is an abundance of land for planting and, with modern techniques, it should be possible to grow trees on every acre of land with the exception of deep virgin bog or the rocks of the Burren country in County Clare.
There is hardly any type of land, with the exception of the type I mentioned, where some kind of timber cannot be grown. Everybody knows that with the techniques used on the sawn timber, with dry in kilns, et cetera, Irish timber today can be used in many ways in which it could not be heretofore and can take the place of this foreign timber we have to import every year at tremendous cost to the economy because it affects our balance of payments. We should utilise every single piece of timber we can produce whether in logs, in bulk or in any other form. It would be a tremendous help to our balance of payments if everybody involved set about using it to the utmost advantage.
Some years ago people used to think that Irish timber had not got the texture or density necessary for use in furniture, decoration and many other things. That is completely changed today. With the discovery of adhesives that can be used with pulp or veneers, practically any kind of grown timber can be used commercially. It is, therefore, important that the Government and every Deputy would do everything possible to ensure that more and more land is acquired and more trees grown.
In the area I come from in the west of Ireland there is a tremendous amount of marginal land unsuitable for agricultural purposes and a lot of cut-away bog lying there useless with all the available turf taken off it. There is no reason in the world why a scheme could not be devised to take over the cutaway bogs. The argument that a forest has to be a large unit no longer holds good, because there are jeeps or landrovers to take the gangers from small forest to small forest. There is no real problem involved in the transport of workers today, and it should be possible to take smaller areas into production in the western part of the country. The lower slopes of the mountains of Mayo are certainly suitable for many kinds of timber, and if the Department and the Minister really mean business they must set about acquiring more land.
It is all right to make the excuse that the reason the target had to be cut down was that the available planting area was not there. That should not be an excuse. The Minister has experts in his Department who are able to go out and look at the land and see what it is suitable for. Today there are people in forestry who, almost instantaneously, can tell what type of tree will grow in a particular place. Forestry, of course, is an art. It is interesting work which takes training and a certain amount of dedication. It is a field in which something new can be learned every week. Today the job rightly demands teamwork. The forester to be a really good forester must, in the main, be a local man. He must know the local problems. He must know about the wind and the weather, about fire dangers, about pests, about animal damage and all the other factors that enter into forestry.
It is also essential that the people in our Forestry Division be sent abroad to learn more and more about forestry techniques in other countries, from the point of view of growth, the control of pests in trees and also the utilisation of timber products. We should keep abreast of modern techniques, because we cannot survive in any field today unless people are as near expert as possible in that field.
Deputy Mrs. Desmond spoke about the employment content and I do not want to follow her along that line because she made a very good case with which I agree entirely. Forestry workers are in a skilled occupation. They must be highly trained and it is an indictment of the Department and its policy that these workers are getting a mere pittance, that their working and living conditions and cooking facilities leave so much to be desired, and also that they have no service pay and no superannuation. I do not want to labour the point which Deputy Mrs. Desmond has put so well, but the employment content is considerable. In areas like the west of Ireland where there are few outlets for employment this could be a wonderful development. The mountain slopes and the boglands of the West could be planted. This would mean that hundreds of men and even boys could be employed. This would be a great thing, as every shilling coming into the home is necessary in the small farm areas of the west of Ireland. It could lead to stabilisation of our population which is a vital factor if the West is even to remain static whatever about further growth.
No drive has ever been made to sell the idea of more trees; I mean a real drive. The time has come when the mass media will have to be used to bring home to our people the commercial value of trees and the value of trees for scenic beauty. Everybody knows we have the most beautiful wild scenery in the world in the west of Ireland. If ever there has to be man-made scenery, as it is sometimes called, where the works of man contribute to the beauty of a countryside, nothing can be more effective than trees and shrubs, because they are the most beautiful things ever created by God. Propaganda of every kind must be used to ensure that the general public learn the value of forestry, that the farmer and others who own land will co-operate with the Department thus ensuring that land is made available and that there will be more respect for our forests. The most horrible thing a person can see, apart from the death of a human being, is to see a burned-out forest. It is appalling to see a blackened area where thousands of young trees have been wiped out because of the carelessness of some individual, some criminal, I had rather say. When one considers all the labour and knowledge put into a forestry project to provide a beautiful vista of trees, it is appalling to think that all this is destroyed because some criminal threw away a cigarette, lit a match or did not put out a fire. This is a shocking thing and whereever people are found responsible for lighting fires that cause damage to forests they should be brought to book and punished in no uncertain manner.
