Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 May 1947

Vol. 106 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £232,160 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1948, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Forestry (No. 13 of 1946), including certain Grants-in-Aid.

In presenting the Estimates last year I stated that I had hoped to be able to announce that difficulties affecting planting programmes during the war years had been overcome. Unfortunately, I cannot yet say so. Although the supply position has improved a little, we are still unable to obtain adequate supplies of rabbit netting, or any definite assurance of sufficient supplies for next winter. The lack of netting and the unprecedented weather conditions of last year have combined to reduce planting for the 1946-47 season and it seems unlikely that the total planting for the year will exceed 2,500 acres. That figure is less than in any of the war years or, in fact, than in any of the past 20 years.

The position in regard to tools and barbed wire has improved considerably and I do not anticipate any difficulty in securing adequate supplies of these in the future. The supply of seed is also improving slowly and it is to be hoped that by next autumn there will be no difficulty in obtaining full requirements of all species. The most serious hindrance to an expanded programme of planting is still the shortage of rabbit netting. Some small quantities are being secured from various sources and we are continuing inquiries in every likely quarter. Unless an unforeseen improvement occurs, the outlook for next winter's planting programme is not hopeful. We have no proper substitute for rabbit netting, and its use is indispensable for practically all our plantings.

This year we have been able to import from America, Spain and Great Britain about 458 lbs. of seed of Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, Scots pine, silver fir and pinus contorta. We have on order and are expecting delivery of about 860 lbs. of seed of larch, Norway spruce, Corsican pine, Douglas fir, etc., from Great Britain, Denmark, America and Switzerland. These purchases have been supplemented by the collection at home of 8,706 lbs. of seed of various species, including a considerable proportion of oak, ash and beech. Some of the home-collected seed is already sown in the nurseries and some has still to be extracted from the cones in the Department's seed kilns.

During the past year the main operations undertaken, apart from planting, were road-making and the thinning of plantations. These thinnings have made available for sale considerable numbers of poles, for which a ready market has been found as telegraph poles, electricity transmission poles, poles for the making of temporary corduroy roads, bean stakes and fencing-posts. A new feature is the development of sales of scaffolding poles to builders, from whom large orders have been received during the year.

In view of the harvesting crisis last autumn, the maximum number of forestry labourers whose services could be spared without risk of serious losses in the forests was released to undertake harvesting operations. In all, the services of 1,404 men were made available to farmers. They worked an average of 13,665 days and their wages were paid by the State. My Department has received many expressions of appreciation and gratitude for the help given by these labourers and also by labourers lent by the Land Commission. The contributions made by them to the saving of the harvest were invaluable.

The fuel crisis of the spring also rendered special steps necessary to put as much firewood as possible on the market, in addition to the Department's normal sales of logs and blocks. Supplementary felling operations were put in hands at over 80 different centres. In all about 40,000 tons of firewood were procured in a very short period and despite appalling weather conditions. Most of the material was sold locally in small quantities. The forestry division is in touch with the Department of Industry and Commerce as to the best method of disposing of any bulk supplies that may be accumulated at centres where the demand in the immediate locality is not sufficient to absorb the output.

Turning to the individual sub-heads as set out in the printed Estimates, I propose to refer only to those which show appreciable differences from last year's figures or which otherwise seem to call for special comment.

Sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, £80,844. The increased provision is due to increased salaries and wages and to a change in the form of the Estimates. The provisions for the wages and allowances of foresters and foremen have been transferred to this sub-head from sub-head C (2) to which they were formerly charged. This change brings under one heading the cost of administrative and supervisory charges. The direct costs of establishing and maintaining forests are now shown exclusively under sub-head C (2). A similar change has been made in sub-head B under which provision is now made for the travelling expenses of both the headquarters and field staff.

Sub-head C (1)—Acquisition of Land —Grant-in-Aid, £25,000. The provision under this head has been maintained at the same figure as last year. A balance of about £35,000 has been carried over from last year in the Land Acquisition Fund which, with the provision now asked for, will make available for land acquisition during the current year a sum of approximately £60,000. During the last financial year the forestry division acquired a total of about 5,300 acres of land and entered into commitments for the purchase of 8,667 acres from private landowners at a cost of £16,670 and of 789 acres from the Land Commission at a cost of £2,768. In addition, negotiations have reached an advanced stage for the purchase of 6,730 acres from private owners at a cost of £30,047. Negotiations are also in progress with the Land Commission for the purchase of about 6,120 acres at a cost of £21,468.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Sub-head C—Maintenance and Cultural Operations, etc., £246,215. The provision under this head shows an increase of nearly £10,000 over the amount provided last year allowing for the transfer of the cost of foresters and foremen's wages to sub-head A as already explained. The increase is due mainly to a rise in labourers' wages as compared with the rate prevailing at the beginning of the last financial year. Otherwise, there is no notable difference. I have already mentioned that there is not as yet any definite indication that supplies of rabbit netting will come to hand in sufficient quantities to enable an increased planting programme to be undertaken so that no provision has been made for such an increase. If supplies do arrive in time I shall have to come back to the Dáil for any additional money that may be necessary to carry out the largest planting programme that can be undertaken with the stocks of plants on hands or which may be procurable from any source.

The thinning of plantations will represent a considerable proportion of the year's programme of work. I have stressed in former years the vital necessity for this work in the interests of the plantations themselves. Fortunately up to the present there has been no difficulty in disposing of the produce of these thinnings in one form or another but continuance of this favourable position is dependent upon the scarcity or high price of other forms of fencing materials, scaffolding, etc., and in more normal times it may not be easy to find remunerative markets for all the thinnings that must be taken out for sylvicultural reasons.

The building up of increased nursery stocks with a view to extended planting operations in later years is being continued.

During the past year 16 portable cross-cutting outfits have been in operation for the preparation of firewood blocks. In the main the output has been sold in one or two cord lots to persons living in the neighbourhood of the forests where the machines were operating. It is proposed to continue the preparation of firewood in this form for local consumption but some change may be made in the method of disposing of bulk lots where such can be built up in the absence of a sufficient local demand. In past years these bulk lots have been sold by public advertisement but this year they may have to be handed over to Fuel Importers with a view to assisting in building up reserve stocks of fuel in the non-turf areas.

Sub-head D—Grants for Afforestation, £2,000. Applications for these grants are increasing in number. As a consequence it has been necessary to ask for a provision under this heading of twice the amount provided last year. State planting operations, no matter how extensive, can never replace or supplement, for the purpose of shelter and ornament, the smaller woodlands, shelter belts and groves on private lands. With the abnormal felling of trees for fuel which has been forced upon the country by present circumstances I greatly fear and deplore that the appearance of the countryside in many districts will be detrimentally affected. I hope, therefore, to see a continued increase in the demand for these grants. It should not be necessary for me, in view of the growing evidence of the value of timber of all descriptions, to stress the obvious advantages to be gained by the planting up of every possible acre of available land. An assurance for the individual owner of reserve stocks for fencing and fuel and so on ought to be sufficiently attractive.

I am at the moment having examined in my Department the desirability of planting considerable tracts of waste and inferior lands where it would clearly not be possible to grow good commercial timber but where it may be possible to grow firewood and second and third rate timber. Such a process would, in its initial stages, be unprofitable and uneconomic but it might be a wiser policy to tolerate loss rather than waste. Indeed the main justification for planting large areas of waste lands that may now be available for inferior timber growth would be the creation, as a result of planting, of a suitable forest condition for subsequent crops.

Sub-head H—Appropriations-in-Aid —£56,642. A slight fall in the revenue from the State Forests is anticipated this year and might well be much greater but for the additional fellings of firewood. The stocks of commercial quality timber in the forests have been so reduced by seven years of accelerated fellings that not much more remains. Provision must be made for the Department's own needs of timber for the repair of houses on the State lands, the building of new houses where necessary, and other requirements.

During the past year large lots of timber comprising a total of about 30,653 trees, and 186,297 cubic feet of blown timber or logs, were sold. In addition smaller lots comprising 1,600 standing trees and 25,000 cubic feet of logs were sold. Pitprops running to over 30,000 poles were put on the market during the year and sold by public advertisement, and mixed lots of poles and firewood were sold by auction.

Forestry Act—Following the normal trend the number of felling notices received during the early part of the year showed a tendency to fall below the figures for the preceding years. The fuel crisis of last winter altered the whole position and so many felling notices came to be dealt with that extra staff had to be provided to cope with them.

My Department has been urged on all sides to withdraw all restrictions on the felling of trees for firewood in view of the present scarcity of fuel. That cannot be done. I am obliged, as far as possible, to preserve and promote the timber resources of the country and to ensure the retention of trees for shelter and ornament. In co-operation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce I am also obliged to assist the nation's timber-working industries and no Minister, in my position, could permit the indiscriminate felling which would follow upon the removal or suspension of all tree-felling restrictions. Every effort is being made to see that no unnecessary obstacle is put in the way of people honestly requiring to fell their own trees for firewood. No undue delay occurs in giving them the necessary permission. Under the provisions of the Forestry Act 21 days' notice of intention to fell is normally required, but in the majority of cases the local Gardaí are being informed within a day or two of receipt of the notices that no objection will be made to the felling and they are being requested to notify the applicants accordingly so that urgent needs for fuel may be met without delay. In cases in which large numbers of trees are concerned, or special features seem to require attention, inspections are being carried out by the district forestry inspectors as quickly as possible.

I hope these remarks of mine will dispel the impression which seems to exist in many parts of the country that the word "firewood" is a sufficient excuse for any tree felling and for the ignoring of restrictions imposed solely in the best interests of the community. My Department is willing to consider any representations honestly made and to see that no unnecessary hardship is inflicted upon any individual who wishes to fell a few firewood trees for his own or his neighbour's use, but I will have no hesitation in ordering prosecution in cases where an attempt is made to take undue advantage of the present situation or to escape replanting obligations. It will take another generation to repair the damage done by excessive tree felling. To denude our farms of tree shelter will inevitably result in diminishing returns from crops and live stock.

It has not yet been possible to put into operation the Forestry Act of last year and actively to take up the question of enforcing the replanting conditions imposed in felling licences. I have explained in previous years that I was satisfied that while some persons had managed to carry out their obligations the shortage of plants and fencing materials made it impossible for the majority to do so. I hope that the persons concerned will make a reasonable effort to carry out the terms of their licences and not force me to resort to prosecution. Failure to carry out replanting conditions is a continuing offence and will not be purged by payment of a fine.

I move:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

After 25 years of native Government, especially in view of the present fuel situation and the serious admission made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government here yesterday evening that the housing programme would be held up by the shortage of timber, imported and otherwise, the statement of the Minister can only be regarded as one of dismal failure. That is a very discouraging report from a Department that should have made great headway long before the emergency or before the present Government came into office. I have been waiting for some time for a statement from the Minister or some other Minister as to what the plan of the Government really is for the use of whatever land is available for afforestation purposes. I am informed that, if the land considered suitable and available, particularly in the Gaeltacht areas, were used, it would provide considerable employment for large numbers of persons who have been leaving those parts of the country for employment in another country in recent years. What are the minimum requirements for whatever plan the Government has in mind for afforestation purposes? I do not make these statements with any great authority but I can quote from documents prepared both by the British Government when in control here and by commissions established by our own Governments to show that there are at least 3,000,000 acres of land suitable for afforestation purposes. It is stated, as a result of inquiries made into this matter, that we have 3,700,000 acres of land under bog and mountain which is considered by people supposed to be experts as suitable for afforestation. Will the Minister, when replying, say whether that is correct or not? If not correct, what acreage, in the Minister's opinion and that of his advisers, is available and considered suitable for afforestation, provided the Government had a plan for making the best possible use of it?

The Minister in his statement last year indicated that the Government's plan, so far as it had one, was to plant 2,000 acres a year and to carry out that plan for a period of 50 years. That would mean that, at the end of 50 years, we should have 100,000 acres under timber. That is not a revolutionary plan and could hardly be considered as reasonable if 3,000,000 acres are available and suitable for afforestation. My task in moving this motion is made much easier by admissions in this House in the past few days by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education to the effect that there is no shortage of money for this purpose or any other useful purpose. In the House this evening, the Minister admitted that that was so. If the responsibility for failure to produce a proper plan for afforestation is to be placed on the shoulders of any individual or individuals, it must be on the shoulders of the present Minister or his predecessors. I do not suggest that the Minister should carry the whole of the responsibility, because he had about four predecessors. At least, five Ministers have been in charge of Lands and Forestry since Fianna Fáil came into office in 1932. If we admit that, for the reasons given by the Minister, very little progress could have been expected since the emergency in connection with afforestation, will the Minister say what plan was in existence or operation between 1932 and 1939, when there was no shortage of rabbit netting or of any of the essential materials which would enable the Department of Forestry to proceed along progressive lines? What was the average price paid for land acquired for this purpose between 1923 and 1939? Assuming that the Cumann na nGaedheal Government did not make any headway or had no plan for dealing with afforestation, will the Minister say what was the average price paid for land since Fianna Fáil came into office in 1932 and up to 1939? What is the price that should be paid for land suitable for this purpose?

The Minister for Finance, in a rather bad-humoured statement in connection with afforestation yesterday evening, threw his arms into the air and appealed to Opposition Deputies to get for the Minister for Lands the land required for this purpose. I never heard the like of that statement. The responsibility is on the shoulders of the Minister for Lands and on the Government and they have power to acquire whatever land is required for this purpose. If they have not that power, they will get it by the votes of the Fianna Fáil Party and by the votes of the Party to which I belong, so as to enable them to acquire, by compulsion, if necessary, whatever land is required, in the opinion of the Minister, to carry out his plans. You cannot blame the farmers or landowners for trying to get the highest possible price for their land. They would do the same in connection with the acquisition of untenanted land. They gave plenty of trouble to the Minister and his predecessors in connection with the general policy of land acquisition for division under the various Land Acts. I dare say those who are asked to surrender land for afforestation will fight for the highest possible price. I do not suppose they can be blamed for that. As the Minister said in his reply on the other Vote, it is human nature to get as much as you possibly can out of any Government Department for anything they desire to take over, whether by compulsion or otherwise. This question of preparing a progressive plan for carrying out a national afforestation scheme should not, in my opinion, be a Party matter. So far as I know, it has not been regarded as a Party matter since the State was established. We have had many prominent people making their contribution to the preparation of a plan. Valuable propaganda work has been done by patriotic citizens in this connection.

Statements have been made from time to time as to the value of the timber which has to be imported and that, in itself, would be a valuable guide to those who want to do propaganda work in connection with this matter. The principal wood-producing countries from which timber was imported in pre-war times were Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Poland, Russia, the U.S.A. and certain central European countries. In 1937— the last normal trading year—the total imports of commodities from countries other than Great Britain and Northern Ireland were value for about £22,000,000. Of this total, wood and timber amounted to £1,800,000. That is a very high figure. At present-day prices—I should require to be checked up on this—that would represent about £5,000,000 or £6,000,000.

The timber has been imported from countries with which we do very little trade in normal circumstances. For instance, in 1937, Russia sold to us goods to the value of £669,516, a large proportion of which was timber. Yet Russia bought nothing from us. She did not even pay any money for what she sold to this country to commission agents, according to the official returns from which I quote. Apparently the timber imported into this country from Sweden, Latvia, Russia and other countries is imported through agents who reside outside our national territory. Otherwise, there would be something shown in the official returns as having been paid by Russia to importing agents here.

It is not necessary for me to make a case that we have a very large acreage of land suitable for afforestation purposes. If we go back to 1907, we find that the Committee on Irish Forestry appointed by the Department of Agriculture, then under the British Government, in dealing with the question of the suitability of the land of this country for forestry purposes, said: "All men of experience and expert knowledge are agreed that in soil and climate Ireland for forestry purposes is particularly well favoured.... On the question of her capacity to grow timber as well as any other country in Northern Europe there can be no doubt whatsoever." That statement is taken from the Report of the Committee on Irish Agriculture set up by the Department of Agriculture in 1907. What is the position in Sweden, a country from which we have been importing a considerable quantity of timber, even in recent times? Sweden can be compared in many respects with this country, from the point of view of acreage of land and general development, and I quote from a document which can be read in the Library by the Minister and any Deputy interested.

In a recent issue of the Swedish News, published in September, 1946. much valuable information is given on “The Forest and Forest Industries in Norrland”. The figures quoted in this publication are certainly interesting and illuminating. Under the heading of “Production of Wallboard”, we find that the figure was 121,000 tons valued 31,000,000 kroner. Timber exported amounted to 875,000 standards, equal to 17 per cent. of world requirements. That is a very interesting figure, and is a useful guide to what might take place in this country if the land available and suitable were properly worked under a national scheme of afforestation. Sweden produced according to this return, 734,000 tons of mechanical pulp, of which 351,000 tons, or nearly 50 per cent., were exported. Under the heading of cellulose, the figures of production given are 1,303,000 tons of sulphite and 897,000 tons of sulphate cellulose exported. In sawn timber, the value of exports was 230,000,000 kroner, and the total value of timber and wood derivatives exported in that year was 835,000,000 kroner, or 45 per cent. of the value of Sweden's total annual exports.

An interesting feature of Sweden's timber economy is the division of the revenue from her forest industries. According to this official journal, forest owners receive for the growing timber 22 per cent. of the total revenue; the transport system, loggers and lumber men, 22 per cent.; and workers at the subsidiary mills, 23 per cent. Officials and technical staff get only 6 per cent. and the costs of the industry, in the shape of raw materials, fuel, fittings, plant, taxes, interest and profit, represent 27 per cent. of the total revenue derived. The total value of the production from Swedish forests was £81,000,000, in terms of 1939 prices, so that one can see, in a country which can be compared with this portion of Ireland, the value of a full development of the industry.

Sweden is a country from which we have been obliged, because of the shortage of commercial timber in this country, to import a considerable quantity of timber in recent years. I quote again from a document which gives the number of persons employed in Sweden, small farmers and workers, in the carrying on of that valuable national industry. In Sweden, 150,000 men, the great majority of whom are small farmers and agricultural labourers, are employed on forests in winter and return to farm work in early spring. This number of men is in forestry operations alone, but, over and above this, the transport of timber from the forest to the saw mills employs 20,000 men in the summer; 41,500 men are employed in the saw mills and 665 factories—joinery, furniture and woodwork—employ 12,000 people. The wood pulp industry employs 16,400 men. There are 74 paper mills and cardboard factories, employing 15,500 people. If this Government wants to deal with the unemployment problem in the Gaeltacht and to find useful and productive employment for the population which has had to fly in the past from that part of the country, they cannot do anything better than copy the splendid example given by Sweden in this matter.

If, as stated by the Minister for Finance and admitted by the Minister for Lands, money is not the difficulty, then what is the difficulty, or what was the difficulty between 1923 and 1939, and particularly in the case of the present Government between 1932 and 1939? It is a national tragedy that no Minister, so far as I can see, has taken the trouble to prepare a national plan of afforestation since the State was established. I am assured that land can be got at fairly reasonable prices in the areas concerned for the purpose of a national plan of afforestation and it is asserted—if the statement is wrong, let me be corrected—that, up to the period of the emergency, any reasonable acreage of land which the Department required, or was prepared to develop, could be got at an average price of £2 to £3 per acre. I daresay the price of land has gone up since the emergency, but the Minister admits that land was purchased during the emergency—I presume, on a voluntary basis—at an average price of £5 per acre.

The Minister for Finance, in the course of the rather bad-tempered speech he made yesterday when dealing with this matter, threw his arms out and said to Opposition Deputies: "Give us the land and we will get on with the job," as if he were throwing the Government's responsibility on to Opposition Deputies, and he then went on to say: "Putting trees on the ground will not put more food on the plate." That is an historical statement.

Not historical, hysterical.

If there were a proper national plan of afforestation, surely it would provide employment for those who cannot find work to-day, and if employment is provided for the unemployed, these people will be enabled to put more food on the plate, to put more food on it than they are able to secure to-day through the medium of the miserable allowances they get under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the Unemployment Assistance Act. That is a ridiculous statement for a level-headed Minister to make. I do not know what forced him to make it. I took a note of the words he used, as I thought it was the most extraordinary statement I ever heard uttered by a Minister for Finance.

That is saying something.

They have said queer things.

An extraordinarily serious statement was made here by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Childers, who said the timber shortage was holding up progress in housing schemes. I am prepared to admit that the Government has a housing plan and it certainly would discredit the Minister and the Department as a body that they are not in a position to carry out the housing plan with our own native timber. Worse than that, it is discreditable that they should not be able to make arrangements with the many countries from which we have been importing timber in the past, for commercial and house-building purposes, which would enable us to get a reasonable quantity to carry out national housing schemes so badly needed in our towns and villages.

I want particularly to find out from the Minister whether any plan was ever prepared to deal with this matter and, if so, the total acreage considered to be suitable in the country for afforestation, the average price per acre paid for the land already acquired and used for this purpose, and also what is regarded by the Minister and his advisers as a reasonable price for forestry land under present circumstances. I would also like to find out the average number of labourers employed by the Forestry Department during the past year. There is a fairly high figure provided in this Estimate for those who were responsible for supervisory work, but no figures are given, either in the printed Estimate or in the Minister's statement, indicating the number of labourers employed continuously during the past year. We have here in the Estimates the inspectorate, which includes the mapping section and which has a staff of 30, which includes the chief inspector, and it costs £15,000.

In the operating section the full operating staff includes seven head foresters, 27 grade I, 62 grade II, 65 forest foremen and four vermin trappers, making a total of 165 and costing £41,000. In the Estimate there is provision for maintenance labour covering a figure of £75,000, labour on cultural operations costing £95,000, labour on nursery operations costing £28,000. In addition, labour is employed in the preparation of firewood, but there are no figures given as to the number of labourers employed either in the preparation of firewood or on ordinary operational work.

There is another thing on which I would like to have some information from the Minister. In the Estimates, provision is made under the heading of forestry education, for the sum of £1,600. I admit that a further sum of £300 is provided for grants to University College. We have a total figure of £2,000 under the heading of forestry education, but it is a very small figure, in my opinion, when we relate it to a figure of £15,000—if it can be related— for Secret Service purposes.

There is one thing which can be done to help the Minister to create a proper public opinion in regard to afforestation and the necessity for farmers who have bogland handing over a reasonable portion of it to the Forestry Department at a reasonable price. The Minister would be well advised to consider making application to the Dáil— if he has no money for the purpose—to enable him to do some useful propaganda work. I think members of the Dáil will have no objection to providing a sum for sending out inspectors throughout the country into the areas where suitable land is available and trying to do useful propaganda work, in other words, create a public opinion in those areas that would induce owners of land—I do not say compel them, as compulsion is the last resort— to hand over the land and by doing so help the Government to do useful national work and provide useful employment in the areas concerned. If you had public opinion on such matters, it would be helpful to the Department.

The Minister may say I am advocating the use of threats—as I am supposed to be associated with the use of threats in certain places in connection with land acquisition and division. If the Minister undertakes to do this work, I would be willing to grant him any powers within reason—whatever powers he thinks necessary to enable him, by compulsion or otherwise, to get whatever acreage of land will enable him to carry out a national scheme of the character which is urgently required in the next few years.

I have asked him to furnish the House with whatever national plan is in existence for this particular purpose and I hope he will do so when replying. I do not think it is necessary to convince the present Minister that the preparation of such a plan is necessary, but in his reply he might give a little more information than he gave in his introductory speech. He might tell us what the plan is and what, in his opinion, ordinary Deputies, Opposition as well as Government, can do to get the land which is so urgently required.

The Minister was not here when the Minister for Finance threw his arms into the air yesterday evening and told us it was our job, the job of Opposition Deputies, to get him the land. On a few occasions—the Forestry Department will confirm this—I sent information to the Department a few years ago from people willing to provide land, but I dare say they were not willing to provide it free and, like every other farmer or person who has something to sell, they expect to get the best price possible for it. I would impress on everybody concerned the urgency of helping the Minister and the Department in every possible way to carry out whatever national plan the Government has on this very big national question.