The Land Commission in the division of land should ensure that shelter belts are planted prior to the handing over of land. This should become Land Commission policy so as to encourage the growth of trees. I am only speaking of Land Commission policy in order to emphasise the point. They are using wire fences to divide fields in the lands they are now striping. They look to me like rat cages; they give no shelter. Shelter belts should be provided, as I have said. This is important in order to encourage forestry. Using the propaganda of television and radio, the newspapers and the encouragement of every public man, local authority and Dáil Deputy, there should be no difficulty in the Department getting the amount of land needed in future. I would ask the Minister, with all the urgency I can command, to seek more money if it is a question of money and seek more land if it is a question of land and do everything possible to have every acre that can be planted, planted.
Unlike Deputy Cunningham, I do not think the end product will pile up or that if you sold 40,000 acres in one year the time would come when you would not be able to deal with the end product which would mature. That is not a valid argument and the Minister need have no fear. If the Minister decides to do the thing he has been asked to do, he will have my blessing.
What interested me most about this debate so far is that everybody who spoke on the motion appeared to take the motion at its face value. Nobody appears to have been interested enough to discover the facts for himself. The motion states:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the cutting down of the forestry planting target of 25,000 acres annually to 20,000 acres ....
This is absolutely incorrect. Because of the circumstances of the time, it is true that the planting in one particular year a few years ago was down to 20,000 acres but the target since then has been 25,000 acres and we have been building up gradually to this figure. In fact, as we discuss this motion about cutting the target to 20,000 acres we have in this year planted almost 23,000 acres. Not only that but last year we planted about 22,500 acres. I cannot understand why Deputies should talk about a cut in the target from 25,000 to 20,000 acres when, in fact, in the very year in which they are speaking, we have almost 23,000 acres planted.
I want to make clear that it is not lack of money that has caused the area planted to fall below 25,000 acres in recent years. In fact, the amount available on the Estimate this year is sufficient to permit of the planting of 25,000 acres. Our basic difficulty—and there is no use in oversimplifying it as has been done by some speakers opposite—is in procuring sufficient land for planting. As I have said already in the Dáil, I should be grateful to Deputies if they would make known to me any land in their constituencies which could be used for forestry purposes. I am now making that appeal again.
Every effort has been made by my Department to correct the position by increasing the intake of land. As I have already said, we have a new system of land valuation in use in the Forestry Department and this is a big breakthrough in our campaign to develop our forestry potential. For the first time we have succeeded in establishing a cost-benefit type analysis of each new area of land being included in the forest estate as the basis for optimum management policies. Each area being considered is now studied in relation to both its potential timber yield and the level of capital development cost likely to be involved, and a price is determined which recognises its fair value for forestry purposes. Under the new system the range of prices which we are prepared to offer is much wider than under the old £10 ceiling price system. Land of relatively low productive capacity will still command only a low price if it qualifies at all for purchase but, for good forest land, valuations now range frequently up to twice the old ceiling price and, in favourable circumstances where capital development costs are minimal, it can go substantially higher.
Any man selling land now to the Forestry Division can expect a fair market price for any land which, in the national interest, would be better used for forestry purposes than for agricultural purposes. To put it simply, price should no longer be an obstacle in land acquisition for forestry purposes.
I have already mentioned the streamlining of our acquisition procedures. It is directed mainly towards providing a service whereby an owner who makes an offer to sell land for forestry can be assured that within a period of weeks he will have a visit from an acquisition inspector to value the land and that the same inspector will call back in a short time to make him an offer for the land. This procedure, of course, makes extra demands on our field staff and to ensure prompt and adequate service I am arranging to strengthen the acquisition inspectorate by adding a total of nine additional posts.
I must point out that the reduction in forestry employment has arisen from improved methods and techniques and the use of machinery, as well as from the reduced intake of land. Deputies must realise that we can compete internationally and make forestry viable only if we pursue every means within reason to reduce the costs of the undertaking. I think it would be accepted that the more viable the undertaking becomes, the more it safeguards the employment of those working in our forests.
Over the past ten years the forestry undertaking has expanded twofold by one quarter of a million acres to our present level of half a million acres. The annual planting programme is, therefore, a much less significant element in forestry employment than it was ten or 15 years ago. I assure the House that my own efforts and those of my Department are aimed at stabilising employment as far as possible. With this end in view also, we have been examining the work progress to see to what extent it may be possible to bring productive work forward in order to avoid redundancy.