I thought Deputy Davin was sufficiently long in this House not to be deceived by a Fianna Fáil Minister. Apparently, the Minister for Finance succeeded, at least with Deputy Davin, in creating the impression he wanted to create, not alone in the House but in the country, by throwing up his hands and appealing to us to give him the land. I have not heard the Minister for Lands say that it is a shortage of suitable land that is holding up forestry.

On a point of order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is no Fianna Fáil Deputy in the House.

That is not a point of order.

There are only four other Deputies and every member of the Fianna Fáil Party is absent except the Minister.

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

Mr. Morrissey

It has taken almost as long to produce the Deputies as the trees. I was talking to my friend, Deputy Davin.

That is why he stopped you.

I do not often interrupt.

Mr. Morrissey

I was expressing surprise that a Deputy of the experience of Deputy Davin would be so easily led, or, perhaps, I should say misled, by the Minister for Finance last night when he made what Deputy Davin described as a bad-tempered reference to the question of forestry. The Minister said to the farmers: "Give us the land; that is the only obstacle that is stopping us from getting ahead with afforestation." He also said: "Look at what we are doing," and he chided the members of the Clann na Talmhan Party with not having read his speech. He said: "Look at the amount of money that we are providing—£312,000."

Does not Deputy Davin know that the reason why we are not getting ahead with afforestation is not because there is not sufficient land available even in the hands of the Forestry Department? Does not the Deputy know, if the Minister for Finance does not know it, that in no year was the amount of money voted by the Dáil spent by the Forestry Department? Does not the Minister for Finance know—and if he does not he should know—that £73,000 of the moneys available for the Forestry Department last year was turned back into the Exchequer unspent? If Deputies will refer to the book which they received free yesterday, they will see set out there various reasons why this sum of £73,000 remains unexpended, but not one of those reasons suggests that the Department was not able to get sufficient land on which to plant trees.

Deputy Davin, being the incurable optimist that he is and always has been, asks the Minister to produce his national plan for afforestation. Does not the Deputy know that there is no national plan, or any other plan, and that if there is any plan in existence which leaves us in the plight that we are in to-day from the afforestation point of view, then the sooner we scrap it completely the better? Is it not true to say that there are fewer trees in the country to-day than there were 25 years ago when this State was set up? Would it not be true to say that in 1939, before the devastation of the last seven years, due to war circumstances, took place, we had less trees than we had 25 years ago? The fact is that there is no commercial timber in the country. What we have of it is not worth talking about. A lot of what is described to-day as commercial timber would not get a second look from any person interested in the purchase and use of commercial timber three or four years ago.

I used to hear Deputies describe the Department of Fisheries as the cinderella of our State Departments. It has been elevated or, perhaps, I should say another Department has sunk lower, so that now the Department of Forestry is the real cinderella. Is there any reason why we should not have made progress? There is no use in telling me that the reason why we have not made progress is because we could not get rabbit wire-netting during the last seven years. I know, of course, that is a very sound reason for not planting, and that there is no use in planting unless you can protect what you plant. I said in 1941, on the Estimate for this Department, in reply to the Minister's predecessor, who used the same excuse, that if there was any foresight, any real plan, such as Deputy Davin talks about for national afforestation, we would not have waited until the war broke out to lay in stocks to meet our ordinary requirements. Surely the Department knew in 1936, 1937 and 1938, and indeed for years before, that wire-netting for the protection of young plantations was an essential. State moneys were there to buy it in sufficient quantities. It must have been known, even to the Department, that the larger the quantities you bought, the cheaper was the price you had to pay.

I think Deputies have reason to despair, so far as afforestation is concerned. I want to say that no real effort has been made, and that we see no signs of any real effort being made, to deal with this matter in the way in which it should be dealt with. Deputy Davin quoted the case of Sweden, and referred to the statement made last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government about the shortage of timber holding up building schemes. The Deputy referred to that as an important statement. That is a statement that could have been made by a child of five years of age at any street corner in Ireland.

I said that it was a serious and important statement.

Mr. Morrissey

Of course, it is serious. In order to appreciate its seriousness, one has only to refer to our average imports of timber in pre-war years for rebuilding and to meet our housing needs. Our housing needs then were not as great as they are to-day, because at that time infinitely more commercial timber was available to us. The fact is that in pre-war years our average yearly imports of timber were 60,000 standards, while we are hoping to get this year between 20,000 and 25,000 standards. That is what we are hoping to get, and I should say that we shall be extremely fortunate if we do get that quantity. That is, roughly, one-third of our average pre-war imports to meet a situation that is infinitely more serious to-day than it was in pre-war days, and at a time, too, when our local resources are not at all equal to what they were then. I am not blaming this Government; I am not putting all the blame on them; I am not saying that their predecessors were entirely blameless; I am not trying to discuss this in a Party manner— it is probably one of the most serious matters this House could be discussing —but is there any Deputy, least of all the Minister, who is a particularly hard-headed Minister and who knows perhaps more about this particular subject than any other Deputy—who believes for one moment that, working along in the present way, we will even keep pace with the natural wastage, much less make any progress? Remember, we have to meet more than the natural wastage of the years, such as thinnings, rottings, and windfalls. We have to make up for the devastation of two wars within a generation. Those of us who are old enough to remember know the extent to which this country was denuded of commercial timber during the 1914 to 1918 war.

We know that in order to keep going even in a small way with houses and other buildings for the last seven years we have had to eat into every bit of commercial timber remaining in the country and that, in addition, as a result of the abnormal weather of last winter and spring, we have had to take off practically all controls and to give people a free hand to fell timber for firing whether that timber was firing or commercial timber. Having to meet a situation of that seriousness, we get the cheap gibe that we got last night from the Minister for Finance and we have not got to-day from the Minister who is responsible for this Department any indication that there is any likelihood of there being any departure from the humdrum approach to this matter.

We in this House have got to make up our minds whether we want afforestation or not. Let us give up the humbug of talking and preaching about it if we are not going to do anything about it. Let us get it clear in our minds that it is no use in saying or thinking that individual farmers are going to meet the situation. They are not and even with the best will in the world they could not. They could make a useful contribution. But can we expect farmers to plant trees in any extensive way on land which is worth from £50 to £100 per acre, when the line of the Forestry Department is that it is uneconomic to plant land which costs more than £2 to £5 an acre?

If the Minister is thinking of this matter as an economic matter purely in the sense of pounds, shillings and pence, I invite him to forget that. It cannot be approached in that way. This is not a case where you can say you will put £X,000 into it and that it will bring you in £X,000 plus £Y,000 in 10 years' time. But I would say that every £1,000 or every £1,000,000 spent intelligently on afforestation will return bigger dividends in cash and in other ways than perhaps any other constructive work we can set about in this country.

Nobody will deny that there is land in this country eminently suitable for planting, land which is of very little use for anything else. Nobody will deny, with 70,000 people lining up at the labour exchanges, that we have people there who are able to work because, if they are unable or unwilling to work they should not be at the labour exchange. Nobody has denied—on the contrary, the Minister has boasted— that there is unlimited money available. What is holding us up? The whole of this country is almost as bare as the western coast. I invite any Deputy to drive 100 or 150 miles from Dublin, north, south, east or west, and if he cannot see tens upon tens of thousands of acres of land that are suitable for afforestation and for nothing else, then he certainly is not keeping his eyes open.

I feel a good deal about this matter because I happen to know something about it. I happen to have some practical experience of home-grown timber, both in its raw and in its manufactured state. One of the things I cannot understand—I may be wrong in this and if I am I would like the Minister to put me right—is that in so far as we are planting we are confining it almost exclusively to soft woods. Why are we not planting good oak, good ash, good elm and good beech? I am not for a moment overlooking the fact that our greatest need, and certainly our greatest immediate need, is soft woods and I am not overlooking the fact that soft woods almost invariably mature in a much shorter period than hard woods but I would like to see a certain balance maintained between them.

Next I shall deal with the question of the price of land. There is not an acre of this country that is not worth more than £5. I will undertake to the Minister that if he goes down into the heart of Connemara and offers £5 for an acre of rock there, he probably will not get it. The Minister read out figures and one could not get them down. That is one of the disadvantages one is under in discussing an Estimate of this kind. As far as I could follow him, the acreage of land acquired, including what has been acquired in the last 12 months and what is in process of being acquired and what is being inspected, amounts to, roughly, 30,000. Roughly 6,000 acres of one lot were acquired for £30,000, that is, £5 an acre. A further 6,000 acres were acquired for £21,000, that is, roughly, £3 10s. an acre. If we are to limit our forestry development to the type of land that we can get by agreement at from £2 to £6 an acre, we will never make any progress.

We have a huge bill this year, probably the biggest bill the country has ever had to meet. I do not believe there is a member of this House, I do not believe there is a thinking citizen, who would object to any expenditure on planting this country provided he was satisfied that it was being done in an efficient and intelligent way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Morrissey

How long are we going to go on paying tens of thousands of people for doing nothing when we have work there for them and work that would give a big national return? We have poured more money out through the labour exchanges in this country in the last 25 years than would pay for the complete planting of this country. I do not want to delay the House unduly, Sir. I do not want to speak in any sort of Party way about this. I am not trying to pin the blame upon the present occupant of the Office nor am I inclined to pin all the blame on the present Administration, but, whoever is to blame, that is the situation. I do not think either the Minister or any member of the House can say that he is satisfied. I do not think this House ought to be satisfied either with the present Government or any Government that may replace it that is going to come before this House with a statement such as we had from the Minister to-day. I say that if we are not going to deal seriously with this matter of afforestation we ought to give up talking about it and resign ourselves to the fact that all of this country will, in a few years, be as bare as the wastes of Connemara are to-day.

I will not delay the Minister unduly because, as Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Davin have said, there is not much use in standing up in this House and talking about something that should be done, that could be done, but that will not be done. The Minister, in introducing the Estimate for Forestry, has given us an assurance that very little will be done in the coming year. We can take as the approximate amount that will be planted next year the figure of 2,500 acres which, the Minister has told us, were planted in the last year. We must realise now how hopeless and how futile it is to think that an effort will be made or is about to be made to bring about any large or progressive system of afforestation in this country.

When we think that at the present rate of progress it would take us 100 years to plant 250,000 acres and that it would take us almost a thousand years, planting at the rate of 2,500 acres per year, to reach an acreage of 2,500,000 which anybody who knows anything about this country knows is the amount of land suitable for afforestation, we all realise that we have no plan, no scheme, and no system for the furtherance of this very important industry.

During the debate on the Department of Finance a great deal was said about forestry and afforestation, with special regard to the western seaboard where the problem of small holdings of land and small acreages of bad land is so acute, and everybody seemed to think that an afforestation scheme would be a source of wealth to the people who have to live in those barren areas. Anybody knows that, acre for acre, forests return more money in the long run than anything else that can be put into the earth. I firmly believe that the real cause why forestry has been left aside is that if we plant forests now—if we plant 30,000 acres in the coming year—as everybody in this House knows, neither the present Minister nor any other Deputy who sits here will ever reap or see reaped the benefit of the trees or the forests that might be planted at the present moment. It is the policy of the present Government, and I will say this much too of the Cumann na nGael Government, to start schemes which will return a quick dividend and which will turn over in one year, two years or three years a certain amount of money that will at least show that the scheme was worth while, so that they can boast: "We started such a scheme and it has given immediate profit". Forestry will not do that. Forestry more than anything else is something that should be planned over a very long period of years. Forestry will never show real profits until we reach the stage of what in the Scandinavian countries is called "rotating forests", that is, we cut down or have for cutting down a thousand or two thousand acres of forest this year and plant the same amount of trees.

Next year we have a similar amount of forest to cut down and next year we plant a similar amount of trees. That is how Sweden, Finland and Norway are getting such a gigantic amount of money from the acreage they have planted but they, in turn, had to wait. Wise economists, and people who 100 or 150 years ago understood the position set about this in the Scandinavian countries and the fruits of their hard labours and of their wise planning have been proved to be of benefit a thousandfold.

In introducing his Estimate the Minister told us, and rightly so, that even without waiting until the forests reach maturity they can be a source of income. He told us of the wood thinnings which can be sold as scaffolding poles, fencing material, pit-props and several other things which when so sold can bring back a certain amount of money to the Exchequer. We must realise, too, that the wood thinnings even though they are small—light saplings of trees—can be very well used for firewood. If 25 years ago a progressive Department had interested itself in forestry I suppose we would have 100 acres of wood to thin out this year, and I can assure the Minister that that would ease the fuel problem to a great extent. It is no use bemoaning what could have been done and what was not done. According to the figures and the amount of money that is being laid out for the coming year, it is no use expecting that that will be done until, as I have repeatedly said in this House and which I will repeat again, the present Administration and the present system of government are abolished.

The question has arisen as to the price of land and the different types of land to be planted. I am entirely opposed to planting on land which can be used in any way to grow crops. We have between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 acres of mountain land; we have cutaway bog; and we have land, part of which may be very rocky, but on which there are patches where trees could be grown. All this land could be purchased by the Government at a very small figure. In the acquisition of such land the Government would be faced with no opposition, or at least with very little opposition. It is not the same as taking land for the relief of congestion, because there you are taking over arable land. I cannot imagine any person taking the Department into court or putting anything but the slightest obstacle in the way of the acquisition of 100 or 200 acres of mountain land, or 1,000 acres of bog land from which the turf has been taken. I do not believe that any individual or group of individuals will stand in the path of progress if the Department tackled their job in the right way.

Having gone through two world wars within the memory of Deputies, there is no doubt that this country has been denuded of trees to a very large extent. If the felling of trees which is going on at present is allowed to continue, by this time next year there will not be 1,000 trees of any value left standing in the country. I agree with the Minister that it is very hard to prevent people who are short of fuel from felling trees to keep their fires going. I agree with him that after notice has been given to local Garda any person who wishes to fell trees can do so. I also agree with him that indiscriminate felling cannot be allowed. But why does he not make an effort to have some of the woods on which timber has been cut within the last ten or 15 years replanted?

I know of a wood in my own locality which was cut down about 25 years ago and not a tree has been planted there since; it is a pure wilderness. I know of another wood of about 20 acres which was levelled about four years ago and there is no sign of trees being planted there, although I understand that the person who bought the wood had to give a guarantee that he would replant it when the timber was taken away. Whether that is due to lack of supervision on the part of the Minister's officials or to the fact that we cannot get young trees I do not know. But I know the immense amount of employment that could be given by a proper afforestation scheme. It would be well worth spending, not thousands, but millions, on such a scheme. Look at the amount of employment that would be given. The land would have to be cleared and trees planted. Then we know that if trees are planted and left there they will never come to maturity or be of any use. We know that they need constant care. All that would give men constant employment going from one forest to another, seeing that the trees are thinned out and, if the trees planted on a few square perches have been a failure owing to the wet condition of the land, that a suitable type of tree is put in which can grow on that land. Then when trees reach from ten to 15 feet in height, they have to be thinned out again, and that gives more employment. We admit that the Minister can ask: "Where is the money to come from to pay for all this?" But there is no doubt that, even though it may take 40, 50 or 60 years to bring trees to maturity, the scheme will prove to be definitely beneficial and that it is worth the gamble to go out and start such an afforestation scheme at present.

Then there is the question of the different types of trees to be grown and that necessitates a certain amount of examination. We can, of course, grow oak and all these hard woods, but they take a very long time to reach maturity. What we want at present is the soft wood which will bring in a greater revenue to the State. Everybody knows that there is a market and that there will be a market in future for trees which can be turned into wood pulp. We may be able to dispense with timber for floors and windows and the roofing of houses. Perhaps in ten years' time plastics may be developed to such an extent that timber will not be required for building purposes. Things are pointing that way at present. Whether that happens or not, there will always be a market for trees which can be converted into wood pulp.

As I said to the Minister for Lands when I started my contribution to the debate on lands, I admire him for the manner in which he can make excuses. He gave us some good ones as to why the Land Commission had delayed its work in acquiring land. But I think he gave us a better one than that when he told us that the scarcity of rabbit netting had reduced the amount of planting that can be done.

Is that not true? That is no excuse.

There are 100 acres quite convenient to my place and they could be planted and I never saw a rabbit there. The whole 100 acres could be bought for little or nothing.

Would it grow timber?

It certainly would, and I have practical knowledge of it. Myself and another man planted half a rood ten years ago and the trees are almost 15 feet high now. It is there for the Minister's officials to see it.

Why was it not offered?

It was offered when I was secretary of a Fianna Fáil club in 1933. That Fianna Fáil club offered it to the Department and we never got even an acknowledgment.

That is a quick one on Deputy O'Brien.

But we got sense. I do not accept this excuse about rabbit netting. I know there are areas where rabbit netting is necessary before trees can be planted because, if rabbits get amongst young trees, there is complete devastation. Two rabbits would cut down 100 young trees in a night. But the absence of rabbit netting is not a sound excuse for not going ahead with planting. The whole reason is that the forests planted to-day will not show dividends in the lifetime of the present Government. The Government are too anxious to throw money into schemes that will give a quick turnover and supply profits in a short space of time and, as far as they are concerned, the future can look after itself. We could, I believe, instead of paying money out through the employment exchanges by way of doles, be better employed paying it out to men engaged on afforestation schemes. There is no doubt about that, and no one can say that such a statement is wrong.

Forestry work, the planting of trees, the levelling of ground and the making of drains, cannot be classified as heavy manual toil, and the young fellows lining up at the labour exchanges would prefer to be at this useful employment than wasting their time calling for the dole. All that has been discussed for the past 25 years and nothing has been done. I am confident nothing will be done. There is only one hope for any forestry development and that is to put out of power the people who are hindering the progress of afforestation, and they are the present Government.

This Estimate seeks from the House a certain sum to carry on forestry work in the coming 12 months and for many rural Deputies it is an interesting Estimate. During the Budget debate three members of the Clann na Talmhan Party made the welkin ring and they got the Press of the country to report their speeches telling us that all the Minister could do in the Budget was to provide £40,000 for forestry work this year. They spent 15 hours here telling us that. I suggest to the Clann na Talmhan Deputies that in order to qualify themselves to speak in the House they should first study the Estimate and, when they have done that, they will then be capable of telling the country the amount the Government propose to spend on forestry development this year. If I read the Estimates aright, I see the total amount is £390,000 and not £40,000. The three Deputies, for the sake of propaganda, were trying to persuade the people that the Minister was providing only £40,000.

You must not have been listening to the Minister.

I am quoting the Book of Estimates.

I am quite capable of reading it.

I heard the Minister introducing the Forestry Estimate and, if the Deputy would only read the Book of Estimates, supplied free, gratis and for nothing, he would realise that the amount for forestry is £390,000.

How much of that will be spent?

Is that the net figure?

The figure is £390,000, not £40,000.

Read at the top of the Estimate.

Deputy Davin also made a speech and I suggest he, too, should study the Book of Estimates and there he will see the amount is £390,000.

What good is £390,000?

What good is anything at all? Deputy Commons said we should have more forests and there is no hope unless he and his colleagues are sitting where the Minister is sitting.

I said we should put them out.

According to the Deputy, there is no hope unless he and his four or five henchmen are sitting here. They would then get forestry schemes into operation. Deputy Commons made sure to tell the country that he did not want the Minister for Lands to acquire good land for tree planting purposes. At the same time, he wants 2,500,000 acres planted overnight.

I do not.

He does not want good arable land used for forestry.

I do not. How many acres are available for afforestation?

The Deputy must not repeatedly interrupt Deputy Allen.

The Deputy is not prepared to go to the West or to any other part of Ireland and say that land that would grow good timber should be made available—that good arable land should be used for the growing of trees. We can all talk quite glibly about planting trees and having forests. We all would love to see 2,500,000 acres grown overnight. We know that in every county there are thousands of acres of hill land incapable of growing trees and we know the Minister could get this land almost for "nix." It is not a question of money. These lands that the Deputy wants to persuade the country are not being planted by the Forestry Department could be acquired for a very small amount; they would be given as a gift to the Department in the morning because they have no value whatever, and the Deputy knows that quite well.

Did I not say so?

There are thousands of acres of hill land in this country that should not be planted because they would not grow timber. The Deputy and the members of his Party would be the first to get up in this House, if these lands were planted, to say that it was a waste of public money. The Deputy tells us here that he knows of 100 acres that could be purchased for £20 which could be planted. I suggest to Deputy Commons, who is a practical farmer, that he should purchase these 100 acres for £20 in the morning and if he applies to the Department of Forestry he will get a grant of £10 an acre for planting that land. I suggest that that would be a good economic long-term proposition for himself and his successors. I suggest that the Deputy should take those 100 acres and demonstrate to the Forestry Department, this House and the people of the West of Ireland, how he can grow timber on land which the Forestry Department would not acquire for timber growing. I repeat that he should take these 100 acres as a gift for £20 and this State will pay him £10 an acre for planting that land. That will call his bluff and a lot of the bluff and nonsense to which we have been listening in this House.

You have not been listening——

I shall ask the Deputy to leave the House if he interrupts again.

The Deputy is given a free rein every time he gets up to say anything in this House which is in order. Every member of the House and every Party I am sure is interested in forestry. I think it is generally admitted that the Forestry Department is the one Department of State that have done their work well all down the years. They have planted very many thousands of acres but I do not know yet of any farmer or any group of farmers in this country prepared to surrender their lands to the Department of Forestry for forestry purposes alone. Until we all appreciate that fact, we shall go on rambling and talking nonsense.

There are so many million acres in the pool here but it is a well-known fact that a very large amount of that land is incapable of growing timber. Even the private owners of some of these lands have proved by experience, proved by spending their own money, that these lands are incapable of growing any timber of commercial value. Is it seriously suggested that this State should embark on a scheme of planting all the hillsides, all the rocky lands, all the bog lands, all the lands that do not offer a reasonable chance of growing decent commercial timber? Is that the suggestion?

You know more about it than John Mackay.

I shall not warn the Deputy again. If he persists in his interruptions, he will have to leave the House.

I am asking is it the suggestion that this Department should provide through public funds, from the taxpayers of this country, money to finance an attempt to grow timber on lands that are known to be incapable of growing timber? I want to put that question through you, Sir, to Deputy Commons and his associates on the Clann na Talmhan Benches. If we get an answer to that question, we shall know much better where we stand. It will be appreciated, I am sure, that the Forestry Department have made every effort to acquire all the land that is available and capable of growing timber with a reasonable chance of success. I pass through County Wicklow every week of the year, and for the number of years I have been travelling along the roads in that county I have seen great development and great progress by the Forestry Department in the extent of their plantations there. The work which has been carried out there has been done in a most efficient manner. It is a pleasure to observe the progress made in that county as a result of the activities of the Department. The sites for these plantations were carefully chosen. Some lands were passed by; others, well-sheltered and considered capable of growing trees, were planted. The result has been beyond the expectations of anyone who hoped that the effort would be a success.

Having said so much on that matter, I want to deal with a few other matters and to make some suggestions to the Minister. There are patches of good land here and there throughout the country, as other Deputies have stated, which are capable of growing timber and on which timber has been felled for the past half-dozen years. I want to put it to the Minister that, as farmers are so busy with operations on their land in regard to tillage and otherwise at the present time, they probably have not the time or the labour necessary to get these patches replanted. I suggest seriously to the Minister that he should contemplate taking over these small strips of land which have been already proved capable of growing timber and have them planted at the State expense, partially at least. If he wishes the annuity of the farmer who might own one of these particular patches—it might be three acres or 30 acres in extent—might be increased so that some portion of the cost of replanting the land might be recovered from the farmer—probably 50 per cent. or less. In that way I would suggest a big amount of land could be planted with timber to provide shelter belts and useful timber in the years to come. This work would spread out the activities of the Forestry Department to areas in which they have not been so active in the past.

There is a lot of fertile land in these glens and dells all over the country. They were planted some 100 or 150 years ago with timber which has matured and a big portion of that has been cut down during the emergency. The Minister for Lands and his Department should make every effort to have all these waste patches which were proved capable of growing good timber in the past replanted as soon as possible. I think that such a scheme could be devised without any great difficulty or any big expense to the State. The organisation at the Minister's disposal, if it were increased somewhat, would be capable within a few years of replanting all these glens and dells in which a good deal of timber has been cut within the last few years.