As a further measure towards stabilising employment priority of attention is being directed by our acquisition officers towards those centres where there is a possibility of redundancy and where additional planting might enable employment to be maintained. In addition, our local foresters who live and work in forest areas have been commissioned to search actively in their local communities for suitable offers of land. This is a further improvement on the old system whereby we tended to wait until offers of land were made to us. The distribution of the plantable reserve is another matter which is of critical importance. While a sudden boom in acquisition in one particular district may bring in substantial new areas for planting at a particular forest and can add substantially to the plantable reserve, this provides no solution to redundancy at other forests which have no reserve of land.
The Forestry Division does, of course, transfer staff between adjoining forests to try to maintain stability of employment, but it will be recognised, I think, that there is a limit to what can be done in that respect. The total area of State forest has now exceeded 600,000 acres and the very extension of forests means in itself that the amount of land available for forestry is being gradually absorbed; this makes further acquisition difficult and tedious. The days of the big acquisition intake appear to be gone and the time when you could pick up several hundred acres of plantable land in one tract is no longer with us. Progress will now have to depend for the most part on a steady intake of small areas.
An index of this trend can be seen in the fact that in 1952-53 the Forestry Division acquired 16,000 plantable acres in 208 separate transactions; that was an average of 81 acres per transaction. In 1967-68 the average plantable area acquired per transaction had fallen to 32 acres. In fact, if one goes back beyond 1952-53, one finds that the average intake was even higher. Some time before that—I do not know the exact year—it was 130 acres per transaction. As Deputies are aware, it is just as difficult to take over 32 acres as it is to take over 130 acres.
As Deputy Cunningham mentioned, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are now giving substantially increased grants under the Fencing Scheme and the Mountain Grazing (Supplementary Keep) Scheme. I do not think anyone will argue that the increases given were not well founded, but Deputies will recognise that any increase in hill farming subsidy militates against our prospects of acquiring land for forestry. In a further effort to maintain employment, we are examining the amenity potentialities of our forests. I want again to stress that nobody is more concerned than the Government and I with regard to the problems arising from disemployment and the counter efforts we are making to obtain more land for planting underline this. Indeed, while some instances of redundancy are inevitable in all forest work, it is fair to say that we have today much greater continuity of employment in our forests than ever before. Let me repeat that the target remains at 25,000 acres per year. There is sufficient money in the Estimate to allow us to plant 25,000 acres a year and, as I said, the number of acres planted this year is almost 23,000.
We were forced by our problems in regard to land acquisition and the relative smallness of our plantable reserve to drop short of that figure for a year or two, but I can assure the House that we are taking all measures open to us to ensure the accomplishment of our target. When we started out a dozen years, or so, ago on a phased programme of 25,000 acres per year our total planting target for the period was 285,000 acres. We have, in fact, planted 278,000 acres, which is somewhat better than 97 per cent. We have achieved that because in some years we planted more than our target. I think 97 per cent of our target is very good. It is a creditable achievement. Promise and performance have been very closely linked.
Deputy Flanagan, as might have been expected, oversimplified the difficulties. He said he knew of thousands of acres of bog which we should be planting. In the midlands cut-away bog is generally a good planting medium and many small areas in the midlands have been planted. The bigger areas on which Bord na Móna are still operating are, of course, required for turf production and cannot be released to us until Bord na Móna operations cease. Provided a sufficient overlay of peat is left, these bogs should provide suitable sites for forestry or for agricultural production. Bord na Móna did make available to us one bog in Kerry, Lyrecrompane, which was handed over about two years ago. Part of it has been planted.
Deputy Flanagan also asked when we hoped to have a woodpulp industry. I am rather surprised at this because everybody, of course, knows we have four major processing factories drawing their raw materials entirely from Irish-grown pulpwood. These industries are producing groundwood pulp, fibre-board and particle board for the home market and, in addition, are very substantial exporters. For the latter reason, as I said earlier, we have to be concerned with economic factors. These factories are using over five million Hoppus feet of pulpwood and employ 1,300 people. These industries are geared to expansion, and we have every confidence that these and other new industries can be set up to utilise fully the increasing supplies of thinnings which will be coming from our forests.