The best timber grown in this country grew in these sheltered glens. They are very fertile but they are useless for agricultural purposes and they should be replanted. The owners of these glens, I am sorry to say, are not as keen on planting as their forefathers were. A great deal could be said against the old landlords but many of them did one good thing—they planted timber. They planted timber on their estates about 100 or 150 years ago and much of that timber served this country very usefully in the past few years.

One other matter to which I want to refer was mentioned on the Forestry Vote before. It is no harm to mention it now. The Minister has in his State forests a number of skilled men. When I say that, I am not speaking of the foresters. These skilled men have been in the Department's employment for ten or 20 years, but they are unestablished. I suggest that they should be established and given permanent employment, seeing that other sections of the community coming under the local authorities will become pensionable under a Bill now before the House. These men should be made permanent and pensionable, same as other sections of the Minister's staff.

The burden of Deputy Davin's complaint, when moving to refer this Estimate back, was that, although the Government, as he admitted, had a good housing scheme, they had failed to grow the timber to build the houses. One would think that Deputy Davin was a child who had not gone to school very long. If he were in a senior class at school, he would know that it is not possible for anybody who lives on this planet to bring timber to maturity within 14 or 15 years. I am sure that Deputy Davin never gave a thought to that. Listening to Deputy Davin and listening to Deputy Commons, one would think that there were millions of acres to be planted and that all the Government had to do was to plant them as they would plant a crop of potatoes and reap the harvest before the year was out. That is a strange conception of forestry. It takes from 50 to 100 years for most species of timber to come to maturity.

Deputy Davin would have the House believe that the Government should, since they came into office, have brought timber to maturity for use in their housing scheme, which he admits is a good one. The Dáil is entitled to more sense from Deputy Davin. He is a long time a member of the House and many members think he is sensible enough in some ways. But he is childish in the matter of timber-growing. When Deputy Davin comes to wind up on his motion to refer back, I hope he will correct himself and that he will have learned in the meantime that it takes more than ten or 15 years to grow mature timber for the building of houses.

Chualamar a lán cainnte faoi chúrsaí foraiseachta, go háirithe i gContae Mhuigheo, agus ba mhaith liom fios a fháil ón Aire conas mar eirigh leis an scéim atá i bhfeidhm i gCunga sa contae sin agus an bhfuil na daoine annsin sásta leis an dul ar aghaidh atá á dhéanamh ann. Nuair a tháinig an Rialtas seo i réim, 15 bliana ó shoin, do chuireadar rómpa deich míle acra a chur faoi chrainn in aghaidh na bliana. Bé a dtuairim dá ndéanfaí sin go mbeadh go leor adhmaid againn i gcionn tamaill. Mar gheall ar an méid adhmaid a gearradh i rith an chogaidh, b'fhéidir go mba cheart don Aire agus don Roinn agus don Rialtas ath-smaoiniú a dhéanamh ar an sgéal. Is dóigh liom nach leor 10,000 acra anois agus gur cheart an méid sin a mhéadú.

Tá a fhios agam agus ag gach duine a bhreithníos an scéal go bhfuil sé andeacar talamh a fháil le haghaidh foraoiseachta. I gceantar amháin ina raibh a lán cainte ar fhoraoiseacht, cuireadh toscaireacht chun feirmeoir amháin ag a raibh talamh oiriúnach chun a iarraidh air é a thabhairt don Roinn Foraoiseachta. Theip orthu fiú acra amháin a fháil sa gceantar sin. B'éigin dúinn é a thabhairt suas ar fad. I gceantar eile i gContae Luimnigh cheap na daoine go mbeadh paiste talún oiriúnach d'fhoraoiseacht ach bhí a mhalairt de thuairim ag an Roinn agus is dócha go raibh an ceart acu.

Is deacar talamh a fháil le haghaidh crann agus is riachtanach é a fháil le toil na ndaoine. Ní ceart a bheith a smaoineamh ar éiginteacht. Níl mórán déanta maidir le foraoiseacht i gContae Luimnighe ach tá cúpla scéim ann agus tá obair an-mhaith déanta ag an Roinn ina dtaobh. Tá ceann in aice le Cill-Fhionáin in iarthar an Chontae agus ceann eile le roinnt blian anuas ag Cill Cornáin, gairid do Ath Dara,— agus d'eirigh go han-mhaith leis an dá scéim seo. Sé is trua liom nach bhfuil níos mó díobh ann. Ní labhróinn sa díospóireacht seo ach amháin go mba mhaith liom fios a fháil cad a thuit amach maidir leis an scéim foraoiseachta i gCunga i gContae Muigheo.

I hope the Minister's feelings will not be hurt when I say that his introductory statement was extremely disappointing. One would expect that, during the present lull in forestry operations, which the Minister has explained, he would take the opportunity to tell the House exactly what is the future policy of his Department in regard to afforestation. We have repeatedly heard the claims of those who are enthusiastic about a far-reaching national scheme of afforestation and we have heard, on the other side, the cynical expression of opinion that there is no future in afforestation in this country, but we would like to know what is the opinion of the man responsible to this House for afforestation. Does he think there is room for a wide expansion of afforestation, or does he think that the available land has been to a great extent exhausted?

It is not humanly possible for the average Deputy to make even a rough estimate of the area available for afforestation. We know that there is a huge acreage of what is known as waste land. That waste land may be divided into two or three classifications. There is the waste land which is waterlogged and unsuitable for planting and there is also waste mountain land which is too high for planting, and, between these two, I suppose there is a certain acreage of land of inferior quality which might be used for afforestation, but here again one comes up against a problem, which is being tackled in other countries, the problem of the reclamation of hilly land. There is quite a considerable amount of high land which is to a great extent waste at present, but which is capable of reclamation for agricultural purposes, and one has always to strike a balance between whether that land would be best utilised for agricultural purposes or for afforestation. Thus, there is a very difficult and complex estimate to be made of the amount of land available.

There is no use in telling me that certain hilly land is useless for agricultural purposes because its productive capacity at present is very low. Much of the high land is capable of reclamation. In Great Britain and Northern Ireland, extensive schemes of reclamation of hilly land have been carried out, and the policy there has been to bring that land into a condition of fertility for the grazing of livestock, and particularly sheep. That is a problem to which I should like to hear the Minister addressing himself and giving the House a rough estimate of the acreage available.

There is another problem to which he might also address himself. He has been somewhat witty in his comments on the disagreements between the various Opposition groups, but I should like to hear him try to reconcile the disagreements and contradictions in the expressed views of members of the Government. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance was very emphatic in asserting that the only thing holding up afforestation was shortage of land, and, if we of the Opposition would make land available to him, he would go ahead with afforestation. The Minister for Lands comes in here to-day and tells us the whole trouble is a shortage of netting wire. We are anxious to know which of these Ministers is telling the truth. Is it the netting wire man or the man who talks about the shortage of land?

I will acknowledge that if the Minister says netting wire cannot be got, it cannot be got, and if there is no substitute for netting wire for the protection of plantations from rabbits, planting cannot be gone on with. The acquisition and development of suitable lands can be gone ahead with, but it is not possible to plant unless you can protect the crop. It often puzzles me to know if there is any substitute for netting wire. During the day, we had a lot of divergent views expressed by the Fianna Fáil Party. I wonder what keeps all these divergent people within the Party? Is there some substitute for netting wire which keeps these rabbits in the fold? If there is, it might be possible to utilise it for the protection of afforestation. That is another problem to which the Minister might address himself. Perhaps the kind of rabbits he has in his Party are not so athletic as the rabbits which prey upon afforestation, but it is a matter which might receive consideration.

The Minister ought to give us some indication of what his future policy is to be. There is no use in his going out at election times and saying: "We are going to plant the mountains, drain the lands and divide the ranches," if, after 15 years, we find that they have done practically none of these things. There is no use in the Minister coming here and acting the funny man and getting away with it. It is a good means of escape, if you have no case to put up, to act the clown.

Bhfuil sé sin in ordú?

I do not think it is in order for the Deputy to accuse the Minister of acting like a clown.

If I have used any word which is unparliamentary, I withdraw it. It is not what the country expects from the Minister at present. Afforestation is a matter of such vital importance, when we consider that timber is such an essential for housing and industrial development in general, that we must take serious note of the problem of getting all available suitable land under forestry. For some years I have been stressing one point which may bore the Minister, which may weary him and which may irritate him, if I continue repeating it, that is, that I believe there is a wide scope for extension of afforestation in the acquisition of small areas, or, as Deputy Allen suggested, in further assistance to private owners to undertake the planting of small areas.

Deputy Allen referred to the dells and glens, presumably, of Wexford, which were formerly planted and from which the timber has been removed and which ought to be replanted. He regretted that land owners of the present day are not as far-seeing as the land owners of past centuries. Perhaps it is because they have not the same security of tenure to-day as they had in past centuries, when you had ambitious politicians offering land to all and sundry in exchange for votes. Certainly there is not the same enthusiasm for planting as existed some hundreds of years, even 50 years ago.

One suggestion I put to the Minister, which he has never examined or at least never commented upon, is that the Forestry Department should consider the advisability of acquiring smaller areas than they have been accustomed to acquire in the past. I am sure the Minister has often travelled down to West Wicklow and has seen the glens and dales there screaming out for planting. The owners perhaps do not think it is necessary or desirable to undertake planting, but there ought to be some scheme which would induce them. It is all right to say there is a fairly good scheme under which the State provides assistance to farmers desiring to plant, but apparently it has not had the desired effect and has not led to the widespread planting which the Minister desires and which the country urgently needs. I was interested to hear the Minister state, in his opening statement, that he is considering the planting of land which might not be suitable for commercial timber but which would produce good firewood timber. That is a welcome step, inasmuch as it shows there are some new ideas entering into the Minister's brain and rotating there. Each may not be found to be practicable but we cannot go on in the present state of stagnation.

I am almost sure that the destruction of timber generally throughout the country during the past few years has far exceeded any planting that has taken place. It is a sad and deplorable thing if, after 25 years of native government, we have not made any real progress towards the solution of this problem. The Minister should give us some indication of what investigations he has undertaken in the past few years, when there was nothing very much to be done. Has he made any survey of the land available, or which might be acquired? Have any experiments been carried out regarding the relative uses of land, whether it would not be better to plant certain land with timber or utilise it for agriculture? There always will be that clash between the production of food and the production of timber. Both are of urgent national importance and both demand immediate attention. While we talk and talk about both of them, we must remember that there are tens of thousands, possibly millions, of acres producing neither food nor timber and which could produce either.

You have poor land and hilly land and the dales to which Deputy Allen referred, which have practically no feeding value at present for live stock. That land must be reclaimed for food production or put under timber and someone has to make the decision as to which course will be adopted. The owners should be the first to consider the matter, but the average farmer is not a public philanthropist. His first duty is to provide for himself and his family and, if he has some very inferior land, he has to look at the matter from a purely economic point of view. He has to consider whether he has the necessary capital to undertake reclamation and whether the reclamation would pay him within a reasonably short time. He has to meet rent and rates and the expenses of the up-keep of his family. He cannot afford to go in for any item of expenditure, whether it be afforestation or reclamation, which does not give an economic return. The State, however, which is bigger than the farmer and has a longer life—or we hope it should—than the average farmer, can deal with this problem on a long-term basis. That is why a duty devolves upon the State to consider the improvement and reclamation and, if necessary, afforestation of our inferior lands. The farmer alone cannot do it.

I suppose the Minister, if he is in his funny mood to-night, will seek to suggest that I am advocating some form of nationalisation or State interference or some of those objectionable things to which I, under all circumstances, object. There is something more desirable and more practicable than nationalisation or socialisation, that is, co-operation. Close co-operation between the State and the individual landowner can be achieved and if a farmer has five or ten acres of very inferior land and if the Department considers it suitable for planting, they should be prepared to purchase it. If that scheme is not practicable, they might give some inducement or assistance to the farmer in the way of a very long-term loan which would finance the operation. I am glad Deputy Allen is taking an interest in this, as he may be able to put some sense into the Minister's head if I am unable to do so. It is rather tragic that there has been such a falling off in afforestation during the past few years. I hope that, in the coming year, some effort will be made to overcome the difficulties which beset the Department and that we will have a speeding up in this important work.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

The emergency has made most people more timber-conscious than they were before it. That is principally due to the fact that this winter many homes were without sufficient fuel, whether timber or turf. The fact that we have become more timber-conscious, due to the effects of the emergency, is, I think, no reason why we should not take a more active interest in reafforestation. In view of our large building programme which needs to be completed, and of the difficulty in securing commercial timber from abroad, we shall require considerable quantities of that class of timber for building purposes. No plan of reafforestation at the present time can provide us with that timber. Any such plan at the moment can at best only lay the foundation for future supplies.

While it is desirable that we should adopt a long-term plan, I think that at the moment our special attention should be devoted towards ascertaining what land is suitable for reafforestation, and what land can be planted easily without a considerable outlay on fencing. It is a fact that throughout the country, in the upland and hilly districts, we have large areas of land which, even though they are in the vicinity of bogs, are unsuitable for turf production. In many areas, the land on hillsides is of shallow depth. Land with a boggy soil is unsuitable for turf production because, after one cutting, the turf supplies there are exhausted. On the other hand, we have large areas of land of light soil which is unsuitable for cultivation. No amount of reclamation would improve it sufficiently to merit attention from farmers, from the Department of Lands and Forestry or the Department of Agriculture, or would bring it into any sort of reasonable productive capacity. I think Deputies who say that there is a conflict here between land that is suitable for tillage or ordinary farming and land suitable for reafforestation are really confusing two issues that should not be confused. So far as any national plan is concerned, there should be no conflict whatever. The fact is that we have between 9,000,000 and 10,000,000 acres of arable land suitable for farming, and of that between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 acres would be sufficient to supply our own needs. That demonstrates that it is nonsense to suggest that there is any conflict between land suitable for reafforestation and land suitable for ordinary agricultural purposes. We have, therefore, a large area of land which is neither bog land nor suitable for cultivation in any other way.

I should like if that land were surveyed so that we might have an estimate from the Department as to what the actual acreage is and its potentialities for reafforestation. The emergency has made us conscious of the need for timber to be used for firewood. My view is that we should adopt a long-term policy and endeavour to plant all the land we have that is suitable. My information is that it is only arable land of fairly good quality that is suitable for growing timber for commercial purposes. Other classes of land should be planted to produce timber which could be utilised for firewood and used for commercial purposes, other than actual building work. We should concentrate, I think, on the planting of land suitable for the production of timber to be used later to meet our commercial needs.

I understand that one of the difficulties the Department was up against during the emergency was the shortage of netting wire. Even though there was a shortage, I think it has been exaggerated. I think that we should endeavour to adopt other methods of destroying rabbits so as to prevent them getting into young forests and doing serious damage. We could destroy them either by trapping them or by spreading certain forms of insecticide. One, of course, realises that during the emergency the trapping of rabbits provided quite a considerable income for many people. We cannot overlook the importance of preserving our young forests and of allowing the young trees to mature sufficiently. At any rate, some means should be adopted so that attacks by vermin on the young forests may be met successfully.

I think Deputies will agree that nothing looks better than some of the forests that have been planted in different parts of the country. In fact, they give an indication of what might be done in that direction if the problem were tackled on a bigger scale. Some of the forests planted in Wicklow, Tipperary and in other counties by the Department have made very great progress, and demonstrate what might be accomplished in a comparatively short period. They provide good shelter belts and add to the beauty of the surrounding country. In later years they will provide us with timber suitable for firewood. We know, of course, that at the present time, with the extended timber-cutting programme that is in operation, and the recent relaxation of the tree-felling Order, a number of the forests have been cut down. Therefore, if we are not to denude ourselves entirely of timber, we must not merely replant on the pre-war basis but will need to double or treble our efforts. That, at least, will be needed in order to try to compensate in some way for the timber-felling that is going on at the moment. It also means that we must adopt a more ambitious programme in general so far as reafforestation is concerned.

I should like to hear the Minister speak on the general policy of the Department in so far as reafforestation in the coming years is concerned. While the shortage of wire netting continues some methods, such as I have suggested will, I think, need to be adopted, if the destruction done by vermin is to be overcome. The Minister should make every effort to have tree-planting carried out on a more extensive scale than at present. Our experiences over the last few years have demonstrated to us the vital need there is for reafforestation, and particularly the production of timber suitable for commercial purposes. Nothing, of course, that is done now can overcome the present shortage, but at least we should make a start and be able to hand on something to posterity. Our experiences during the emergency should spur us on to make a more practical approach than we have made hitherto to this problem of reafforestation.

It was interesting to learn from the Minister in his opening statement that he has at last listened to our appeals. On more than one occasion I pointed out to him the danger of this country finding itself at some future date with no other means of firing except what can be supplied by the Electricity Supply Board or by firewood. Even though the Electricity Supply Board occupies a big place in the life of the country, there are in many parts, particularly on small holdings, people who cannot and will not use electric current either for heating or cooking. Some of our bogs will be exhausted within the next 25 years and unless there is an alternative fuel the people in those areas will be badly off. People cannot exist without fuel. I am glad that the Minister has decided to plant land which is being made available in those districts and which was not considered suitable for commercial timber. The Minister is right in anticipating a large demand for poles for haysheds in the coming year. I come from a district which supplies poles, and I would ask the Minister to take immediate steps to have suitable poles marked in the woods on the Killarney estate so that the forester may be in a position to distribute them gradually and thus avoid an undue rush during the next two months when the shortage of poles becomes acute. Before I left Killarney on Monday some people called on me and asked me to remind the Minister that in the immediate future applications would be made by very many farmers for poles for haysheds. I appreciate the effort the Minister is making to meet their needs in that respect, but I would ask him also to come to the assistance of the forester and his staff who are always most willing to carry out the Minister's wishes and to meet the needs of the local farmers.

Planting must be carried out either by private individuals or by the State. It is evident that if our needs in respect of commercial timber are to be met from native resources in 50 to 80 years' time, the State must undertake the planting of the big forests which would be capable of meeting our needs at that time. Any Government or any Minister must realise that there will be a scarcity of timber in the world in 40 years' time. It is estimated that before the war the State forests of America, Europe and Asia were being exhausted at the rate of about 2.5 per cent per annum which would mean that there would not be available in 40 to 50 years' time any timber except that which had been planted during the past ten years and which will be planted from now on. Therefore, we should be alive to the position and go ahead more speedily than we have been progressing during recent years.

Private planting also should be encouraged. That can be done only when those who assume the leadership of our people, both in local bodies and in the Oireachtas, take the initiative of encouraging local planting. It would be interesting to know how many public representatives have in their own localities encouraged private planting of the glens and the dells which have been referred to by Deputy Allen and by Deputy Cogan. It would be interesting to learn what their experience has been if they have set about the private planting of those places, or the establishment of a local organisation that would undertake planting, or even the encouragement of the people to offer, without impediment, to the Forestry Department, land which they consider suitable for planting.

When land was offered to the Department it has been the practice for the Department to send an inspector to view it. I understand that there is first an inspection by a county or district inspector and that before the land is acquired an inspector would be sent from Dublin. That resulted in considerable delay. I have had complaints from people who offered land to the Forestry Department two or three years ago. I know that some persons who offered land last year have had the first inspection carried out but the second inspection has not yet been carried out. I fully understand the difficulty of travelling during the past six months and I appreciate that in order to have a uniform standard in estimating the commercial timber capable of being grown in a particular place it may be essential to leave the final recommendation as to the value of land to one individual but if it is found necessary to engage more than one individual to carry out the work I do not see why that should not be done so that people who have offered land will know whether or not it will be accepted for the growing of commercial timber. Now that the Minister has decided to have lands that are not suitable for commercial timber planted with timber suitable for firewood there should not be nearly as much delay in coming to a decision as to whether or not lands should be acquired.

When the Deputies who are so keen on encouraging the acquisition of lands set about getting the consent of the people in a particular district they must be prepared for a few shocks. It is all very well to discuss with a group of people the possibility of having part of their combined holdings acquired for the purpose of planting but when one meets them individually there is a great deal of hesitation because they feel, if they part permanently with one square foot of land, that they are doing something they will subsequently regret. I do not know why it is but at the back of their minds they think that any kind of an animal that can be reared on land is more profitable to them than the growing of trees there for any purpose.

Deputy Cogan has referred to the growing of trees on elevated places. I know that in the past the Minister and his Department were slow in planting those places. I myself come from a district that has suffered very much from flooding. I am told that we must wait until the Arterial Drainage Act is put into operation before the flooding can be alleviated. To my mind, one of the reasons why flooding is so incessant and why it is increasing year by year is that the mountains overlooking the river valleys which are grazed particularly by sheep are becoming barer and barer and that there is absolutely no check on the rain waters. As a preliminary to the operations of the Arterial Drainage Act, people owning those mountains should be encouraged to offer them for afforestation and there should be the closest co-operation between the Department of Forestry and the Board of Works in that particular matter, because water control, before it enters the stream, is, to my mind, more important and more essential to the ultimate aim behind the Arterial Drainage Act than the actual treatment of the stream. Before I leave the matter of planting for firewood, I would like to ask the Minister if any experiments are being carried out in the production of trees for firewood which might be cut down and which will reproduce themselves. I have heard that in other countries, particularly in Africa, trees have been developed which grow fairly rapidly, which can be cut down after a few years and used for firewood, and which reproduce themselves. The little country of Kenya has been given to me as an example. I myself have grown Macrocarpa and I have twice cut it before it was 17 years old. During the past winter it very often filled a gap and when used with other timber gave plenty of satisfaction. It was troublesome, very troublesome, but it was better than nothing. I hope that if experiments are not being carried out in that respect that they will be in the immediate future, because I am satisfied with the results obtained from the one example of shrub that I tried.

It is interesting to listen to what the various Deputies have said. In fact, it is edifying to hear how people change their minds when they are halfway through a sentence. The Deputy on the Labour Benches who asked the Minister to acquire land, if necessary by compulsion, must have got sorry when he had said that much because he then said that he would not blame the people from whom the land was taken if they were to demand the highest price possible. In other words, he tells the Minister to acquire the land; he tells the people who are parting with that land to demand the highest price possible, and then he goes back to the Minister and suggests that he should give the highest price possible. Another Deputy who tries to be humorous himself will not give the Minister credit for having any sense of humour. What worries him at the particular moment is that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party can express divergent views and still keep together. I have heard a Deputy in this House refer to hen runs but this is the first time that I heard a Deputy refer to rabbit runs. Whether it is by the magic of the Minister for Lands or not the fact of the matter is that at the present time the Deputies on this side of the House are in one Party. They mean to be in one Party and the Minister himself is one of the leaders of that Party. He has not yet acquired that knack of acrobatics by which he, himself, or any member on this side of the House, can change Parties overnight.

While agreeing that the Forestry Department were at a great disadvantage during the emergency period in carrying out the programme of planting generally through the country, still I hope that as time goes on difficulties will be overcome and that the necessary requirements or material for protection will be available and that tools will be available for the men engaged on the work of forestry. Certainly reafforestation is a very big national problem and cannot be undertaken overnight. It is a problem that has to have the serious consideration of the Department with the assistance, particularly, if I may say so, of the local authorities as well.

It might be no harm to suggest to the Minister that it is time a general survey was taken and during the course of that survey consideration should be given to the Department's plans to embark on a large-scale forestry scheme. When doing so, in my opinion, a careful study and examination or a test of the land should also be taken to see if the particular land is suitable for agricultural purposes or agricultural production, particularly if in the area adjacent to the land which may be purchased by the Forestry Department land of a more suitable type for afforestation would be available in exchange for a useful parcel of land taken over by the Department. Furthermore, I think the Department would be wise to carry out experiments as to the type of timber which would be available on maturity. To my mind, these are the primary things to be considered in connection with reafforestation. As I said, with the help and co-operation of the people, it may be possible to embark on a very large scheme. Very few private individuals can undertake a large forestry scheme because the cost is so great, although reasonable contributions are made by the Department. There has to be taken into consideration the long period an individual has to wait for a return from his planting. These are things that should be carefully and earnestly considered. I should like to give the Minister credit for what he has done. I suggest that there should be a general survey of the soils of the areas proposed to be planted and that the co-operation of public bodies and private individuals should be sought.