Deputy Flanagan also referred to planting in Britain. He spoke about "the considerable step-up in forestry in Britain". I am sorry to have to say this for Britain's sake but, in the interests of accuracy, I must contradict Deputy Flanagan's statement. The fact is that the area planted by the British Forestry Commission has been falling steadily since 1961 and, in England alone, the annual planting by the Commission is now less than half what it was some ten years ago. The Commission were forced to cut their planting targets in 1958 and, so far as we are able to gather, they have not been able to get sufficient land to service even their reduced programme. The figures I have here are that in 1961 Britain planted 63,700 acres and last year they planted 52,400.
Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Flanagan spoke about the planting of trees in the Gaeltacht areas and on the exposed western coastline. They said that not enough was being done in the planting of trees along the western coastline. Deputy Flanagan pointed out that the European experience showed there was no real difficulty in establishing plantations along the shoreline. Of course the facts are that conditions of exposure on our coasts are far worse than the conditions which obtain in most of Continental Europe and the climatological records are there to prove it.
Go down to the Bay of Biscay. Surely we are not worse than they are there?
The records I have show that exposure conditions are more difficult along our western coasts than in any European country. Even if we did not have the conditions of exposure with blasting from salt-laden winds, the soil conditions of a lot of our coastline, with its eroded peats and rock outcrops, would seriously limit the scope for forestry development. However, that is not to say that we are not endeavouring to plant wherever possible in the West. In fact, we have experiments and tests being carried out in Glenamoy and in Gaoth Saile to try to find suitable types of trees which will grow in those areas. We are just as anxious as anyone else, if at all possible, to have trees growing in the western region.
Once again I should like to emphasise that we are doing our utmost to get sufficient land for planting. I have pointed out the difficulties we face. There is nothing at all to be gained by oversimplifying the position. As I mentioned earlier, we have made a number of changes in the Forestry Division to help us get more land for forestry. I am hopeful the efforts we are making will meet with success.
Again I want to stress the fact that it is rather peculiar that this motion was taken on its face value. I am not surprised that Fine Gael have done so, but I would have thought that they would have informed themselves as to the actual position before putting it down. In fact, they put down a motion on the Agenda which is absolutely incorrect. The motion deplores the cutting down of the forestry planting target of 25,000 acres to 20,000 acres. This year we will plant almost 23,000 acres.
The Minister knows the motion was not put down this year?
If the Deputy recognises that the motion is incorrect, as I am sure he does from his intervention, I am rather surprised that the Fine Gael Party did not take the motion off the Agenda.
We were waiting for its turn.
I appreciate that. I am glad that the Deputy and I agree that the motion is incorrect.
The motion refers to 20,000 acres and 25,000 acres. Most of us who have any connection with the Department of Lands are aware that there has been some change. The Minister's comments remind me of the man who had an accident in a mill and was asked did he lose his finger and said: "No, I only lost half of my finger." The questioner said: "That is not too bad." The fact that we are over 2,000 acres down on our target is not something that can be brushed off as if there were no problems. I know that with the traditional methods of getting land it is not an easy problem to satisfy our need. We used to be two years in advance. The Minister's predecessor used to refer to 50,000 acres of plantable reserves. The trouble is that we have tended to adopt the same line as we did 20 or 25 years ago to obtain land.
The Minister seems to think he deserves a clap on the back for saying that the Forestry Division in their efforts to get land could go as high as £30 an acre. He said it used to be £10 an acre, and that now £20 is normal but they can go as high as £30 for land. I do not know if the Minister will agree that in most parts of the country you will not get much land for £30 an acre. In the Minister's constituency and mine you would not get an acre of land to rent for a year for £30. I do not think this will encourage people to give land which they had intended holding on to.
I have a theory, and I know that people will raise their hands in horror when I mention it. Despite that I propose to do so. Every year the Land Commission take over vast estates. In my own constituency they take over estates of 200, 300, 400 or 600 acres and, after keeping them for a couple of years, they divide some of them locally and they divide the remainder amongst migrants. Usually there is a big house and they leave a sizeable piece of land with the house in order to sell it, perhaps 90 or 100 acres. Some of this land is good land and some of it is bad land. Is there any reason why the Forestry Division should not say to their colleagues in the Land Commission: "In future when you take over an estate we want 30 acres for forestry"? Without stretching the case too far, there is no reason in the world why they should not be able to get 25, 30, or 40 acres off every sizeable farm for forestry. If it is scrub it can be cleared and re-sold and, if it is not, there is enough swampy bad land to make up the required amount.
Debate adjourned.