I think that there should be more civic spirit shown by the people in regard to the protection of forests. Time and again we have noticed that much destruction has been caused by fires. I am not saying that these were malicious. They were probably caused by people on picnics in the summer time. These people should be very careful to see that the property of the State is not damaged. The fact that these forests are the property of the State is no reason why people should be careless. People should display a healthy public spirit and see that the property of the State is protected. In that way, with the co-operation of the public and of public representatives, I see no reason why this country should not be foremost in reafforestation in the near future.

I should like the Minister to give some information as to the intentions of his Department regarding the lands known as the Moore Hall Demesne, Carnacon, County Mayo. I do not know whether the Department have actually taken over these lands, but I know that they had been considering the taking over of them for afforestation purposes. I should also like to know whether it is not possible for some of the land on the Ashford Demesne in the Cong district to be given to small holders in the district for the relief of congestion and also to some of the discharged employees, as congestion is very acute in that district. From listening to some of the speeches made here I gather that some people seem to have the idea that trees can be grown on any kind of land. I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. All the timber that we have had for the past 40 years at least in this country was timber grown on the demesnes of former landlords. We all know that when a landlord planted a demesne he did not pick out the worst land on his estate. On the contrary, in most cases the best land was selected for the purpose. As a consequence these landlords were able to grow good timber. In my county an afforestation scheme was carried out by the Land Commission about 30 years ago in a bog area and it was an absolute failure. If some of the lands in bog areas referred to by some speakers are to be planted, before they are planted I think you will have to undertake a scheme of drainage and reclamation.

Prior to this, so far as the Forestry Department is concerned, we had mainly a single problem, namely, to produce timber for the commercial requirements of the country. That was estimated to require some 700,000 acres of planted land. Now I think we had better be frank with the country and ask the country to be prepared to do its duty. In my opinion, there are now two things that have to be faced boldly, whether it is popular or unpopular to say it. We have first the problem of commercial timber. Anybody going up and down the country can see that in another five years there will not be 100 tons of commercial timber left standing owing to the urgent necessity for providing houses for our people, even taking into account the timber that can be imported. The other problem which has now been created, and I think it would be very wise to take immediate stock of the situation, is with regard to what will face the country in future with regard to firing. A lay person does not want to pit his opinion against the technical advice given to Departments. I have seen it stated that there is sufficient bog in this country to meet our requirements of turbary for an indefinite period. I know the bogs of this country as well as anybody and I think it is fantastic to suggest there is an inexhaustible supply of turbary on these bogs. We will be doing one of those silly things that are characteristic of this country if we go on taking the turbary out of these bogs in a wholesale way with the idea at the back of our minds that the supply is inexhaustible. Some day we will wake up to find that the bogs are also exhausted and we will be left without any native fuel. In my opinion, the calculation made with regard to the supply of turbary in this country is grossly exaggerated. I know every yard of my county very well. People in the rest of the country think that we have an inexhaustible supply of turbary in Donegal. That is not so.

Apart from Donegal, we have the bogs in the County Galway and in the Midlands and whatever extent of bog there is in the County Kerry. These two subjects are related. I am only putting this before the House in order to put another matter to the Minister by way of approach to the problem that confronts us in the immediate future. It is done in no carping spirit, and, when I impeach the findings given us with regard to the supply of bog, if I am right in my conclusions it is essential that we should face the second timber problem that now arises.

I do not think the supply of bog in this country, with the present consumption, will last 50 years. It does not require any stretch of the imagination to reach that conclusion. It is certainly quite true of the County Donegal in the main, related to the present consumption of bog there. Even before 50 years have elapsed we will find ourselves up against a great crisis. As a matter of fact we will find ourselves up against a crisis in Donegal inside 20 years. I expect the Minister will have technical information in his Department because they must have related these two problems, looking forward to the future and planning their policy. We are confronted with the prospect of planting 700,000 acres, which was the calculation with regard to commercial timber, and with providing an exhaustible supply of timber for firewood, with a continuing policy of planting and developing.

I am not equipped in any way to put forward a view as to what the area planted should be, pursued each year to meet our fuel requirements. It will be a different problem entirely from that of producing commercial timber, because I take it that the land required to produce the type of timber needed for firewood would not be of the high standard of fertility necessary for commercial timber. Where are we to get it? Where will we plant? For three days this House has listened to debates about securing land on which to place men, and this evening we heard speeches from the very same Deputies about finding land for the purpose of planting trees.

Whoever may be on this part of the earth 60 or 100 years hence will find it essential to have heat, just the same as ourselves, and statesmanship makes it imperative that we should take steps now to make timber fuel available for those who come after us. What can be done about it? Two views have been put forward here, and both could be adopted, covering the two problems that confront the country—that of providing commercial timber and timber for fuel for those who come after us. Is there to be a continuous conflict between the acquisition of land on which to put people and the acquisition of land for the purpose of planting trees extensively? We shall have to do one or the other. Taking the long view, a sacrifice will have to be made in order to provide fuel for the future. I am not an expert in this matter, but apparently it is agreed among engineers that there is no substantial supply of coal in this country.

There has been put forward here an issue between the State and the private raising of timber. Of course, a considerable amount should be done to induce private people to plant trees. I do not think anybody will charge me with impeaching my countrymen, but I am bound to censure them in this matter. Deputies have spoken about what should be done locally by public representatives to induce farmers to plant timber. Everyone who has contact with public life in this country, who is associated with local councils, knows that for the past 50 years active steps have been taken by every local authority to induce farmers to plant trees. They actually bought nursery grounds and employed men to plant them; they kept a staff of workmen rearing young plants, and it was announced in all the churches that farmers would get a reasonable quantity of plants at a nominal sum. Every inducement was given them.

What was done about it? Most of the Deputies who spoke are farmers, or the sons of farmers. Can they say what area was planted during the past 50 years? If two, four, six or ten acres had been planted—and that could have been simply done because the land was available—our problem to-day would be almost solved. I think we shall have to change our tune about-this thing; stop making speeches about it and get down to the job. We shall have to make sacrifices. The farmers will have to make sacrifices: planting the land themselves or giving portion of their land to the State at a nominal sum for the sake of the country generally and for the sake of posterity.

What happened within the past year should arouse a tender chord in the minds of the community, especially landowners. There is no use in dabbling in the way we have been dabbling with this problem. For the past 25 years since we got self-government, there has been continuous trouble about acquiring land for plantation and the refusal of people to give land for planting. So far as the 700,000 acres for commercial timber are concerned, I would be prepared to support a compulsory measure to acquire that acreage forthwith if we could plant on it within the next 12 months. It certainly should be planted within the next five years. It is sheer imbecility to talk about ten or 15 years for commercial timber. To be of any use as commercial timber, it would require at least 60 years, and longer if you could afford the time. That is the problem which confronts us and the sooner we tackle it the better. Let us not forget, that there is superadded this problem of providing a roughish class of timber which will grow on the poorer land that we have to deal with.

There is no use now in crying over spilt milk. I have been endeavouring on this Estimate for years, in a smallish way to impress on the Department the necessity of planting lands along the eastern side of huge stretches of hills which would grow some kind of a roughish kind of timber or that perhaps would grow a goodish type of some kind of fir. Of course, we have been very high and mighty. We had our noses in the air and we were going to do things in a skilled way, but now we shall have to be much less polite and not be thinking of mahogany, maple and timber of that quality. We shall have to get down to brass tacks and be satisfied with the best the country can give us. The Department must grapple with this new problem. It must open up its net and face these two problems. It may say that this added problem is not its function, but it is certainly the function of the Minister. I make the suggestion in a friendly way. It is a matter that requires urgent attention, taking the long view. I am sure the Minister will be the first to adopt my suggestion. While he is not a spectacular man he is a highly practical man, a man who is not afraid to put his teeth into a problem and to endeavour to solve it. Let us educate our people and not be afraid of telling them the truth in this matter. I have always believed in telling the people what is right, quite irrespective of whether it be popular or unpopular, whether they cheer me or curse me.

I read in Monday's papers that the Minister for Justice gave a hint of an impending political campaign throughout the country. I think we could all do great service to the country if, instead of throwing rotten eggs at one another, we could have a united policy on this matter, at least on that alone, and educate our people in regard to it. The campaign which the Minister envisaged would give us a golden opportunity of doing that. We could talk frankly to the people because it is their problem. People think largely from day to day because life is so rushed and complex that they have not time to take the long-term view. It is our duty to help them in that respect and I think we shall be all doing a good work in discharging that duty.

Complaints have been made about the amount of money set aside for the current year, but I do not think there will be any serious dispute on the question of finance. I can assure the Minister that any sum he requires to embark on an extended campaign will be gladly given to him. He need not have any reservations on that point. There is a certain justification for the retarded efforts of the Department owing to lack of certain supplies. The Minister could inform the House, because he should now know approximately what is the position in regard to the world production of net wire and if sufficient is available for his requirements. I see certain quantities of it on sale, but I do not know to what extent it is available. It is a commodity about which I do not know very much. It may be that the ordinary person who merely wants a few yards has no difficulty in obtaining small quantities, whereas large purchases are not so easy to come about. I think that the price is probably high, but in my opinion it will remain high perhaps for the next five years. You have always got a certain number of pessimists hanging round who say that the economic and commercial slump will come in the near future. I think that Deputies in trying to forecast the future should not draw any inferences from the past in that respect. There are at present several councils and commissions in existence which are dealing with various economic problems. The inference to be drawn from that is that they are going so to knit the various economic systems together that they will not permit their basic industries and other producers to face destruction. By some artificial means, financial or otherwise, they will ensure that prices will not fall to the level of economic slumps of the past. I think the Minister would be quite justified and I certainly would support him, considering the urgency of the problem, in buying, even at a figure above what would be considered a reasonable price in the past, all the net wires and other equipment he requires.

A suggestion was made by Deputy Cosgrave in regard to the destruction of rabbits. Of course, the method he suggested could be adopted, but there are two sides to the problem. You could destroy them artificially where you have arable land and where the rabbits burrow into clay fences. You could drive them all into their burrows, close certain of the openings and blow gas into the others. That could be done, but it would not completely eliminate them. Whatever the price may be, the Minister would be well advised to secure any quantity of net wire and iron standard that he requires.

The next problem is labour, but that should not be a difficulty. Everybody, I am sure, regrets, as I do, the terrible drain on our young manhood and womanhood that is constantly in progress. Anybody intimately associated as I am with applications from constituents for passports and travel permits must despair of the future of the country. I can assure the Minister that if he put a few thousand of these men to work, provided he has the land available at the moment, the House would gladly authorise any expenditure that he may consider necessary and we shall wish him God speed in the effort.

In yesterday's Independent, there was an editorial dealing with this matter. The writer of it referred to commercial timber, but I must go further. We should be failing in our duty if we did not take into consideration the second problem, which is equally urgent.

A real crisis will exist in this country if timber for fuel purposes is not planted. The Minister has not one problem but two problems to face now. The Minister who will occupy the office in a quarter of a century will always be confronted with the problem of securing adequate land for his purposes. It is all right talking about poor land, but on poor land poor people live. They have no means of livelihood other than producing a few cattle and the largest number of sheep the land can carry. It will be a hardship on them if this policy has to be enforced as, in my opinion, it will have to be enforced in the discharge of our obligations to the future. The stocks of these people will have to be limited to some extent. We have to face that. The figures in the Independent editorial are based on our problem on the commercial side as it existed up to now. A far bigger problem now confronts us. I shall not go into acreages. That is a matter of calculations which I am not competent to tackle. The amount of timber required per year would have to be calculated and then the annual planting necessary to cover that, as a matter of continuous policy as in Norway and Sweden, would have to be estimated. Then, the approximate amount of timber which would be consumed in a house in a year would have to be estimated, taking into account the most modern method of burning that timber —the highest heat effect with the lowest consumption of timber. Production on the commercial side would be quite simple. I never looked upon it as a problem at all. But we have to face up to the second arm of the problem. We did not do that soon enough. We should have done something with regard to planting on the eastern coast. It would be futile to do it on the bare ridges of our mountains on the western side because the plants would be destroyed by the west wind. The soil would have grown timber of some kind such as fir, which would be excellent for firewood. In many districts, the people are right up against this fuel problem.

In my own county, the county council have taken over all the principal bogs to produce turf to be sent out of the county. The people who live there are finding that there is insufficient bog to provide for their wants. Imagine that in the fourth year of intensive production of turf. The people of Dublin think that we do nothing but wade about in bogs, that our resources are inexhaustible. We should come to close quarters with this question, make accurate calculations and proceed to make provision for the future on scientific lines.

Níl acht poinnte amháin agam le cur os comhair an Aire. Tá súil agam go dthabharfaidh sé pardún dom má dheinim tagairt do cheist bheag achrannach. Mar is eol don Aire, tá cuid den talamh mhaith ar an eastát Ashfort ná fuil plandáilte go fóill. D'iarr muintir Chunga agus Fairche orm a mholadh don Aire gan na tailte seo do phlandáil agus in a nionad na hoileáin i Loch Coirib do phlandáil. Deirtear liom go bhfuil níos mó tailte atá oiriúnach don obair seo ar na hoileáin seo ná mar atá i gConga agus tá an buntáiste seo acu—nach gá eangach moital d'fháil chun na fáschoille do chosaint in aghaidh na gcoiníní, mar bheadh go leór chosnaimh in uisce na Locha. Má's feidir leis an Aire glacadh leis an moladh seo agus an talamh maith a fhagail don mhuintir thart fa Ashfort bheadh a mbuíochas tuillte aige, mar ba mhór an buntáiste dhóibh é.

The debate on the Land Estimate travelled over such a wide area and was so contradictory that I found it a most difficult task to answer it in any way coherently but, bad as the debate on Lands was, the debate on Forestry has been much worse. It has travelled even further than the Land debate and has been so contradictory that there really is nothing that I can take hold of to answer. Deputy Davin, who moved that the Estimate be referred back, gave us an expression of his idea on policy according to the amateur experts. Of any of the noisome broods we have in this country, the amateur experts on forestry are the worst. They know everything about it and, when any forester says anything in defence of any policy he proposes, they know better than he does. In his character of amateur expert, Deputy Davin made comparisons between Sweden and Ireland. Any child knows there is no comparison. For one thing, every tree that grows in this country has to be planted; in Sweden, no tree has to be planted because forest trees develop themselves there.

He talked, and I am sure Deputy Commons was amused, of the tremendous amount of land which could be secured for forestry in the Gaeltacht counties. If we are to have forests, we must have a particular type of land. We must have some fertility; the land must not be waterlogged; and it must have some shelter. Time and again in the debates on forestry here, Deputies have pointed out to me what Napoleon did on the coast of France as something which could be done in Connemara. Again, there is not a shadow of comparison between the conditions which obtain in France and the conditions which obtain in Connemara, and the people who expect that we should grow trees on the granite rocks in Connemara do not know what they are talking about.

Deputy Davin assured me that there was no threat in what he said in the debate. I think he has an uneasy conscience and that every one of us knows that there was a threat in the attitude of Deputy Davin led by the nose up the garden path by Deputy Oliver Flanagan in regard to the land in Leix. Why he went gratuitously out of his way to tell me that there was no threat in anything he said on the Forestry Vote passes my understanding. The Deputy is the mildest-mannered man that ever scuttled a ship or cut a throat and I think his threats are of very little avail.

Deputy Morrissey, who made a really useful contribution to the lands debate became the Party politician immediately the forestry debate started. He said that in no year had the money allocated for forestry ever been spent. Is that not a sign that the Department of Finance has always been generous to the Forestry Department, in that we always have money to spare and have been unable to spend it? People talk about spending millions of pounds on forestry as if money were the only thing one needed to develop forestry. Reading the debates in the American Congress, I saw one wise remark by a Senator. It was that no man ever spent $10,000,000 in a hurry without creating $10,000,000 worth of trouble. I think that is a very true statement. We must spend all the money we get wisely, or we will get no results from it.

Deputy Morrissey also spoke about the lack of rabbit wire and other wire necessary for fencing and the tremendous lack of foresight on the part of the Forestry Department in not having sufficient stocks. He said there were no restrictions in 1936 or 1937. How many statesmen in how many nations in 1936 could visualise what was to happen between 1939 and 1946? The Department of Forestry had foresight because the stocks accumulated before 1939 we have since been using and enabled us to keep going all during the war.

Deputy Cogan tried to be witty at my expense. Deputy Cogan is altogether too heavy-footed to be witty. He spoke about the need for rabbit netting to keep the members of the Fianna Fáil Party together. Deputy Heskin, who is an associate of Deputy Cogan, and a farmer, attends the annual shows in Ballsbridge, and he will often have seen there the particular type of fencing wire which is advertised as "Horse-high and bull-strong". Deputy Cogan has broken out of so many parties that if Deputy Heskin does not get the paling which is horse-high and bull-strong, he will never keep his Party together. There is a lack of rabbit wire. Even if there are no rabbits in Mayo, there are rabbits in many parts of the country and I have had the same experience as Deputy Commons. I know parts of the country where rabbits will not thrive, but you may at one particular time be quite free of rabbits in one district, and immediately you start afforestation you have them there. That is unfortunately, true, so we must have rabbit wire and barbed wire, and they are in short supply.

Deputy Cogan again asked what about policy. He asked me to correlate the attitude of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Lands. The Minister for Finance is depicted as very sourly remarking that the onus of providing land rested on the Opposition Deputies. Deputy McMenamin, of course, will have noticed that it was a Southern Deputy who made that statement, and that perhaps the accent was not quite familiar. What he took to be sourness was that dour Northern Tyrone accent. The Minister for Finance definitely pointed out here, and he was perfectly right, that the great difficulty heretofore has been, and will be in the future, to secure sufficient land to plant, and I am in thorough agreement with him, and in saying also that the shortage of barbed wire, rabbit wire, tools and seeds are also difficulties.

I have not by any means overlooked the fact that the getting of land is the main difficulty and the Minister for Finance is right. When Deputy Cogan, in his clumsy way, with the bull wire entangled in his feet, asked me to try to correlate the ideas of my fellow-Minister and my colleagues in the Party, he just did not know what he was talking about. Some people seem to think that there is a tremendous labour content in forestry. There is not. They tell you you can immediately absorb all the people who are lined up at the labour exchange. That is not true and I explained that on the forestry debate last year. We had last year something like 1,400 people constantly employed, and the greatest number we had employed was 1,800. Men who work in forests must be men inured to out of doors; you cannot get them from the city labour exchange, as they would not last a week. They must be men who are used to ordinary labour and they must be specially trained in the work. We have had an uproar here from Deputies about the evil conditions under which forestry labourers have been working. I know they work under difficult conditions and that is all the more reason for people to understand that you cannot take every unfortunate labourer and give him employment in the Forestry Department. I believe that, as time goes on, we can absorb more and more people into constant employment as foresters. That is one reason why we should try to develop forestry, but it must be a gradual course and it cannot be applied as an immediate solution for a problem of unemployment.

The Department of Lands has never been denied all the money it wants for forestry development, but you want more than money—you want land, seeds, wire, and particularly a trained staff and organisation. Strangely enough, all those who are in favour of forestry are generally urbanites or suburbanites, and in the rural areas we do not get so many people who are in favour of forestry at all. It is very difficult to convince agriculturists that forestry is a beneficial influence, that it is valuable, and the only hopeful feature that has arisen from this debate is that all those who spoke, no matter how much they blame the Department of Lands, are in favour of forestry. That is a good sign.

Deputies who know the history of this country know that, no matter who occupied the land, the tree was the property of the landlord and no matter what damage it did to the land or how inconvenient it was to the farmer, he could not touch it without the landlord's consent. As a result, you have in agricultural Ireland a dislike of trees, as all the tree ever did was to do damage to the farmer. We have to overcome that particular attitude of mind on the part of the agricultural community and it is there that Deputies could be very valuable in spreading the idea that we do need a very wide area of forestry. Our target is 600,000 acres of forest, with 100,000 acres of protective forest, to be got at roughly 10,000 acres a year. It is a long time to go, but it is a reasonable attitude of mind.

Under the Cumann na nGaedheal régime, say in 1925, the annual planting was less than 2,000 acres and with every year up to 1932 the planting increased under that régime. Sometimes Fianna Fáil Deputies are apt to make comparisons between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and say Fianna Fáil has done better, but in this case the comparison is unfair. While the staff was small, there was a gradual increase of the work under Fine Gael, which made it possible for Fianna Fáil to take over and go still further. Our target was 10,000 acres a year. We could not, in any particular year, in crease our output by more than a certain percentage and we never reached the 10,000 acre target, but I think we would have done it only for the war intervening.

Now we have a really first-class organisation in forestry, an organisation that can be developed to any extent necessary. Our one difficulty is to get sufficient land for planting. I believe we can get it. There is no particular need of a survey, as we know everything about land that we need to know. We know the places that can be utilised and the places that are likely to fit into our scheme. There is no necessity for a survey. We have a first-class organisation that can develop to any extent in any direction. I believe that, as time goes on and as our work develops, it will be easier to get land and it will not merely be possible to reach 10,000 acres per annum but to go a good deal further.

Deputy Cogan made a suggestion about the taking over of small areas. He made it last year and again this year. The taking over of small areas and their utilisation is a difficult problem. It is all right if we can get a good central block of land of at least 300 acres. Then we may be able to build round that central forest a number of satellite woods, but to go out and plant patches of five, ten and 20 acres throughout the counties, without being able to have proper supervision over them, is not wholly desirable. However, there may be something in the idea and I will give it a thorough examination to see what can be done, as I am fully convinced of the need for the utmost development of forestry. I have been convinced of that for many years and I have been a voice crying in the wilderness. I am glad that conditions for the past few years have made people, as Deputy Cosgrave said, more forestry conscious. It is a most valuable thing and, as Deputy Morrissey said, any money we spend will be repaid tenfold in ways other than financial returns.

Deputy Gerald Bartley referred to conditions in Cong, County Mayo. Here is one difficulty. Wherever the Department gets a piece of land that is wholly suitable for forestry, there may be embedded in it some particular piece that is suitable for agriculture, but it would be altogether undesirable to let that little piece to outsiders if it is so embedded or embodied in the general forest area. This land was purchased for forestry in Cong. There is a certain amount of it suitable for grazing, but I think it will be much more valuable to the people of Cong if they will give us an opportunity of developing the forest there. It is for the public benefit. It is for the local benefit and these people will benefit much more completely if they permit the forest to be developed as we want it, rather than be looking for the little patches of agricultural land here and there within it.

There is one other point, and that is the question of compulsion. Deputies raised some objection during the debates on the last Forestry Bill as to the inclusion in it of compulsory powers. I pointed out then that the compulsory powers included in the Bill were not compulsory in the ordinary sense. The land that is to be got for reafforestation must be got with goodwill. Forestry is a very delicate matter and is easily injured. If one has not local goodwill, you cannot develop forestry properly.

We have had in Tipperary, in Galway and in other parts of the country a tremendous lot of damage done by people to forestry because they really did not understand the benefits that forestry could be to them. But we have generally found that, as forestry develops in a particular district the people swiftly come to realise how valuable a forest is to them, what industries are created and how much benefit is done. We wish to proceed rather by way of goodwill and discussion than by in any way compelling people to give their land. There will then be no real compulsion in regard to the acquisition of land for forestry. We do see in sight a great pool of land that can be secured for forestry. At present we have something like 30,000 acres in hand, and immediately we are able to get wire we can proceed to the fullest extent and plant even more than 10,000 acres per year.

Motion to refer back the Estimate put and defeated.

Main Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn