Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Apr 1949

Vol. 115 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Forestry.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £316,370 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, 1950, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Forestry (No. 13 of 1946), including a Grant-in-Aid for Acquisition of Land.

Before going into detail regarding items in this Estimate, I should like to make it clear that the Estimate is based on the former programme and does not include provision for the increased programme of 25,000 acres a year recently announced. Deputies are aware that the Government has decided upon the planting of not less than 25,000 acres a year in the future. But having regard to what has happened in the past and to the interruptions caused by the war an expansion to that extent cannot possibly be attained at short notice. The land has to be looked for and purchased. There are nowadays only very few large blocks of suitable land in the country and it has to be bought in comparatively small parcels from a large number of owners with the result that negotiations take time, particularly where the land is held in common by a number of persons and probably the fee simple interest by others. While the reserve of unplanted land on hands exceeds 25,000 acres the necessary transplants are not available either in the State or commercial nurseries and as transplants are normally three years old when planted out a certain interval must elapse before the necessary stocks can be raised. In the meantime, the rate of purchase of land must be stepped up to at least 30,000 acres a year and it would be preferable to increase the rate for the next three years to 50,000 acres or thereabouts in order to build up the necessary reserve of land to permit of proper co-ordination of nursery and planting. With this end in view, steps are being taken immediately to strengthen the staff engaged on land acquisition. Prices paid for forestry land are being adjusted to compensate for the decreased value of money and arrangements have been made to purchase greatly increased quanties of seed

With the assistance of the Department of External Affairs additional supplies of American and Canadian seed have been procured and are on the way. These will be sown immediately on arrival and will enable a substantial start to be made on the raising of additional stocks of transplants for future planting. The existing nurseries will then be fully stocked and additional nursery ground will be secured for lining out the seedlings and the sowing of still greater quantities of seed next season. Preliminary inquiries for the purchase of seed for next season's sowing are already being made and it is hoped by getting in early to secure our full requirements in a market where demand is at present in excess of the-supply.

The Department's local officers have been engaged for some time on a survey of all the plantable land in-the country which appears to be more suitable for planting than for agricultural purposes. Some of the results of this survey are already to hand and when the final returns are received it will be possible to concentrate effort on districts which give promise of providing large compact blocks of forest lands. This does not mean that other less promising districts will be ignored or neglected. Every offer of land not obviously unsuitable for one reason or another will be fully considered, but if we are to achieve immediate results the larger and more promising blocks must have prior attention.

The Forestry Act of 1946, which came into operation on the 1st instant, gives the Forestry Division additional powers for the compulsory acquisition of forestry land and the extinguishment of rights on lands already acquired. I do not wish to use compulsion except in instances where it is the only solution in cases of unknown or doubtful ownership, but I will not hesitate to do so where one or two recalcitrant persons hold up a scheme which will be of benefit to the locality concerned and the country generally.

Another factor which limited forestry operations for the past ten years is the lack of fencing materials. We have now built up a reserve of rabbit netting and the market for this type of material seems to be getting back to normal, so that I do not anticipate any difficulty in obtaining our full requirements in future.

As I have already stated, the Vote now asked for does not provide for greatly increased purchases of land, extensions of nurseries, etc., and as soon as may be necessary I will submit to the Dáil a Supplementary Estimate for such additional funds as may be found to be required later in the year.

During the past winter planting operations have been pushed forward as extensively as the supply of plants would permit, and up to the end of last month approximately 7,000 acres were planted. Planting is being continued this month and it is anticipated that at least another 1,000 acres will be completed before the end of the season, making a total of over 8,000 acres, which is the highest area of planting ever yet attained. For the coming season preparations are being made for a programme of 10,000 acres of planting and this may be exceeded if we can secure stocks of suitable plants from outside without too much risk of losses in transit.

The work of building up nursery stocks has been continued during the year, and orders have been placed for 2,790 lbs. of seed from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Scotland. Of this quantity, 590 lbs. have already been received and the remainder is in transit. In addition, through the good offices of the Department of External Affairs, orders have been placed for an additional supply of 1,925 lbs. and, though it is not possible as yet to say how much will ultimately be received, there are good prospects of obtaining at least 1,200 lbs. The main species are Sitka Spruce, European and Japanese Larch, Pinus Contorta and Pinus Insignis, with smaller quantities of Scots Pine, Corsican Pine, Norway Spruce, Silver Fir, Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock. The home collection of seed has been pushed forward and quantities of seed of Oak, Beech, Japanese and European Larch, Scots Pine, Silver Fir, etc., have been secured, but the total quantity cannot be stated until the process of extracting the seed from the cones has been completed.

The Estimate for the coming year represents an increase of £27,255 on the total amount provided for 1948/49 but, as I have already pointed out, no provision has as yet been made for more than normal expansion of the planting programme. A slight decrease in the receipts from sales of timber is anticipated, mainly due to the low demand for firewood in most districts and the low prices now prevailing.

Turning to the different items in the Estimates, I propose to deal in detail only with those sub-heads which show appreciable differences from last year

Sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—£92,377. The increase is due to a general advance in salaries. The housing surveyor, for whom provision was included in last year's Vote, has not yet taken up duty, but it is anticipated that an appointment will be made at an early date.

Sub-head B—Travelling Expenses— £10,000. Under this sub-head provision is made for the travelling expenses and allowances of the director, inspectors, foresters and foremen. An increase of £1,000 is required in view of the anticipated increase in travelling.

Sub-head C (1)—Acquisition of Land —Grant-in-Aid, £25,000. The provision under this head represents an increase of £5,000 over the amount originally provided last year, which was subsequently reduced to £8,000 to meet excesses on other sub-heads. This being a Grant-in-Aid, the unexpended balance at the end of any year is not surrendered, but is carried over in the grant to the next year. The amount available for land purchase during the year is not, therefore, only the amount voted that year, and a sum of approximately £28,000 is being carried over from 1948/49, making a total of £53,000 for acquisition during the present financial year. It is likely that this sum will not be sufficient to permit the purchase of even 25,000 acres at pre-war prices. There is, however, a considerable time lag, due to the necessity for investigating title, etc., between the striking of a bargain for the purchase of an area of land and the completion of the legal formalities; so that an increased programme of acquisition does not necessarily involve an immediate increase in expenditure, but if the need should arise I will come back to the Dáil for additional funds.

At present the Forestry Division has reached agreement with private landowners for the purchase of about 6,400 acres at a cost of £26,800, and with the Land Commission for the purchase of 2,175 acres for £9,500. Negotiations have reached an advanced stage for the purchase of 5,700 acres of privately owned land for a total of £22,500 and negotiations are proceeding with the Land Commission for the purchase of a further 5,150 acres at a cost of £20,570.

Fresh offers of land are being received daily and there seem to be good prospects of achieving a considerable expansion in the rate of acquisition. I hope to devote to this work the services of an increased number of inspectors so that every offer of land can be dealt with expeditiously. I should, however, like to mention that the Forestry Division does not propose to relieve landowners of every acre of waste land and that offers of small isolated areas of a few acres cannot be considered. I will deal with the question of the owners planting such pieces when I come to sub-head D. Moreover, the higher prices to be paid for land for forestry purposes will still be based on the value of the land for those purposes and persons offering land need not expect that I am going to pay prices far in excess of what the land would be worth or would fetch in the open market.

Sub-head C (2): Maintenance and Cultural Operations—£399,055. This is the main item in the Forestry Estimates and provides for the maintenance of existing plantations and the preparation and planting of new areas.

The amount originally voted under this sub-head last year was £317,655, and was intended to provide for a programme of 6,000 acres, which was the maximum area foreseen at the time the Estimate was framed in view of the existing supply conditions. Increases in the pay of the forestry labourers and increased purchases of fencing material, coupled with an increase in the planting programme rendered it necessary to ask the Dáil for an additional provision, which brought the total up to £404,000. There is now on hands a fair stock of rabbit netting. The purchase of lorries, tractors and trailers, and the acquisition of a bulldozer by the Forestry Division will reduce transport and road-making costs considerably.

The work of road-making, which has been in operation for some years past, will be continued this year with a view to facilitating the extraction of timber and poles from the woods. The home market for poles of all sorts continues good and any surplus can be disposed of for pit props.

Stocks in the State nurseries have been built up gradually since the war as supplies of seed became available. It is still difficult to procure seed of certain varieties and, in view of the increased programme now contemplated, it will be necessary to increase the area of nursery ground and to procure greatly enlarged quantities of seed of the species mainly in use. It is not at present possible to say exactly how much seed will be received in time for sowing this season, and though inquiries are being pursued vigorously it seems certain that the full quantity of Pinus Contorta, which we had hoped to obtain, will not be forthcoming.

Thinning operations are being pushed ahead as rapidly as possible, in order to overcome the arrears of this work which accumulated during the war years, and it is hoped that the Department will soon be able to find a market for thinnings too small for normal use as fencing posts, etc. When these small thinnings become available in greater quantity the question of their use industrially will be considered.

I explained last year that there would be a reduction in the expenditure on the running of the portable crosscutting machines owned by the Forestry Division. There has been a slight increase this year, due to the increase in the workers' wages and to the fact that, while the demand for firewood has fallen off, it has been found necessary to utilise the machines for the manufacture of fencing stakes both for sale and for the Division's own use. There is a fairly constant demand from the public for these stakes, and the Department's own requirements are increasing and are likely to continue to do so.

Sub-head C (3)—Timber Conversion— £6,940. Under this heading provision is made for the working of the Department's sawmills, especially those at Dundrum, County Tipperary, and Cong, County Mayo. These mills do a steady local trade in rough boards, cart material, fencing stakes, etc. The mill at Dundrum has been entirely reorganised for more efficient working. The old tarred wooden buildings, which were in constant danger from fire have been replaced during the past year by concrete and galvanised iron structures. The drying kilns, to which reference was made last year, have not been quite finished. The buildings are practically ready, but supply of the equipment has been held up by the contractors who have promised delivery at an early date. As soon as the machinery is installed, the Department will be in a position to season native timber for its own use and for sale. The mill at Cong is not satisfactory and is so cramped for space that the handling of timber is both slow and expensive. It is proposed during the current year to remodel the mill, probably, on a new site, and with a new source of power. This work will be put in hands as soon as improvements at Dundrum have been finished.

Sub-head D—Grants for Afforestation Purposes—£2,000. No increase is proposed in the provision under this sub-head, out of which payment is made of the grant of £10 per acre which, under certain conditions, is paid to private landowners and local authorities who carry out planting conditions on their own lands. This grant has been payable since 1944-45 but owing to conditions prevailing during the war and post-war years, mainly the scarcity and high price of fencing materials and transplants, it has not been availed of extensively. This situation is righting itself slowly and I am assured by the nursery trade that they now have in stocks some million of seedlings which within the next two years will be ready for sale as transplants for final planting. I hope that when that stage arrives there will be a large amount of voluntary planting in addition to the planting which must be done by persons who have obtained felling licences in the past. No amount of commercial planting by the State will suffice to restore and to improve the wooded appearance of the countryside unless it is accompanied by widespread planting of shelter belts and ornamental groves and groups of trees by private individuals on their own lands.

With regard to Appropriations-in-Aid, £84,133, a small decrease in receipts is anticipated this year. This is mainly due to the poor market for firewood and the diminishing amount of mature timber remaining for sale. This reduction will, however, be largely compensated for by the sale of poles and thinnings for which there continues to be a good demand.

The number of felling notices, under the Forestry Act, received during the past year shows a decided drop as compared with previous years and is now down to pre-war level.

The Forestry Act of 1946 came into operation on 1st instant. Apart from provisions to simplify the compulsory acquisition of land for forestry purposes and the extinguishment of rights preventing the planting of lands already acquired, the main intentions of the Act are to improve the control over tree felling and to tighten up requirements as regards replanting. Heretofore, a licensee's legal obligations were fulfilled if he merely planted the specified number of trees and did not care what happened to the plants. In future, he may be required to fence the plants securely against stock and vermin and to maintain and protect them for a period of ten years after planting. In this way it will be possible to enforce the replacement of cleared groves and woodlands and so gradually restore the amenities of which the demands of industry during the war years and the ravages of the firewood campaigns have robbed the country.

Frequent complaint is made that replanting is not insisted upon immediately after felling, but I have explained already some of the difficulties which prevented such a course. With the return of more normal conditions, these difficulties are disappearing, and I propose, as soon as reasonably possible, to review the planting conditions in every felling licence and to insist upon their being carried out. The 1946 Act makes a replanting condition a burden on the land and in the case of registered land the obligation will be entered on the appropriate folio in the Land Registry and will remain there until it has been discharged. In this way it is hoped to stop the practice of selling the land on which replanting is to be done and so endeavouring to avoid carrying out the replanting condition. Such a proceeding does not in fact relieve the licensee of his obligation and I propose to pursue with the greatest vigour persons who have tried to escape their liabilities in this fashion.

Mr. Moylan

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

An Ceann Comhairle

The mover may not reserve his right to speak later, as the House must be in possession of the basis of the debate, of which, I presume, the motion to refer back will form part.

Mr. Moylan

If that be the ruling, I am prepared to speak now, though I had hoped to get some more enlightenment from some of the Minister's colleagues. I congratulate the Minister on the statement he has made to-day as compared with the statement he made on the Land Commission Vote. Some expert seems to have had the handling of this brief and to have paid some attention and courtesy to the Dáil.

Mr. Blowick

The expert in question is here.

Mr. Moylan

I know the high literary qualities of the Minister's mind and I am sure he asked no advice in preparing this statement, but he might have turned his attention to the Land Commission brief when he was speaking on that Estimate. This Estimate differs a good deal from all the other Estimates, in so far as it is practically a non-Party matter. While we retain the right to give the Minister a little dig now and again, we recognise that the cleavage, if any, as between those who propose to speak for agriculture and those of us who believe that forestry is not merely a vital factor in our economic future, but also a most valuable adjunct to agriculture, is not deep. It is not quite true to say, as is being said here and abroad, that the Ministry has at last decided on planting 25,000 acres a year. I was hopeful that the Minister this year would back up his very brave words of the past and tell us that he did intend this year to plant 25,000 acres; but we are agreed on all sides that the plantation policy in future, unlike that of 1641, is to be 25,000 acres per year, a compromise figure between the rather wild enthusiasm of certain inexperienced people and the conservatism of some of us who know the great difficulties of the development of forestry.

I am very glad that we are so agreed on the necessity for the plantation of 25,000 acres a year. I fully approve that policy, and anything this Party can do to help will be done and we wish the idea every luck in the world. But it is not enough for the Minister to enunciate a policy. I can quite understand the difficulties he had when he enunciated the policy, with Deputy Commons, of 60,000 acres per year. There was a natural reason for that which is quite understandable. We have, however, quite seriously decided now to tackle the planting of 25,000 acres per year, but, as I say, it is not sufficient for the Minister merely to enunciate a policy. He ought to demonstrate in some practical fashion how he proposes to put it into operation, and, so far, I have seen nothing done or said which indicates to us that the policy will be put into operation in the near future or swiftly.

The Minister said there was no shortage of land for afforestation. He put it to us that there are at least 1,500,000 acres available for afforestation without in any way encroaching on agriculture, and, therefore, those of us in all Parties who have some fears for the future of agriculture in so far as they regard forestry as an intrusion on and an interference with agriculture, should no longer have these fears if that acreage is available. But why is it that we have no real practical proof of the putting into operation of the Minister's policy? In spite of the various explanations he has given in the rather detailed statement he made to-day—detailed in comparison with the Land Commission statement— I do not know that we have any real practical proof of his intention. He has reiterated time and again that there are 1,500,000 acres available for afforestation. Last year, 3,700 acres were acquired and all that acreage was acquired as a result of initiative taken before the Minister went into office.

We were told last year by the Minister that the Land Acquisition Fund contained £44,500 and that he was negotiating for the purchase of 9,873 acres, that purchase agreements were made for 6,635 acres. That was a total of 16,528 acres and all he acquired was 3,712 acres. If there was a purchase agreement made for 6,000 odd acres, why is it he only bought 3,000? What is the hope now of securing the 13,000 acres which were apparently left in the air, if you can leave land in the air, and what definite proposals has he—he has not made them in his statement to-day—for the acquisition of 25,000 acres? I think the Minister should give us some indication that it is possible to acquire in any particular county or area a certain amount of land. I and other Deputies—I am sure every Deputy associated with the idea of forestry—has sent to the Land Commission information about land which is available and may be purchased and I think the Minister would do well to let those of us who have made representations know if there is an intention of securing the acreage we have been able to offer; if they have been found suitable or unsuitable. It would be a great relief to us who do really believe in forestry if we had a list published of the amount of land that has been offered, where it is and what position the negotiations have reached.

I have iterated and reiterated here a truth that the Minister has discovered which he did not know anything about when he was telling us about 60,000 acres of land and which we must all realise, that is, that the only difficulty we have in regard to forestry development is the question of the acquisition of land. This idea that the Minister has promulgated here about a more insistent compulsion will not do. There is a certain amount of compulsion inherent, shall we say, in the 1946 Act. That is only meant to get over certain difficulties which are difficulties of the people concerned as well as of the Minister, but in regard to forestry land you cannot have compulsion as we know it as utilised in the Land Commission for land purchase, because you must get goodwill. Forestry is a tender plant. The plantations are so easily injured; there is so much opposition in rural areas, propagated very often by T.D.s of every Party who oppose forestry in the belief that it is injurious to agriculture, that in utilising compulsion the Minister must be very careful how far he goes.

In regard to this acquisition of land: Something like 8,000 acres have been planted this year. That is more than has been planted in any particular year up to date and it has been possible to plant 8,000 acres because there were roughly 33,000 acres of plantable land in the hands of the Land Commission and it will be possible next year to plant again 8,000 or 10,000 acres because, roughly, we will have 30,000 acres of plantable land in the hands of the Land Commission. The Minister knows now, and the House must be taught, that it is necessary to have three times as much plantable land in hand as you can plant in any one year and any talk about the immediate development of forestry such as has been going on is merely throwing dust in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of those who are really interested in forestry. It will be possible to continue at the rate of 10,000 acres only if we acquire 10,000 acres every year and we acquired only about 3,000 acres of plantable land last year. The Minister and his Department must do better than that.

In the hands of the Department there is a large acreage of what is called non-plantable land. Some of this—a great portion of it, undoubtedly —must be really non-plantable but soil science has advanced a good deal in the past dozen years, shall we say, and there must be a quantity of this non-plantable land that under present-day circumstances and with the knowledge we now have could be made available for planting. I would like the Minister to give us his considered view as to whether this very large amount— over 30,000 acres—of non-plantable land in the hands of his Department can be by any method made plantable.

The Minister for Agriculture has a very ambitious scheme for the reclamation of 4,000,000 acres of land. I think the Minister for Forestry should be very closely in touch with the Minister for Agriculture in regard to this matter because, if we are to reclaim 4,000,000 acres of land by these heroic methods of the Minister for Agriculture, surely we might get 20 or 25 per cent. of that land for forestry or are the Minister for Forestry and his colleagues living in some kind of inter-Party division of opinion, in airtight compartments?

While land is the most important factor, two other factors are seeds and plants and while there is an unnecessary reference to the Department of External Affairs in this Forestry brief——

Mr. Blowick

It is not unnecessary.

Mr. Moylan

There is no need to tell us how wonderful a man the Minister for External Affairs is. He has his own job and the Minister for Forestry has his to do. Have the Minister and his Department made any particularly special effort in regard to seed collection in this country? The seeds from America are, even according to the Minister's statement, a very problematical delivery. It is possible in this country to collect a tremendous amount of seeds. Has there been any very definite attempt made to collect these? Up to now there has not. It has only been touched in a very minor fashion and I think our problem could nearly be solved here in Ireland without any dependence on America.

We had something like 300 acres of nursery which was regarded as an adequate nursery ground for the plants we needed for 10,000 acres. If we are serious—and I am serious—about planting these 25,000 acres, have steps been taken to acquire ground for nurseries and has the development of these nurseries and the planting been put in hands? Are we still depending on the 300 acres that were merely adequate-for the 10,000 acres we had up to date?

We would like to be told, of course—I would ask the Minister to tell us again even—what the stocks are in the nurseries; how far, even with the land we have, we can proceed from the stocks we have for our plantation for the next year. Then again, I would like the Minister to be more specific in regard to the question of the purchase of barbed wire, ordinary wire, rabbit wire, tools etc., because the real reason why there was any hold up in forestry over the past seven or eight years was that we had not got rabbit wire, ordinary barbed wire or the tools to go on with the work. The work done by the Forestry Department during the years of the emergency in planting an average of 4,000 acres a year was one of the best efforts made by any Department in this country and a Department that was able, under the conditions that existed with the tools they had and the equipment they had, to plant 4,000 acres per annum during the war years should have no difficulty, given the proper equipment and land, in reaching 25,000 acres next year or, say, in two years from now.

I am glad that the Minister mentioned the erection of kilns. It was a point I was going to raise with him. I regret that after all the years they have not been completed yet, but I know that there was difficulty about machinery everywhere. I trust that we will have a report in a very short time from the Minister that these particular kiln-dry-ing plants are in operation and also reports from him as to how effective they are in bringing timber from its raw state to the state of being a commercial proposition.

I am a very bad politician because I cannot play politics about a thing in which I am interested, and I am interested in forestry, interested in its development. The land acquired last year, after all the ballyhoo, was 3,323 acres, and even the modest Fianna Fáil proposal of 10,000 acres a year would take roughly 200 years to complete at that rate of acquisition. The Minister should be ashamed of himself with regard to the acquisition of land, and he and his Department should be ashamed with regard to the £25,000 which was allocated for the acquisition of forestry land and which was handed over for some other purpose. The Minister for Finance should have something to say about that £25,000, and I trust that money has not gone down the drain. As it is a grant-in-aid I trust that it will be added to the Land Acquisition Fund and that the Minister will come looking for a Supplementary Estimate for money to purchase land. I will ask a number of questions over the year if he is not doing it to try to press him.

There is another question which the Minister has partly answered: the question of the price of land. We already had a discussion here regarding the price of land for Land Commission purposes. The price paid for land up to now, while it was very small, was adequate enough for its purpose. It is no good throwing money down the drain, but in relation to land values monetary values have entirely decreased over the past ten years and you will not get 25,000 acres, or any amount of acres, if you do not intend to pay a much more definite price for land than has been paid up to date.

One very important aspect of forestry development to which I referred last year and with regard to which the Minister did not take much action or notice is publicity or propaganda for forestry and the education of the public with regard to forestry development. Seventy-five pounds are set aside annually for exhibits at the Royal Dublin Society Show and that is the only publicity the Forestry Department do. I will admit that the exhibit at the Dublin show is a very effective one. I think it is an exhibit that is very interesting to the general public, but you only reach a very small number of people at the Dublin show and you seldom, indeed, reach the people you want to reach, the people in the far-off places where you are going to purchase land. I suggest that that exhibit should be taken around to all the agricultural shows. The Minister for Local Government spoke on many occasions of the tremendous amount of land available for forestry in West Cork. In West Cork there are a number of successful agricultural shows, and I think that the Minister would be well advised to bring to West Cork this particular exhibit and let the people of West Cork, who have the land to give and who would possibly sell it, see what the value is of forestry and the amount of employment and benefit given by the Forestry Department wherever it functions. The Department of Agriculture spends £1,700 this year on exhibits and spends £1,500 on leaflets, but forestry is content to hide its little candle under a bushel with £75 by way of wick. That is no good, and I suggest that we must really have more publicity with regard to it. I think that Clann na Poblachta is a most ineffective, terribly useless Party——

Mr. C. Lehane

I am sure you do. They did one big job.

Mr. Moylan

——but it has given us one benefit. It has added a number of voices to those of us who have spoken for forestry and, though those voices are raucous and say the wrong things, it is good that publicity of any kind should be used to bring home to the people of this country that forestry is a most valuable adjunct to our economic life.

I would like the Minister to be the centre-piece of this publicity. After all, every poor unfortunate politician wants all the publicity he can get. I went to listen to a lecture on forestry in University College some time ago and I do not know whether it was because the Minister, like myself, is not a social success or because, like myself, he was not a University man, but at any rate, it was the Minister for External Affairs who functioned on behalf of the forestry-minded of the Government. A good deal of rubbish was talked at that particular lecture and there were references to New Zealand. I noticed, of course, at the lecture — and very interested in it—all the people of the Minister's Department who, I am sure, got a good deal of enlightenment at it, but it seemed to me that the lesson drawn by the lecturer at University College was entirely different from the lesson learned by the Department of Forestry from the New Zealand effort— that far-off cows wear long horns. The thing that struck me about the Minister for External Affairs' viewpoint in University College, Dublin, was his detestation of experts. If a university has any particular purpose it is the creation of experts. It seemed to me that the Minister had tremendous courage to go into an institute created for the training of experts and announce his particular detestation of experts. If we cannot get trained men who devote their lives to a particular purpose, what is the use of a lecture in a university? I admit that any lecture on forestry in the University— even though it may be one we may not agree with—is valuable in so far as it is publicity, but the person to talk at such a function with knowledge and with all the information he can get inside his Department is the Minister for Forestry. I think, for purposes of publicity, the Minister might try and arrange a further lecture on forestry in the University. People do not take much notice of the Dáil now and again because we do not get reasonable publicity, possibly, in the newspapers——

Mr. C. Lehane

What about the Irish Press?

Mr. Blowick

I thought it was for other reasons.

A Deputy

What about the broadcasts?

Mr. Moylan

I am anxious that we should have this policy of 25,000 acres a year as soon as possible. But we cannot have it, in the first place, unless the Minister is going to go all out to purchase land. The first thing I would ask the Minister again is to let the Dáil know how many offers of land have been made, through Deputies and otherwise; where this particular land is; whether it has been examined by any of the inspectors of the Land Commission or by the Forestry Department, and what he proposes to do about it. If this 25,000 acres a year policy is put in abeyance again this year, we shall come back next year and we shall have the same sad story.

I do not want to try to organise opposition to the Minister but rather to urge on him to get on with the work and to do the fundamental thing, namely, to secure the land. Everything else can be done afterwards.

To sum up, I would say that £75 a year is not sufficient, under this Vote, for publicity. The Minister should take the exhibit that is shown in Dublin to people who do not need conversion and show it at all the agricultural shows or, at least, at one in every county and particularly in a district where it may be possible to secure land for afforestation. I would again stress the necessity for a wide purchase of equipment in case any difficulties such as the recent emergency should arise and that we would be unable to get the equipment needed for getting on with the programme. Further, as part of the Minister's publicity scheme, I should like him to undertake earnestly the collection of seeds in this country. The amount to be collected in this country is not an infinitesimal amount.

I regret I received the Minister's brief too late to read it. However, without wanting to make any attack on him in any fashion, I say that the amount of land acquired last year was rather a shameful performance. We were promised 1,000,000 acres in five years, 60,000 acres in one year—and we purchased, after all, something over 3,000 acres of plantable land. That is a sad performance. Much more land can be secured and if we do not secure the land we cannot have the forestry.

I want to know if the Minister has thought of an immediate extension of the 300 acres of nurseries we have now. Further, I should like him to tell us the number of fires last year, the amount of damage done by these fires, and how they occurred. Sometimes a lot of these fires are, naturally, accidental. Some of them are caused by thoughtless boys and some of them are caused maliciously. I should like to know, in each category, the number of fires and the amount of damage caused. The Minister's brief this year was far better than his brief on the Land Commission Estimate but the Forestry Department's performance in regard to the purchase of land has, indeed, been a very poor one.

Mr. Dunne

I would agree that this Estimate is one which should be removed from the arena of Party dissension and Party politics. Practically everybody who has thought on the question of securing prosperity for this country has come to the conclusion that a vigorous policy of re-afforestation is absolutely essential. It has been found by experience that the greatest barrier in that connection is the question of land acquisition. I would welcome any move which might be made to reduce that barrier or any move that would help to make the overcoming of that barrier all the speedier while, at the same time, taking all the care that is possible and all the care that is reasonable not to infringe upon rights of ownership. But I do believe that the prosperity of the nation as a whole is the primary consideration which supersedes many other considerations.

In my constituency there is very little planting of trees under the ægis of the Forestry Department. There are some areas there where land could be easily acquired. I have reason to know that there are areas where land could be acquired with comparative ease and where agriculture would be helped if the land was taken over and planted. I urge the Minister, therefore, to give consideration to the areas in County Dublin where such land is available. As a county we do not make very great demands on the Department in this matter and for that reason I ask him to give the matter consideration as soon as he can. The most obvious place for planting that I can think of at the moment is in the centre of one of the richest agricultural areas in the country, the district of Fingal. There is a large area of flooded land there which could easily be made fit for planting.

On the general question of policy, I feel that a far more energetic thrust is needed. I have been inclined towards the view for a long time that it was a mistake to couple the Department of Forestry with the Department of Lands. Everybody knows that the job of any Minister for Lands is a colossal one without imposing on him the responsibility of carrying out an energetic forestry programme. I believe that until such time as we have a thorough-going programme of afforestation we shall not be approaching the basic problem of a prosperous agriculture in this country.

I want to address myself to an aspect of the administration of the Forestry Department to which I have referred before in this House and that is the payment of the labour employed by that Department. I have repeatedly stated, and I want to state it now again, that I am totally dissatisfied with the policy in regard to the wages of forestry labourers. The previous Administration and the previous Minister saw fit to relate the wages of forestry labourers to the wages of farm labourers. The reason given for that was that it was designed so as not to disturb the status quo so far as agricultural wages were concerned. It was designed, allegedly, to prevent any drift of workers from the farms to other employment, in this case to employment with the Forestry Department. I have always thought that that was a very poor excuse for keeping the wages of forestry workers at their present level. In fact it is no excuse and no reason whatever. As everybody knows, agricultural wages have been fixed, in the past at any rate, by regional committees and by the Agricultural Wages Board and they are based upon the ability of the poorest farmer working the most uneconomic land to pay wages. While a State Department such as this is charged with the responsibility of conducting a forestry programme, it is nothing less than scandalous that the wages of these labourers should be graded at so low a level.

For some period of last year it was an accepted part of the wages policy of the Department that there should be-a differential in favour of forestry workers over and above the rates paid to farm labourers in the different areas, but that at all times the wage rates of the forestry labourers should be kept related to the very low level of the agricultural workers. There was, however, this differential and, during the course of last year, it was increased from 2/- to 5/-, which is a very insignificant sum when we consider what 5/-will buy for a worker these days. There was, however, this differential of 5/-last year. Now we find that there is no differential, or none worth speaking about, and in some cases the forestry labourers are even receiving a rate below the agricultural rate. That is something which is deserving of the severest censure and criticism.

It may be that the Minister is not entirely responsible for that state of affairs but, whoever is responsible, it is something which they might well be ashamed of, because there is no worker in any industry who undergoes hardship comparative with that of the forestry worker. Very often these men are working on bleak mountainsides in all kinds of weather without any protection. They have to shelter wherever they can when the wind and rain lashes them and I think they are deserving of every consideration. They are, however, getting very little or none at the present time, and have been getting very little or none at any time. If we are going to make a worthwhile job of forestry, we have to satisfy ourselves that these men who have to put the policy into effect, whatever the policy may be, who have to do the rough and essential work, should have some degree of brightness and of economic security brought into their lives. At the present time they are very far removed from that and, speaking on behalf of these men, I express the view that they definitely are getting a raw deal.

I have referred to the question of Mass time before when raising a matter on the Adjournment. These men have had their wages cut for going to Mass on Church holidays. That is a matter on which it is hardly necessary to say anything, because it gives any Irishman a feeling of revulsion when another Irishman who goes to Mass on a Church holiday has to suffer a reduction in his wages. That is bureaucracy in excelsis. At present forestry workers are allowed bank holidays. I submit that forestry workers would be much better off if, instead of bank holidays, they were allowed Church holidays. In that way they would receive more holidays in the year and they would be free on the days when their brothers who work on the farms are generally free. They would be free on the days which are looked upon in rural areas as the real holidays, the Church holidays. If the Minister, with a sudden accession of generosity, would agree to give them the Church holidays, in addition to the bank holidays, it would be better still and the position would be very much improved. I have had reports— I am sure the Minister has been made aware of it, too—as to the position of men working at afforestation in areas which are flooded. Up to recently, at any rate, the men, in many cases, were expected to wade into rivulets and streams without protection of any kind other than the boots they had on them when working. Surely, they should have the elementary right to be supplied with protective clothing and protective footwear when engaged on these jobs. I rose, principally, to draw the attention of the Minister, once again, to this matter. As I have stated, it is one which has caused considerable dissatisfaction over many years. I feel that the Minister is not unsympathetically disposed towards the forestry workers, and I would urge him to take a strong line on this. The total number of forestry workers is not so significant as to mean that an increase in their wages would represent any burden on the Exchequer. It would not—far from it.

The Minister, in his opening statement, said that, under sub-head A, a certain part of the increase was due to advances in salaries, and I take it in wages. The advance in wages to the labourers, at any rate, or to the head labourers, and it may also be said to the foresters, must represent only a very small amount of the total cost of running the Department. I feel that, if the Minister were to bend his mind to it, he could effect a very big change in present conditions, so far as the wages of these men are concerned. I should also like to make the point that some effort should be made to provide shelters for the men when they are working in areas where there are no shelters. It should not be difficult for the accumulated intelligence of the Department of Forestry to devise some form of pre-fabricated shelter which could be moved about from one place to another where the men are employed. These are the principal matters I want to refer to. I would strongly urge on the Minister to do something for these men in the matter of their wages. Their present position is absolutely unsatisfactory. I want to go on record as saying that I am in complete and absolute disagreement with the manner in which they are being treated now as in the past.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

I wish to join with Deputy Dunne in his appeal on behalf of the workers. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to the figures which appear on page 285 of the Book of Estimates. These show the salaries that are paid to foresters and forest foremen who, I may say, are the key men in this very important service. I want to suggest to the House and to the Minister that the salaries set out are not fit salaries for men who are doing such important work. I want to suggest that men who entered the service through an open competitive examination between the ages of 18 and 22, and who then had to spend another three of the best years of their lives in intensive study, are deserving of better salaries than those set out in the Book of Estimates. I find that a grade 2 forester starts at £218 per annum—that is, after his three years of intensive study and four years' work. He is responsible for the seven days of the week for looking after the forest. The figure for the head forester ranges from £326 to £389 per annum and the grade 1 forester starts at £275.

I want to repeat again that these men enter the service through an open competitive examination between the ages of 18 and 22. They have then to do a three years' course of intensive study. Further, we should remember that the Government have seen fit to put a ban on these men emigrating. Their work is regarded as of such importance that they will not allow them to go across to Great Britain where they could earn as much as £10 per week. I also want to suggest, very forcibly, to the Minister that men who are in the service under such conditions ought not still to be unestablished. That should not be their position, particularly since so many years have elapsed since the report of the Brennan Commission was published. After that long period they should be able to look forward to some little security when they retire. As it is, they have nothing to look forward to. I want to suggest that they should be established forthwith. I do not see how there could be any argument why men, who do such important work in the Civil Service, should not be established at once as civil servants.

Mr. O'Grady

I desire to make a few remarks in connection with this Estimate. In the past, when the Estimate for Forestry was under debate, it usually happened that it was the Deputies from the towns and cities who were the chief advocates for afforestation, whereas the Deputies representing the rural constituencies, being aware of the difficulties, were careful to point out those difficulties. There is, perhaps, a happy medium. As my colleague, Deputy Moylan, has pointed out, it is not possible to plant the enormous areas that some Deputies, a short time ago, thought it was possible to plant.

Nevertheless, I believe there is room for considerable expansion. I would like to see certain large areas of waste lands, such as we have in my native county of Clare, and in many other counties, that are at present non-productive, examined by experts of the Forestry Department, with a view to ascertaining, in the light of modern science and research, how those areas can be made available for forestry purposes. There are thousands of acres of land that, at the present time, are growing nothing but heather. I think there is the possibility that some, at least, of that land could be reclaimed and put under trees. We are all aware, especially those of us who come from the country, that when the people were cutting turf in those areas they turned up roots of trees. That proves that timber grew there at one time. If timber grew there hundreds or thousands of years ago, it, surely, is worthy of examination to ascertain why timber could not be grown there to-day.

I know the Minister will probably raise the argument that, owing to exposure to the western winds and to the heavy rainfall, certain areas are unplantable, especially as you get beyond the 700-feet contour line; but quite recently I saw that in the highlands of Scotland an intensive drive is being carried on with the object of planting large areas in districts which have been neglected in the past. It is hoped to quadruple the employment given there and to increase the number of inhabitants fourfold. It is extraordinary that if that can be done in Scotland something similar cannot be done here. There cannot be such an awful difference in the climate as between the west of Ireland and the highlands of Scotland; there cannot be such a difference as regards rainfall, exposure to winds and other difficulties that might present themselves.

I would like the Minister to carry out a few experiments in the way of plantations in some of the western areas. I believe it would be well worth the cost because, if successful, it would mean that the Minister could get thousands of acres which are at present waste land, planted. These areas could be brought into useful production and that would help the country because it would provide a useful economic asset that would add to the well-being of the people.

In Norway, which is much farther north and more exposed to the elements, forestry has been carried out on a large scale. I know I can be told that in Norway there is a long winter during which the ground is covered with snow, and a short summer which is very warm and which helps the growth of trees. I think that argument cannot be put forward with regard to Scotland, and if it is possible to plant the highlands it ought to be possible to plant many mountainous districts here which are at present lying waste. I hope the Minister will investigate the possibilities, get his experts to examine the position and carry out a few experiments. The expenditure of a couple of hundred pounds in work of this nature would be well justified because it will help to give us what we all desire—what are now waste areas covered with timber. If timber grew there thousands of years ago it seems reasonable enough to expect that it can be grown there again. It would be well worth while making the attempt.

The Minister referred to the £10 grant to enable farmers to plant on waste land. That grant was given at a time when planting costs were much smaller than they are to-day. The Minister would be well advised to examine that aspect with the object of ascertaining whether the grant is now a sufficient inducement. If the Minister wants to increase the area under timber this would be a good way of doing it. If you get that idea accepted and the farmers interested, there are very few holdings of any dimensions on which there would not be an acre or two of waste land which, if planted, would eventually provide good shelter for the farm.

It would be very desirable if the Minister could encourage farmers to go ahead with that work. If the grant of £10 is not sufficient, the Minister could increase it and I believe it would be money well spent. I have seen small plantations established here and there by enterprising persons in low-lying, wet land. That is sufficient to show, at all events, that timber will grow in those areas when properly planted. I urge the Minister to do everything in his power, now that fencing materials are again available. He should do all he can to induce farmers to plant at least one acre each. If he can get a few thousand farmers to do that every year it will mean a big addition to our forestry area. It would also add to the amenities of the district and benefit the country generally.

In order to bring it home to the people in the rural areas who are vitally concerned with this question of tree-planting, I think the suggestion made by Deputy Moylan, to have the exhibit which was at the Dublin Show brought around the country, at least to one place in every county, and to other places, if possible, is an admirable one. I do not think the Minister should worry about the few pounds that would be involved in bringing that exhibit around. Education on this subject of tree-planting is much needed. If this exhibit was brought to country shows, it would create a lively interest and it would encourage the people whom we want interested to take a practical interest in tree-planting. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that this exhibit will be made available at least in one centre in every county and in more than one, if possible. If he has to face the Dáil with a bill for a couple of hundred pounds to cover the cost of bringing this exhibit to the notice of people in rural areas, I do not believe there will be one dissentient voice, because we know that that will go a long way towards enlarging the areas that we have under timber.

Seosamh Ó Mongáin

Ba mhaith liomsa focal molta a thabhairt don Aire go mór mhór má chuireann sé lena chois an gníomh a cheapas muid. Is é an chéad Aire ó tháinig an Rialtas seo againne i bhfeidhm a chuaigh síos é féin go Conamara féachaint an bhféadfadh sé ruaig a chur ar thaibhse an Chnoice Bhuidhe. Sin é an áit a lig siad orthu féin crainnte a chur ann os cionn 50 bliain ó shoin faoi Rialtas Bhalfour. Níl fhios agam an ag iarraidh a dhéanamh a bhí siad ach gan aimhreas rinne sé dochar mór iad a ligint orthu crainnte a chur sa taoibh sin den tír. Níorbh fhéidir leis na crainnte fás anseo, dá mba talamh é a thiúrfadh cruithneacht, mar bhí na plandaí ar a laghad caite mí amuigh faoin bhfuacht sular cuireadh chor ar bith iad agus bhí siad caillte. Nuair a d'iarrfaí ar Aire ar bith roimhe seo nó ar an Roinn Foraoiseachta rud a dhéanamh is é an chéad rud adéarfaí leat: "an bhfeiceann tú an Cnoc Buidhe?" Ach tá brón orm go bhfuil an taibhse seo scanraithe ag an Aire agus naoh gcloisfimid níos mó faoi mar chonnaic sé dhó féin an sórt cineál a cuireadh ann. Mar sin tá súil agam go ndéanfar tosaí sa tír sin gan mhoill. Cuimhním go maith ar caint leis an bPiarsach agus le Eamonn Ceannt sul ar cheap mórán sa tír seo go mbeidh poblacht againn mar tá inniu. Dúirt an Ceanntach liomsa: "Nuair a gheobhas muide rialtas dúinn féin, agus beidh sé againn níos scafánta ná cheapann tusa, tiocfaidh an pháirt seo den tír ina ceart féin. Agus an rud is mó, ceapaim a thuírfas saothrú do na daoine coillte a chur." Tá sé sin timpeall 28 bliain ó shoin. Ach, faraoir, ní mórán coillte atá le feiceál fós. Ach anois ó tá Aire as an gceantar thiar den tír againn tá me cinnte go bhfeicfimid rud eicínt dá bhar, go gcuirfe sé a chomhartha lena chois. Tá taltaí dá ndíol i mBaile na hInse fá láthar ag an mBord Cuartaíochta. Ba cheart don Aire, gan aimhreas, cuid de seo a cheannacht mar tá togha an adhmaid ag fás anseo faoi láthair. Dúirt fear coille liomsa gur cheannaigh sé crainnte ansin cúpla bliain ó shoin—fear mór gearrtha adhmaid i chuile áit sa tír—agus go mb'as a fuair sé an t-adhmad ab fhearr sa tír. Ach an taobh eile den chlaí tá míle acra agus ní fhéadfaidh duine ar bith a chur in mo cheannsa nach bhfuil taobh den chlaí chomh maith leis an taobh eile agus ní theastaíonn riantas mór le é sin a chreidiúint. Tá baile acu sin—Doire an Chláir—ní raibh na focla móra Béarla againn nuair a glaodh Doire an Chláir ar an áit seo. Ní raibh againn ach ár dteanga féin agus áit ar bith ar glaodh ainm air bhí fáth leis. Tuige ar glaodh Doire an Chláir air seo? Nach ionann Doire agus Coill? Chonnaic mé féin coill bhreá ag fás anseo agus gearradh í. Dá mbainimís níos mó feidhm as na seanráite thuigfimís muid féin agus an tír níos fearr. Tá áit eile i ngar d'Uachtar Árd—Cluais na mBúrcach—a bhfuil talamh ann ar gearradh na céadta crann ann sa chogadh a bhí againn roimh an gcogadh seo agus níor cuireadh ceann ar bith ina n-áit ó shoin. B'urasta an áit seo a cheannacht. Áit eile— Fionnán—a bhfuil cúpla míle acra ag an Roinn Tailte ann. Ní fhéadfaidh an tAire a rá go bhfuil leithscéal ar bith faoi gan é seo a cheannacht mar is leis an Roinn faoi láthair é. Gan aimhreas d'fhásfadh coillte anseo. Tá go leor áiteacha mar é ann, an Ros, timpeall an Fhairche, an Mám, agus i ngar don Chlochán, agus go leor eile mar sin. Is maith liom gur chuir an Teachta Ó Grádaigh i gcuimhne dhúinn faoin ngiúsach. Níl portach i gConamara a ghéarrfas tú, ar éigin, nach bhfuighe tú giúsach—cuid mhaith di go mór mhór ar bhruach na Farraige Móire. Sin é a thaispeánas gur fhás adhmad ann na mílte bliain ó shoin. Táimíd ag déanamh gaisce nach ag dul chun deire atáimíd faoi rud a dhéanamh agus cur leis. Ní raibh diobhain, ná céachtaí ná tractors ná na rudaí árdnósacha seo ag na daoine a chuir iad na mílte bliain ó shoin ná sort science ar bith ach meabhair a gcinn. Caithfidh sé gur chuir cuid acu iad agus gur fhás siad. Anois nár cheart dúinne tosaí a dhéanamh i gceart? Táimid ag caitheamh na mílte ar na bóithre agus a leithéidí—nach dtiúrfaidh tada ar ais dúinn. Ach má cuirtear na crainnte deiseoidh siad an áit an fhaid is tá siad ag fás agus le linn na ndaoine a thiocfas in ár ndiaidh íocfa siad a mbealach féin. Tiúrfaidh siad go leor leor saothrú do na daoine má déantar i gceart é, agus má bhíonn an obair le fáil ní bheidh aon leithscéal acu ar chaoi ar bith dul thar sáile. Obair a bhfuil fhios acu uilig lena déanamh ní bheidh cáil oilteacht ná múinteacht lena haghaidh. Mar is é an obair a bhfuil siad cleachtach air. Faoi Chumann Capaillín Chonamara chuir muid céad agus cúpla céad crann anonn is anall i chuile phobal i gConamara agus tá mé ag ceapadh nár loic 10 bplanda as an gcéad acu—gan sórt gaisce ar bith againn faoi. Sin é a chruthaíonn nach bhfuil áit i gConamara nach bhfásfadh crainnte ann. Tá mé cinnte nach bhfuil mé ach ag iarraidh bheith ag spreagadh duine atá lántoilteanach cheana—an tAire, mar tá scil sna rudaí seo aige, mar is as an talamh a fáisceadh é féin agus chuile bhunadh a chuaigh roimhe agus is as an talamh a shaothraigh sé a bhfuil aige. Mar sin, iarraim air a rian féin a chur i bhfeidhm agus beidh buíochas na tíre go léir air.

Mr. Carter

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his scheme for the afforestation of this country. I think that is perhaps the biggest and most important scheme we can carry out apart from land division. I would be proud to speak in my native language, as my old friend, Deputy Mongan, does, but unfortunately I cannot do so.

In connection with this scheme of afforestation I would ask the Minister to give more consideration to the county council schemes for planting in certain areas. I think the Minister ought to subsidise them in this work. There are certain areas where lands are not available for planting to the same extent as in other areas. In North Longford around Drumlish and Cornhill there are no extensive plantation areas. But I think the lands that are available there should be utilised for afforestation purposes. To a certain extent I am disappointed that we have not more trees planted. In one area in my constituency we have about 700 acres under trees. But there are still barren mountainsides and bare hills which could be used. I have heard it said that good timber cannot be grown in these places. I do not know the reason for that. Timber grew on them long ago. If the county councils were subsidised they would be able to use these places for afforestation purposes. I know it would not be an economic proposition to ask the Department to tackle 50 or 100 acres.

I welcome this scheme and I congratulate the Minister on his wholehearted effort to plant this country. If the Minister is taking people off the bare hills I would appeal to him not to take them all from the Gaeltacht. We have poor people in Ballinamuck too. Possibly the Minister's ancestors fought there in '98. The Minister was in Ballinamore last Sunday. Some of the people could be taken away from the barren hillsides there and these hillsides could then be used for afforestation. I assure the Minister that I shall extend to this scheme all the help I can.

Mr. Cogan

I would like to join in the appeals that have been made to the Minister for fair and just treatment for those who are employed in the Forestry services. It is particularly important that those young men who devote years to training in this work should be recompensed for their labours. It is important too that their parents should be recouped to some extent for the money spent on their sons' education in this work. Afforestation is a big national development. It is work of a permanent nature. It is work that we hope will continue to grow and expand. It is essential, therefore, that the men on whom this work depends—permanent and temporary foresters, foremen forestry workers and ordinary forestry labourers— should be adequately remunerated. Their work is of a skilled nature. It is work that requires extra knowledge and work in which men are exposed to climatic conditions which other workers do not have to endure. I should like to impress upon the Minister the case of trained foresters. Those men should be given adequate remuneration having regard to the training which they have to acquire. In addition it is not desirable that there should be so many unestablished workers in this particular Department. The work is of an expanding nature and it is only right and proper that young men who devote themselves to this work should have the measure of security to which their training entitles them. If those men went to any other country they would undoubtedly receive much higher remuneration for their skilled services.

With regard to the ordinary forestry workers it is essential to remember that their work is of a strenuous nature. They should therefore be amply remunerated. In addition, whatever protection can be afforded to them against exceptional weather conditions should be afforded. There ought to be no difficulty whatever at the present time in providing suitable temporary shelters where the men can secure some shelter in heavy rain and storm and where they can take their meals in comfort. These are only elementary amenities which ought to be provided for those workers. It is essential that this Department should attract the best workers and should be so organised and directed that those workers will be able to give the maximum output. Therefore I would strongly urge the need for shelters and for protective clothing for those workers.

With regard to afforestation generally I compliment the Minister on the fact that he is setting out definitely to secure a minimum acreage of 25,000 per year. However, I do not think that even in planting 25,000 acres per year we are advancing with sufficient rapidity to the solution of this problem. I believe that since the establishment of this State we have lost far too much time in regard to this problem. If afforestation had been tackled boldly and with vision and vigour in 1922 there is no doubt that this country would be immeasurably richer to-day than it is. Many plantations would be available for use now or in the very near future. We cannot undo the mistakes of the past but we can certainly speed up the work of the present and of the future. There is no section of the community, whether they be in rural or in urban areas, who are going to hamper the Minister in any way in advancing towards the solution of this problem and towards the rapid development and extension of our forestry areas.

As a representative of a constituency in which afforestation has been pursued more vigorously and more extensively than in any other county I am quite familiar with the difficulties which the Minister will encounter. There is the difficulty of acquiring suitable land for planting. Everyone realises that having regard to the vast acreage of waste and non-agricultural land in this country there cannot be any reasonable justification for planting land that is suitable for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it ought to be the settled policy of the Minister wherever he acquires an area of land to set aside any portion of that land which may be suitable for agricultural work and not to put it under timber. This often causes difficulties inasmuch as there may be small islands of agricultural land in the middle of an area unsuitable for agricultural purposes and it is often difficult to isolate those small areas and to set them aside as farm lands. However, whatever difficulties arise it is essential that the Minister should so allot any agricultural land that may come into his hands for agricultural purposes instead of putting it under timber. There is quite sufficient land available for planting. I believe that the amount of land not suitable for agricultural purposes but suitable for afforestation can be increased. I believe that with the advance of science it will be possible to plant land on higher altitudes than has been possible in the past. In the same way, with the improvement which we hope will take place in the work of drainage, other lands which are not available for planting at present will become available. In that way the amount of land that will be available and suitable for planting will exceed the amount that can be planted under the scheme of 25,000 acres a year. That amount should be the minimum planted for the coming year and it should be steadily stepped up year by year. Having ensured that the maximum area which can be planted directly by his Department is put under afforestation I think a very big effort is required to ensure that local enterprise and private enterprise will be mobilised to the fullest in order to supplement what is being done directly by the Minister's Department.

The grants of £10 per acre which are provided for private individuals desiring to plant small areas of land are not, in my opinion, being very largely availed of. The fact that only £2,000 is being provided in the present year's Estimate shows clearly that the Department does not anticipate a very large demand for this type of assistance. Having regard to existing costs it is probable—though I cannot speak with any expert knowledge on the matter— that £10 per acre is not a sufficient inducement to private individuals to put that land under plantation, particularly having regard to the present high cost of fencing. I should like to ask the Minister whether something cannot be done to encourage local or parish. organisations to take up this work of afforestation. We have at the present time in many parishes vigorous organisations such as the Young Farmers' Clubs and Muintir na Tíre. I think these organisations, if approached by the Minister's Department, would be quite willing to co-operate in carrying. out this scheme of voluntary plantation. They could lease or purchase land in their respective areas, put it under plantations and thus supplement what may be done by private individual farmers and by the State. I have a strong feeling that if a vigorous campaign were initiated by organisations such as I have mentioned a great deal of useful work could be done.

It is particularly desirable, I think, that more attention should be paid to the planting of hard wood timbers. Those are the types of trees that are suitable and natural to our climate. We all have read in our history of the vast oak woods that stretched over many of the counties of Leinster. I know that, from a purely commercial point of view, the planting of hardwood timbers is not perhaps very attractive to the Department, but it certainly would appeal strongly to local organisations which wish to improve the scenic beauty of their areas. In addition to that, it would be a vast improvement for the nation generally. These plantations would provide shelter from cold winds and would add to the beauty of the area in which they exist. They would eventually also add something to the material wealth of the country. There is no doubt whatever that during the past 50 years we have ruthlessly destroyed vast areas of woodland, and many of these areas have not been replaced. I am glad that the Minister contemplates taking action to ensure that any timber felled must be replaced and that any regulations which at present are being evaded will in future be enforced. It is the duty of citizens, whether they own much or little land, to ensure that they leave it when they die in a better condition than they found it. That is their duty to the State. If people have contributed to denuding the countryside of its timber, particularly during the period of the emergency, there is a bounden obligation on them to replace these trees and I think nobody should be permitted to evade that obligation.

Mr. T. Brennan

On this Estimate, I think the Minister can feel assured that in any effort on his part, or on the part of his Department to promote a work of such national importance as afforestation, he will have the support of every member of the House. He definitely will have the support of every member on this side of the House. Deputy Moylan suggested that the Minister in his reply should inform the House of the amount of land the Minister had acquired for this purpose during the past year and the amount which he intends to acquire during the coming year.

From the point of view of afforestation, County Wicklow is probably one of the leading counties, if not the leading county, but I am informed that there is still plenty of land suitable for planting available for purchase in that county, but not at the very meagre price which the Department is prepared to pay for land for that purpose. Take, for example, the purchase of 100 acres on a hillside by the Land Commission to be turned over to the Forestry Department. Portion of it may be arable land and probably the greater percentage of it is lea land. If my information is correct as to the prices heretofore obtaining, the owner of the land, after carrying out redemption and incurring other expenses, would eventually find himself with the princely sum of about £40 for these 100 acres. If that be true, I am afraid that Deputy Moylan will in future years have to repeat the same question which he asked the Minister to answer in his concluding remarks, as to the amount of land being acquired for the purposes of afforestation.

There is in certain areas quite close to forestry plantations a certain amount of what we might call derelict land. I suggest that such land should be acquired compulsorily and incorporated in the adjoining forest. Distributed over County Wicklow, we also find a number of farms, each of 40 or 50 acres in extent, which from the point of view of good farming or from the point of view of affording a living to the occupiers, are quite uneconomic. I would suggest to the Minister that he should go into the open market and buy other farms to which he could transfer the occupants of these uneconomic holdings, farmers to whom I might refer as "inside farmers" without seeking to cast any aspersion on them. He could transfer these farmers from the hillside farms to good farms purchased in other parts of the country. Land which is uneconomic from a farming point of view should be used for afforestation. I do not suggest for a moment that, if the Minister is prepared to transfer farmers from the hillsides to more arable farms, it should be done at the expense of the population of County Wicklow by transferring them outside the county. My suggestion is that the transfers should take place within the county. If the Minister and those responsible keep a weather eye open, they will find ample opportunity to purchase farms to which these people could be transferred.

There is a point of criticism I wish to raise. There is an estate quite close to where I reside, namely, the Wilson estate, Newry, Clonegal, County Wexford, which has been under division for the past five or six years. About 70 per cent. of it has been divided and allocated—I am sure, in the eyes of those responsible, both to the best advantage of those who received the land and of the community as a whole —but there is still on that estate something like 160 acres left, including a hill, that I understand has been transferred to the Forestry Department for planting. I know that a certain portion of that 160 acres is good arable land. It is a shame that it should be handed over for forestry, or even that the Forestry Department themselves should accept it for planting, when there is such a demand for arable land and when we propose to reclaim so much waste land.

I do not know the regulations in this case, but I have been informed, not officially, that when land is taken over by the Forestry Department for plantation purposes it is very hard to get it back. Whether that is correct or not, I do not know. I do know that in the case of the 160 acres I mention, it is highly arable. I would ask the Minister to consider applications from farmers who have been allotted land on the general allotments scheme but who are prepared to take more if it is given to them, and I would ask him to give such consideration to those applications as would result in at least portion of that particular piece of land being allocated to adjoining farmers. There are 12 or 14 farmers in that area and any of them would be prepared to accept allotments.

In regard to the forestry workers, only within the past seven or eight days workers engaged on the plantation in Clonegal area but working in Wicklow constituency, have approached me and complained that they have been let off. There are ten or 12 men engaged there—it happens to be on the particular estate I refer to, the Wilson estate—and they cannot understand being let off. These men have been working for quite a while with the Land Commission and I suppose it is fair to assume that any individual working at a particular type of work for a certain length of time is a fair judge as to whether further work is available or not for him. My information from some of those people is that there is plenty of work for the men who were disemployed. I would ask the Minister if he would be good enough to look into the matter with a view to having them taken back again.

Regarding wages, I understand wages at the moment are somewhat less than the agricultural rate. Deputy Dunne made a very strong case, from his point of view, as to why there should be a difference between the wages of agricultural and forestry workers. My personal opinion is that one should be related to the other. If one is said to be semi-skilled, I would say that the average farm labourer is a semi-skilled man also. I cannot see why there should be any differentiation there. Forestry workers suffer from the fact—which has been referred to here—that their wages are cut for time spent in attending Mass on Sundays and Church holidays. I think it was Deputy Dunne who made the point with regard to men in the areas of which he had knowledge that their wages were cut in respect of the time spent attending Mass. I live in an area in which there are quite a number of forestry workers on several plantations on the borders of Counties Wicklow, Wexford and Carlow. These workers, due to a diocesan law, are compelled to refrain from working on Church holidays. There is a diocesan law against work of a manual type on any Church holiday, so that these men suffer from the disadvantage that they have to lose, not only in respect of time spent in attending Mass but a whole day, whereas the Wicklow County Council pay their road workers for Church holidays. I put it strongly to the Minister that he should place the forestry workers, who are as important to the community as road workers, on the same footing as road workers.

There is also the other type of workers, the foresters. These are men who have received technical training and they must have certain educational qualifications. They spend a term in a forestry college in Rathdrum or Avondale and they are men on whom a very serious responsibility is placed because they handle sums of money for the payment of workers on behalf of the Department running from £150 to £300 per week. Having got a certain type of education to enable them to apply for training in a forestry college such as Avondale, these men, when they come out, are paid a very small wage and in relation to them there is the matter—it is a point I have brought up here on this Estimate from year to year and a point to which Deputy Cogan referred—of establishment. It is very hard to understand the attitude of the Department in relation to these officers. The meagre salary they receive is bad enough, but there is also the fact that, if anything should happen to them to-morrow morning, in a week's time or a month's time, as a result of which they were unable to carry out their duties, all they can do is apply to the home assistance officer in their area for something to keep them and their families from dying from hunger. Surely the time has arrived when these officers, these important officials, should be placed in such a position that they will know that having given of their best in the interests of the State, the State will be prepared to look after them in their old age.

Finally, there is the question of houses for foresters. That is a matter which should be taken up by the Minister. It would not involve a very large sum of money as the number of foresters is not excessive, but the provision of these houses would be a help and an indication of appreciation of the fact that they are doing very important work for the country.

Conchubhair Ó Liatháin

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom a rá go n-aontaím leis an iar-Aire, an Teachta Ó Maoláin, sa mhéid adúirt sé, gur cheart an díospóireacht ar an Meastachán seo a choimeád ar leith ón deighilt atá ann idir na Páirtithe atá sa Teach seo. Ba mhaith liom a rá leis an Aire go bhfuilimidne, sinne i gClann na Poblachta, toilteanach aon chabhair in ár gcumas a thabhairt dó; go bhfuilimídne sásta cabhrú leis in aon tslí, an fhaid atáimid sásta go bhfuil sé in dáiríribh le polasaí náisiúnta athchrannuithe a chur i bhfeidhm. Chomh luath agus cheapfaimidne nach bhfuil sé in dáiríribh, tabharfaimid fé.

I should like to say at the outset that I congratulate Deputy Moylan on the consistency he displayed in making here, almost word for word, the same observations as he made in the debate on this Estimate last year. I am sorry that a year in opposition did not give the Deputy some fresh outlook on this matter and that he was not more critical of the Minister than he was, because I think the House would have been interested in his criticisms as the Minister who formerly dealt with this problem. The suggestion was made in the course of the debate that there was in the minds of Deputies or of people outside the House—I am not quite clear which—a belief that a conflict existed between the development of our agricultural industry and the implementation of a vigorous afforestation programme.

I want to suggest to the House that no such conflict does exist or, if it does exist, that it should not exist. One of the most important things, if we are to have a vigorous programme of reafforestation, is to make use of all the available vehicles and methods of propaganda open to the Minister. I am at one with Deputy Moylan in his criticism of the smallness of the amount estimated for at sub-head E (2). Unless we can make the people forest-conscious, unless we can imbue them with some of that inexperienced enthusiasm which has been alleged against me and my colleagues, the task of the Minister and his Department will be that much more difficult.

It was stated here, and I must confess it amazed me to hear it stated, that the only difficulty, or the main difficulty, was the difficulty of acquiring suitable land. That is a proposition that I find it impossible to accept. Again, that may be my inexperienced enthusiasm. I do know that land suitable for afforestation was offered not only during the last financial year but during many preceding financial years, to the Department of Lands at the price then obtaining, and that that land was not acquired. I believe the Minister is approaching this whole problem sincerely and that he is anxious to do the job but I must confess that I am disappointed at the amount of land that has been acquired by his Department during the last 12 months. Particular reference was made, I think, during the course of the present debate—certainly during the course of the debate last year—to certain districts in West Cork. I know of my own knowledge that suitable land running to some thousands of acres was offered to the Department. So far, at any rate, there has been no move to acquire it.

In approaching this problem as a single problem divided and separated from the development of our resources generally, we are in error and making a mistake. Better results would be secured if our forestry plans formed part of a scheme of development controlled by some semi-autonomous board which would, in addition to controlling afforestation projects, control drainage, development of turf resources and development of our resources generally. Even in my own mind I have not worked out very clearly the details of the land development authority that I envisage, but I would suggest to the Minister that a study of what was done by the body known as T.V.A. in America would repay the labour it would entail.

Again it may be out of inexperienced enthusiasm that I would suggest that there has been too much insistence on planting for the production of higher grade commercial timbers, too much attention paid to the planting of Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, Silver fir, Scotch pine, etc., etc., and that what is needed is a survey of the land not profitably employed at the moment to see to what extent that land could be used even for the planting of inferior grade timber. In introducing this Estimate in 1947 the then Minister for Lands. Deputy Moylan, stated—col. 210, Vol. 106, of the Dáil Debates:—

"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 land 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."

The point that interests me in that is that the then Minister was having examined the desirability of such planting. I do not know whether the results of that examination ever came to the then Minister and whether they are now in the office of his successor. They should prove worthy of perusal. I would not like to be taken as agreeing with the statement I have just quoted in its entirety because, in my submission, such planting would not ultimately prove either unprofitable or uneconomic. When Deputy Moylan, then Minister for Lands, made that statement he must have overlooked completely the immense possibilities in the development of articles based on plastics. I have seen it reliably stated that there are over 6,000 categories of articles in commercial use at the moment that can be manufactured from plastic made from wood pulp. I have no wish to pose as an expert on this matter. I have no pretensions to pose as an expert on this matter. I am proud of the "inexperienced enthusiasm" that has been charged against me and against my colleagues, but I would suggest—and I referred to this on this Estimate last year—that until such time as a comprehensive survey is made of all the land described as "waste land" at present the activities of the Department will be circumscribed by the want of it.

Practically every Deputy who spoke referred to foresters' wages. I would urge as strongly as I possibly can upon the Minister that the wages of foresters and forestry workers should be brought up to the best level possible, because if the Minister wants to carry out any programme of planting with success he will have to have the goodwill and co-operation of the workers employed on it.

Deputy Cogan referred to the grant of £10 per acre for voluntary planting. If the Minister finds—as apparently he has found from his experience over the last 12 months—that a grant of £10 per acre is insufficient to induce people to engage in voluntary planting, then I think the Minister should seriously consider having that amount increased.

I must confess that I expected that in introducing this Estimate to-day the Minister would give us details of a much more comprehensive plan than that which he has outlined. He has, however, told us in effect with regard to the 25,000 acres scheme which it is proposed to carry out with the aid of certain moneys which will be available as a result of European Recovery Programme arrangements that what he has informed the House of to-day is supplementary and additional to that scheme. I think I am right in taking that from what he said.

I am sorry that in the course of the last 12 months the Minister has not seen fit to take the opportunity of learning from what has been done in other countries. I think that visits were paid by a limited number of foresters, I think at their own expense, to forestry plantations in England and Wales, but if the Minister's officials, those engaged in practical work, had the opportunity of seeing what is being done in Sweden, Finland, Italy and Switzerland, I think the result might prove well worth the expenditure that would be entailed for us.

Deputy Moylan, in the course of his observations on this Estimate, made some covert references which I took to be of a disparaging character to the Minister for External Affairs in his efforts to obtain seeds for us this spring. I understood him to say that those efforts were a failure. I am not in the same position, perhaps, as Deputy Moylan nor have I the information which is available to the Minister, but in so far as my information goes, Deputy Moylan is completely wrong in suggesting that the Minister for External Affairs failed in those efforts, because if I am correct he succeeded in getting through diplomatic channels at least 1,200 lbs. of seed. I do not know whether those figures are accurate, but I would like to hear from the Minister in concluding this debate whether I am right in that assumption or not.

I and many of my colleagues in Clann na Poblachta have been critical of the workings of the Minister's Department. Any criticism we have offered has been intended to be constructive. If we are anxious to encourage him and urge him on, we may from time to time speak rather strongly. I, for one, am convinced that the effort to put into practice a forthright, vigorous policy of reafforestation is one which has the Minister's sympathy and inasmuch as it has that sympathy I am certainly prepared to be indulgent if minor mistakes are made from time to time, but I would urge on the Minister again that he should reconsider the question of the setting up of some land development body, some semi-autonomous body, which would direct the activities of the forestry section of his Department and which would co-relate the development of our forestry resources with the development of all our agricultural resources.

Mr. Moylan

Would I be in order in explaining that I did not suggest that the Minister for External Affairs failed to get anything or succeeded in doing anything?

Tomás Ó Deirg

Is dóigh liom gur Meastachán é seo go mba chóir dúinn uilig, go mór mhór na Teachtaí go bhfuil baint acu le saol na tuaithe, suim a chur ann. Tá cúrsaí eacnamaíochta agus cúrsaí an tsaoil i gcoitine tógtha suas go mór le cúrsaí na cathrach, cúrsaí na mbailte mór, cúrsaí lucht oibre agus mar sin de, ach cuirfidh éinne atá ag iarraidh saol na tuaithe, saol mhuintir na tuaithe, d'fheabhsú suim sa Vóta seo mar tá sé ar cheann de na Vótaí ar féidir leo obair a thabhairt do na daoine óga atá ag imeacht chomh tapaidh sin as an tír faoi láthair.

I think that those of us who are interested in rural Ireland should take special interest in this Vote for afforestation because, apart from the Department of Agriculture and to some extent the Board of Works as it is envisaged, there is scarcely any Department of State which displays such activity which has so much connection with rural life or which caters to the same extent for the provision of employment in rural areas. I think that it is unfortunate that a great amount of this enthusiasm we hear about for afforestation comes from those who do not seem to be so well acquainted with rural conditions, the problems of land acquisition and the other issues affecting afforestation as they are with city problems and social questions. For example, we have just heard a statement that it is not understood why there should be conflict between agriculture and afforestation. Perhaps we would all desire that there should be no such conflict. But the fact is that there is a certain amount of land in the country. We are told that the whole of the land which is arable and productive ought to be utilised to the utmost possible extent to produce food and in that way to pay for our imports. Agriculture gives a return more quickly than afforestation. That is, unfortunately, one of the difficulties that the Minister charged with responsibility for afforestation has to contend with. At the present time the State is contemplating huge expenditure in developing different branches of agriculture.

To the extent that the Minister responsible for afforestation is looking for money, for staff, for facilities or for land he is in competition with the Department of Agriculture and, not only that, in so far as public opinion is concerned the Minister for Agriculture is in the position that he has 384,000 farmers anxiously awaiting every pronouncement with regard to agriculture. They are deeply interested in what he is doing, in prices, in bonuses, in assurances of markets for their produce, in international agreements, and so on. They all take a personal interest in this matter because it affects them intimately in their daily lives, in their farming operations, in their ordinary livelihood.

The number of people who own estate plantations in this country must be very limited. I suppose there are not 20 estates where afforestation is carried out as the experts understand it. Further, the number of persons earning their livelihood by afforestation, apart from those employed by the Department, must be very limited indeed. Even the total number employed by the Department and running as it does into many thousands is small and confined to certain counties only, as compared with the tremendous interest and importance that agriculture has for the people all over this country. These are some of the things that differentiate afforestation from agriculture.

Whenever the question of acquiring land arises we certainly have to consider, from the national point of view, whether it is more profitable that it should go into agriculture to produce agricultural products for rapid sale on the English or other markets or whether it should go into sheep grazing, for example, because a great deal of the land in question will be of the character that it had been used for sheep grazing, or whether it is land that, because in fact it is not considered desirable that it should be utilised for agricultural purposes of one kind or another, is left over as being definitely unarable from that point of view and should, therefore, be left to the Forestry Department. We have also the competition of the Irish Land Commission. I notice that, in the published report which we received a few days ago, under the year ending 31st March, 1948—which was, no doubt, a very exceptional year because as the Minister pointed out here recently the reservoir of land that had been acquired for division had all been utilised and there was very little land there of a useful nature when he took up office but, taking the year for what it is worth—13,000 acres of land were acquired. Complaints were made here that the figure of 13,000 acres is extremely inadequate and most disappointing. Were it not for the fact that some of us on this side of the House have some experience of the difficulties involved and that we are not inclined to condemn in the way that the enthusiasts who have newly entered the House may be so inclined, we could condemn the Minister, I think, very severely. But let us have regard to the fact that under the compulsory powers which the Land Commission has for the relief of congestion and all the paraphernalia which they have over there—inspectors, Land Commission court, judicial tribunal and long experience—13,000 acres were acquired. I understand that 45,000 acres are at present being considered for acquisition. I think the Minister would be an optimist if he considers that the 45,000 acres are likely to be acquired by the time he again presents his Estimate to this House. If they should, it will mean that very good work has been done by the Land Commission. It is not merely the question of what the staff can do, it is the fact that certain procedures have to be followed in regard to the acquisition of land. If the Land Commission or any other Government Department do not follow the procedure to the letter or if they transgress in any way or over-ride their powers there is an appeal to the court which may hold up the whole work of acquisition. But because this House, when the Oireachtas was set up, decided to go ahead and to give primary consideration to land acquisition for the relief of congestion a huge amount of work has been done. A sum of 3,000,000 acres of tenanted land and 1,000,000 acres of untenanted land is involved, and the amount left over must be comparatively small. As a man who is interested in congestion, the Minister knows very well that 500,000 acres at least would be necessary, no matter how long a period of time it may take, to deal with this problem. In spite of the history and of the present position of land acquisition for the relief of congestion, what can be done is very limited. The State has been exercising these compulsory powers. You have not these compulsory powers in regard to the acquisition of land for afforestation.

Even if the Oireachtas gives them powers Ministers have to be very wary in putting them into operation. Unfortunately, there is not that public opinion in this country that there ought to be in regard to afforestation. Under a scheme of land reclamation, or of farm improvements, or of drainage, you will get the co-operation of the local farming community to a much greater extent, I feel, than under a local afforestation scheme, because they will feel that these other schemes will benefit them immediately and directly and that their property will improve as a result. Now we have the Minister for Agriculture coming along and announcing that he has a big land reclamation scheme. Presumably it is the intention, with which the Minister for Lands concurs, that very considerable areas of land are to be added to the arable acreage of this country for the purpose of increasing agricultural production. I do not know whether any effort was made to have a concerted opinion between the Ministers and the experts concerned as to how all these plans are going to dovetail into one another.

We have already had questions from this side of the House regarding this new reclamation scheme, as to how that scheme is to work in with the arterial drainage scheme. We are to have the arterial drainage scheme which is mentioned in the White Paper submitted by the Government, entitled "Ireland's Long-Term Programme", in connection with the European Recovery Programme. The arterial drainage scheme is mentioned there, but there is no reference to the new reclamation scheme. Paragraph 36 says:

"Amongst the schemes of land improvement, arterial drainage is of special importance. The object of recent legislation is to provide an efficient and comprehensive system of arterial drainage. The total area which could be improved by arterial drainage schemes is estimated at over 500,000 acres."

Then we come to afforestation and one wonders whether the experts were consulted when the paragraph dealing with reafforestation was drafted for this White Paper:

"So far, reaffotestation has been carried out only on a very small scale; in recent years the rate of planting in the State forests has been, approximately, 6,000 acres per year. It is proposed to step this up to 25,000 acres per year."

Now drainage and afforestation ought to be linked together, one would imagine, because the land which is being drained, if it is not suitable for other purposes, might perhaps be found good enough to plant trees on. In that connection, Deputies have been urging that because land once grew timber—even bog land—that is proof that it is going to grow timber now, that it is going to be worth while growing it. When we speak of growing timber, we mean timber that will be reasonably economic when sold; that there will not be a dead loss upon it; that it can be described as commercial timber and that it can be used for some commercial purposes. The commercial purposes for which conifers can be utilised are rather limited. We have had no evidence whatever that there has been any liaison or any common consideration of the problems which arise in regard to this new reclamation scheme, on the one hand and, let us say, afforestation on the other hand.

The country has been told that we are setting up a national industrial authority which is to have very wide powers in regard to industrial matters. But, in regard to agriculture, drainage, reclamation and afforestation, not to speak of land division and the problems of the Gaeltacht areas, one would like to know whether there is any underlying general plan. The foreword to the White Paper, which is signed by the Minister for External Affairs, says:

"The essential elements of our programme are: (1) The improvement and intensification of agricultural production; (2) The development of industrial production; (3) A carefully planned programme of national capital development to include large-scale schemes for reafforestation, land drainage and reclamation, mineral development and electrification."

In respect to electrification and mineral development, there are authorities there for dealing with them. In the case of land drainage and reclamation, we understood up to the present that the Office of Public Works dealt with the matter, as the Forestry Branch of the Department of Lands deals with afforestation. But, when there is a claim for lands, when there is a claim for staff, when there is a claim for priority in regard to the question of which of these different activities is to secure preference, how is the matter to be determined?

What is the general plan the Government have in mind when they state that they intend to plant 25,000 acres per year and when the Minister tells us, though he takes no responsibility in his statement to-day for the plan, that the plan is there? He was careful to explain to us that the Estimate he is now putting before the House is merely for the normal programme, the development which would go on under the Forestry Branch irrespective altogether of the European Recovery Programme. He did say that at a later stage he might find it necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, but he gave the House no information whatever, information that I think it is entitled to have, as to the type of organisation he has in mind, the kind of plan he envisages for building up this large reserve of land, if the Government really believe that, within a reasonable period of years, they can in fact attain the aim they have set before themselves of planting 25,000 acres per year.

I have referred to the fact that the Land Commission during its last year of operation of which we have official notice could only acquire 13,000 acres. The Minister could only acquire 3,000 acres for afforestation during the last year and for that he has been censured. He speaks now of acquiring 30,000 acres of a reserve. He has a reserve at the present time it is true. But, as Deputy Moylan pointed out, a reserve equivalent roughly to a three years' planting programme ought to be in existence for all the different parts of it before the planting programme starts—the nursery programme and the allocation of work to the different forestry centres, and there are over 100 centres. It takes a considerable amount of staff work and organisation. It is not as if you were doing afforestation in a number of areas, three or four areas, which undoubtedly would be the best policy if it could be adopted. Unfortunately, it is the case that afforestation work is scattered over a wide area of the country, over a large number of centres. In respect of each of these centres, particularly if there is a drive being made to acquire land for afforestation, there will be these demands that land should be acquired that may be unsuitable, that may not be convenient. There is scarcely any other way in which more time can be wasted than by sending inspectors to view land which is inadequate in amount, unsuitable from the point of view of location, or definitely not good enough even to grow conifer timber and has to be left aside.

I understood the Minister to say that 30,000 acres were to be acquired instead of 3,000 and later up to 50,000 acres. But with the utmost pressure the last Government were able to exercise in the earlier years of their administration and with all the compulsory powers of acquisition they had, the intense drive there was from the congested areas and also from people looking for land in other areas to have land acquired and divided amongst them—a policy which Deputies will never be slow to advocate no matter on what side of the House they sit or to what Party they may belong— in spite of all that your peak under the most tremendous pressure that could be devised was 100,000 acres. I think it is pretty well recognised that that figure can never be achieved again. Therefore, I wonder how is the Minister going to get land, more particularly since the experts, whose reports are in the files of his Department, have advised that the kind of land that we would naturally turn our eyes to— if we feel that the good land of the country, the land in the Midlands, in the eastern and in the greater part of the southern counties, should be reserved for agricultural production and for producing high quality products for the foreign as well as the home market —is the land in the West of Ireland, and the areas beyond the Shannon.

But, there again, the experts have told us that, in general, these areas are not suited for the growing of commercial timber. The exposure is too great. The lands themselves are so bad that even the poorest type of land that is used for afforestation in the County Wicklow would be infinitely better from the forestry point of view. It is a fact, I think, that you can grow trees at a much higher level in the County Wicklow than in any of the western counties. The fact, again let me say, that scrub timber has been grown at some time is no proof that, if you want to grow timber from the economic point of view, and make the growing of it a worth-while proposition as a commercial venture, you can do so or that you would be justified in spending money on it unless the experts, as is quite possible, change their opinions. Up to the present their opinion has been against the growing of timber in the Gaeltacht areas, for example. Generally speaking, they have been against it. That means that you are confined to other areas.

If you want to make a success of your afforestation programme, if you really want to acquire the land that seems to be necessary if this programme is a serious one, then you will have to give up the idea of looking for land in small parcels in a wide number of areas, and, as the Minister mentioned in his opening speech, you will have to concentrate on devising some method by which large blocks of land in the areas that are suitable for afforestation, such as the Counties of Wicklow, Waterford, Tipperary, the Slievebloom Mountains, can be got. It would probably be a good investment for the country to employ some of the experts, those of them who are acquainted with the value of land and with its potentialities from the agricultural point of view, to go into that question closely and make a recommendation to the Minister as to what steps will be necessary, what type of legislation or what type of body we should set up, for the purpose of acquiring land. As Deputy Moylan pointed out, it is quite useless to talk about a forestry programme of 25,000 acres, or any other acreage unless there is definite machinery there, and unless this House gives power to some body to enable it to acquire sufficient land.

The Minister also said in his opening statement that a certain amount of land was being acquired. I do not know whether he is waiting on the Budget Statement in which, presumably, the Minister for Finance is going to deal with the question of how funds are to be provided for the different activities that are envisaged in respect of which Irish pounds are to be paid into a fund for economic development at home as against the dollars which we are receiving in the imports we are getting under E.C.A. Surely, the Minister must have given some consideration to this matter since it was last before the House. Afforestation is mentioned categorically in the White Paper. Next to agricultural production and industrial production, it is mentioned first in the programme of national capital development works. It is extraordinary that the Minister cannot give us any further information other than to say that he may have to introduce a Supplementary Estimate and that he contemplates increasing greatly—I do not know whether he even used the word, "greatly"—the staff of the Forestry Branch and the inspectorial staff, particularly on the acquisition side. But anybody who has had experience, as some of us on this side have had, will be aware of the delays, the difficulties, and the disappointments there are in trying to acquire this land—working all the time on the basis of securing it by voluntary agreement. Anybody with that experience must know that it would be an absolutely heart-breaking task to place on the Forestry Branch or on the Minister —the task of attempting to approach the position that he can have, in fact, an annual planting programme of 25,000 acres—unless we have some evidence in support of it. But we have not been vouchsafed a single scintilla of what exactly he has in mind, or of what are his plans in that regard.

I am still more bewildered when I contemplate the grandiose schemes which the Minister for Agriculture has in contemplation, and that he has, to a certain extent, promulgated to the country although not in detail to this House. I cannot avoid reminding the Minister that it seems preposterous for him, and I think he would be the first to admit it, to pretend that you can, in fact, acquire land that will be suitable for growing trees at £4 or £5 per acre. The figures that he gave in respect of the land that he was acquiring either through the Land Commission—land that they do not require for resettlement purposes—or from private owners did not seem to be much more than £4 per acre. The old figure was £4 per acre, but, of course it was entirely inadequate even before the war. Deputies from the rural areas can judge for themselves the type of land that is now likely to be got, even if the figure of £4 or £5 per acre is considerably adjusted. Even the Forestry Branch are giving £10 per acre to farmers to grow small plantations or shelter belts, while the Minister for Agriculture comes along and promises £20 an acre for reclamation. We have, therefore, the head of one important Department of State advocating this large scheme that he has in mind which is going to cost millions of money and which is going to take many years to carry to completion. He is promising the farmers £20 per acre to reclaim those lands which they themselves believe can be made fertile, but which had become run down. How does that figure of £20 per acre compare with the figure which the Minister is now giving us, a figure which is actually being paid for the acquisition of land for afforestation? Is it good sense or good economy? If, in fact, we can get land at £4 or £6 an acre for afforestation, does it seem necessary to pay £20 to reclaim the same or perhaps a worse type of land in another part of the country? Is it necessary, to spend £20 an acre to reclaim land which will be in the marginal class, let us say, land that will produce some profit so long as agricultural prices are very remunerative but which, if agricultural prices fall, may go back to its original state of wildness? Is it worth £20 to the country to reclaim an acre of that land to meet the present boom? We do not know how long that may last; we hope it will last for the rest of our time, but I am afraid it will not. While it does last, let us take all the advantage we can of it.

I think, in order to make up for the heavy burden which lies upon whoever is charged with responsibilty for afforestation, and taking into consideration the fact that there is not that public opinion in the country in respect of afforestation which we have in regard to other types of rural development, one of the best ways in which the Minister could get the interest of Deputies and enable them to see the problem at first hand and to know what the actual difficulties are, would be to bring them round, some from each Party, and let them see what is being done. In that way they will learn what the difficulties are; they will learn of the heart-break that I have spoken of, where land, after a great deal of trouble, has been acquired but eventually could not be used for planting owing to difficulties with the local people who claimed grazing rights. Eventually they had to give way, because it was not worth while endangering the programme in that particular area and endangering the State property by pursuing it.

Until Deputies and public men generally, in some way I cannot see quite clearly at present, succeed in getting a better understanding of afforestation in the different areas throughout the country, until we get the people to understand the value to them of having a certain number of men employed locally for a great part of the year in fairly regular employment, until they are made to realise in some way the tremendous advantage to the nation of having a fairly substantial reserve of timber, not alone because of possible crises such as we had in recent years, but also because of the fact that the resources of the earth are being used up at such a rate that no one knows where we will stand in 20 or 30 years, we cannot make the progress we are anxious to make. It would be well for us, even though we do not secure a return on the money that is being invested, to utilise to the utmost possible extent the land that is available for afforestation and that there will be general agreement can be used for that purpose.

I think the Government should consider acquiring land in very large blocks, taking over whole areas—such as has been done in Glenmalure—in Avoca, in the Comeragh mountains, in the Galtees, and in Waterford and Tipperary. I think the only possible way in which this programme can be undertaken is for the Government to examine closely what powers are necessary, what type of legislation is required to enable them to take over a large block of 20,000 or 30,000 acres. In taking over even larger areas, while it may be difficult to make all the necessary arrangements and get over all the legal difficulties, they know they will have the goodwill of this House. It will also be more economic. It would be far more economic for the country—if we are serious about afforestation, as I think most Deputies are—if we could look to a period in the future when, instead of having the activities of the Department scattered over 100 areas in so many different counties, it would be concentrated in five or six if not three or four main areas and the great bulk of the work would be done there.

I would like to pay a tribute to the officials of the Department for the work they did during the emergency. They had very little machinery for timber-cutting, but at short notice and with inadequate resources and inadequate machinery they were able to supply these very large dumps in Dún Laoghaire, Dublin and elsewhere for the poor people.

The dumps were there as an iron ration during a very bad period when we had to depend on our own resources. Deputies ought to bear in mind that there was a good excuse for afforestation work being held up during the emergency. It was not merely a question of the price of land or the difficulty of acquiring it in suitable lots and localities or of suitable quality; it was the fact that the actual materials, such as fencing, were not available. These materials were necessary, if you were not to be in the position of having practically the whole of your labour and planting to go for nothing and your plants to be eaten by rabbits or hares. We could not carry on without proper fencing materials and it is only now that that position is righting itself.

Deputies should also understand the difficulties there are in the nursery programme, having plants of the different types and species in sufficient quanties, if possible in the exact quantities so that there will not be waste. These plants have to be seeded about three years before they are utilised as young plants. The programme has to be thought out in advance, not alone in regard to land acquisition but in other respects of which staffing and the nurseries are examples.

This is not a question of finance, because I have no doubt that when the Budget statement comes along we will hear how the financing of these big programmes of development that have been spoken of will be undertaken. When a responsible Minister and his Department are mentioned in this White Paper as undertaking responsibility for an extensive new and difficult programme, I suggest it is the duty of the Deputies to insist that that Minister gives far more information than he has given to-day. The Minister has side-stepped the whole issue. He is not treating the House properly. He is not treating the House with consideration. He knows that the White Paper is in existence. He knows that another Minister has gone out to the country and spoken publicly of afforestation. He knows that this is a matter of public interest. He comes in here asking for money. It is humiliating that we should be placed in the position of having to read the speeches of another Minister in the public Press to find out what is under contemplation in regard to afforestation. When the annual Estimates come along we find ourselves fobbed off with a statement by the Minister that he is not going to deal with this question of the big programme. He is only going to deal with the ordinary programme for the year. Before the debate concludes the Minister should give the House some more detailed information as to what he has in mind with regard to land acquisition and the areas which he thinks will benefit. He should give us more information than we have hitherto got as to how these expanding activities in connection with afforestation are to be co-ordinated with land reclamation, arterial drainage and the ordinary work of the Land Commission. How will the problem of staffing and labour be worked out in connection with these schemes in order to avoid confusion because of different Ministers pursuing different programmes without any common general basic understanding or basic plan?

Captain Cowan

I had some difficulty in following the last speaker. I had difficulty in discovering whether he was for afforestation or against it, whether he was in favour of an accelerated programme of afforestation or whether he believed that the difficulties are so enormous that no stepping up of the present rate of afforestation can be undertaken. If one goes back over the debates for the last 20 or 25 years one will find many examples of the type of speech to which we have just listened. Similar speeches at great length were made many times in the past. Where they lead to I do not know. I gathered from Deputy Moylan—and this is my own view also—that everybody is agreed that afforestation is necessary and that the Minister in charge of such a scheme will have the goodwill and the co-operation of the House. We have had all these difficulties threshed out over the last 25 years as to the conflict between agriculture, afforestation and land acquisition. It seems to me to be a waste of time to repeat these arguments now. That would appear to be the point of view of the House, because this is a very important subject, but during the past three hours there have been fewer than a dozen Deputies listening to the debate. Possibly those Deputies keep away because they do not want to listen to these arguments being repeated ad nauseam.

I gathered from the Minister that he intends to plant 25,000 acres this year. I am not sure if I am correct in that. If that is what the Minister said and if he does intend to plant 25,000 acres that will be a substantial improvement on anything we have had in the past. If his experts succeed in planting 25,000 acres this year they will be doing an exceptionally fine job of work. But it would be wrong for the Minister to hold out hope for the planting of 25,000 acres if in fact that acreage is not planted. If only 8,000, 10,000, 12,000 or 15,000 acres are planted serious disappointment will be caused. I would like the Minister to state specifically when replying if, in fact, 25,000 acres will be planted this year. If that is the target, has the scheme been worked out in all its details and can the people be reasonably certain that 25,000 acres will be planted?

I spoke in this debate last year. I have no intention of repeating what I said last year. Afforestation is being taken up very seriously throughout the country. The unemployed in the rural areas look to afforestation as a means of ending their unemployment and providing them with constant work. I have seen some serious criticism of the Minister because the anticipated progress had not been reached.

Mr. Donnellan

Why?

Captain Cowan

I am merely saying I have seen the criticism. I do not say I agree with it.

Mr. Donnellan

They did not say why though.

Captain Cowan

I cannot say why the criticism. I am not at the anoment criticising the Minister. In dealing with this matter last year I adverted to all the difficulties—the shortage of trained staff, the shortage of plants and the many other difficulties with which the Minister was faced. I mentioned all these matters last year. I did not expect that we could in one year, two years or even three years reach the rate of planting that we had mentioned during the election campaign.

Mr. Allen

What was the acreage aimed at?

Mr. S. Collins

The Wexford wag is here again.

Captain Cowan

You will have no trouble at all in finding that out.

Mr. Allen

I should be interested to know.

Captain Cowan

It is something like those mythical boats that were to bring back the emigrants.

Mr. Allen

You are ashamed to mention it.

Captain Cowan

I am not ashamed of it.

Mr. S. Collins

Deputy Allen's allocution is excellent.

Captain Cowan

I have no intention of allowing myself to be drawn by Deputy Allen. He has come into the debate probably for the purpose of keeping it going.

Mr. Allen

I have been here all the evening.

Mr. S. Collins

In spirit.

Captain Cowan

The debate has gone along quite nicely all the evening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan should keep it going.

Captain Cowan

I did not expect that this rate of planting mentioned in the general election campaign could be reached in the first year, the second year or the third year. Some commonsense must be used. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say: "I am going to plant 25,000 acres this year." I want to see a long-term plan. I want to see a map of the country marked with the particular areas in which afforestation is to be developed. I have sufficient confidence in the experts of the Forestry Department to know that they can prepare a map in which they can show in special colours the areas that can, in the long run, be utilised for afforestation. If we are going to work on the basis of looking for land that is no good for agriculture the scheme is not going to be a success. I do not pretend to be an expert but I do understand that it is necessary, in order to prevent soil deterioration, that there should be substantial belts of forest in agricultural areas and that some of the best agricultural land in the country will have to be used for that purpose. I am quite prepared to depend on the advice and opinion of the experts in the Forestry Department on that matter. I should like the Minister to produce a map or plan showing the areas which can be developed if a full afforestation policy is to be carried out. It has been mentioned here to-day that the Minister for External Affairs has succeeded in getting 1,200 lbs. of seeds. Those 1,200 lbs. of seeds will have to be planted in nurseries and they will have to be developed. They cannot be put out into a certain number of acres of land this year or next year or even the year after.

Apparently it is admitted on all sides that afforestation is necessary from many points of view. It is necessary because it will provide good employment; it is necessary because it will improve the economy of the country; it is necessary because it will improve the land of the country; it is necessary because it will improve the climate of the country. There is a further reason —it will help to beautify the country. I look on it mainly from the point of view of providing employment. I want to see the plan I have mentioned worked out by the Minister or by his Department so that we can come in next year or the year after, look at that plan and say: "What portions of those areas have, in fact, been planted and put under afforestation?" Unless something like that is done we shall have the waste of time that we have had here this evening. We have had speeches about the difficulties in the way. We have a Chamber which consists of 147 Deputies and only a dozen of them are listening to the debate. I do not want to be guilty of the very things about which I complain. I am simply confining myself to the one particular aspect that the Department should prepare a map or plan and mark on it the areas that can be developed for afforestation purposes. The whole weight and resources of the Government should be put into the effort to afforest those areas in the quickest possible time. We cannot hope to plant the figure which Deputy Allen wanted me to mention—1,000,000 acres of land—in the next five years. We must be reasonable about that. If we were to plant 25,000 acres this year, which I doubt is possible, it would take 40 years at that rate to plant 1,000,000 acres. That is not the way the thing should be done at all. With a proper plan and proper determination the acreage each year will increase and the planting of those 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 acres that are mentioned by the Minister can be completed in a reasonable time. However, it requires a plan, determination and very skilled and adequately trained staffs. I know that the training of those staffs will take time; the preparation of the land will take time; the building-up of the administrative staff necessary to carry out the work is going to take some time. However, the years are passing and the Minister has had one year—the first year, I suppose, since the emergency commenced in which we were getting back to normal. He has shown to-day in his statement that he is going to make a substantial improvement in the number of acres that are to be planted this year.

I want the Minister and the Department—I am quite sure the Department will do it if the Minister will require that it be done—to work out a five or a ten year plan and let that five or ten year plan be accepted by this House. Let us all, in every way we can, drive the Minister towards the fulfilment of that plan. If we can do that, the time we spend on this Estimate each year would be reduced to the minimum. It would be a question of whether the Minister had reached or had not reached his target. If he had not reached his target, he would have to answer for it. If he had reached his target then there would be no necessity for any long or detailed discussion on the Estimate at all.

As I said in answer to the question put to me by the Parliamentary Secretary, I had no criticism of the Minister nor had I any criticism of his Department in the past 12 months. I think they are preparing the way for the carrying out of this afforestation policy in a satisfactory manner. What I said I did not understand was the very serious criticism to which the Minister has been subjected during the past year. It is up to the Minister, now that he knows that he has the full support of the House and that he is being forced from certain parts of the House, to prepare a plan. If he does that, I think he can be satisfied that he will have the full support and co-operation of every Deputy.

Deputies Allen and J. Flynn rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Allen.

Mr. J. Flynn

This is the sixth time I have risen.

Mr. Allen

I have got a certain amount of information from our colleague, Deputy Cowan, this evening. He was very reluctant to give it to us but it was most interesting indeed. If the Minister had been listening to his colleague, Deputy Cowan, I am sure he would have felt that he can breathe more freely from now on. It was noticeable that the Minister was a bit shy in coming before the House with his Estimate.

Mr. Blowick

A bit shy?

Mr. Allen

From now on he need have no further worries in the matter.

Mr. Donnellan

He need not be a bit shy.

Mr. Allen

It is generally assumed that the Minister is not the actual Minister in charge of forestry. It is generally assumed over the country at large and indeed over the world at large, that the actual Minister in charge of forestry is not the Minister for Lands but another Minister. After hearing Deputy Cowan the Minister can breathe more freely. Deputy Cowan, on behalf of Clann na Poblachta, now admits that it is not possible to plant 200,000 acres.

Captain Cowan

The ignorance of some Deputies is phenomenal.

Mr. Allen

He informed us quite recently that it was the policy of Clann na Poblachta to get 200,000 acres planted each year or 1,000,000 acres over five years. He now admits that is not possible and he has absolved the Minister for Lands from all responsibility for failure in that respect. The Minister told the House that 8,000 acres had been planted last year and that he aimed at planting 25,000 acres in the coming year.

Mr. Blowick

I said no such thing.

Mr. Allen

He said that he is aiming at planting 25,000 acres in the coming year and that he planted 8,000 acres last year.

Mr. Blowick

I planted more than 8,000.

Mr. Allen

Eight thousand was the figure you gave.

Mr. Blowick

It will actually exceed 8,000.

Mr. Allen

We shall take 8,000 odd as the figure for last year, but what was the Minister aiming at for next year?

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy came into the House while I was making my statement he would not now be making a fool of himself.

Mr. Allen

I was here.

Mr. Blowick

If you were, you had better get your ears examined.

Mr. Allen

They are not too good, I will admit. Deputy Cowan will be satisfied with 25,000 acres next year instead of the 200,000 acres which his Party previously said would be planted. Deputy Cowan, the former Deputy Leader of the Clann na Poblachta Party, is now satisfied if the Minister will plant 25,000 acres in the coming year instead of 200,000 acres.

Mr. Blowick

Suppose the Deputy made his own speech.

Mr. Allen

The Minister can breathe freely from now on when he need not be afraid that the group represented by Deputy Cowan in this House, the Clann na Poblachta group, will put more than ordinary pressure on him to plant more than 25,000 acres but God help the Minister if this time next year he has not 25,000 acres planted. Deputy Cowan will come in here with his scalping knives and then let the Minister look out. But the Minister last year acquired only 3,000 acres for planting. Deputy Cowan should know that the Minister's efforts last year were sufficient to add only 3,000 acres to the pool for planting. How, then, is he going to plant 25,000 acres?

Mr. Blowick

He has 30,000 acres.

Mr. Allen

As a result of the efforts of Deputy Moylan in previous years the Minister has 30,000 acres available for planting and he is going to start by planting 25,000 acres next year.

Mr. S. Collins

Do you object to that?

Mr. Allen

I do not object to it. As a matter of fact I thoroughly agree with it. I want again to stress that the Minister is under an obligation to Deputy Cowan and the members of the Clann na Poblachta Party who support the present Ministry to plant 25,000 acres in the present year. Let that sink in. How many is he going to plant? Has he any idea or estimate in his mind as to what he is going to plant? Before a Minister comes into the House to introduce an Estimate, the Government publishes a Book of Estimates. The Minister comes in here and reads a statement carefully prepared for him by his Department setting out what is to be the policy during the coming financial year within the Estimate.

The Minister came in this evening with an Estimate which shows a net increase of £27,000 over last year's total, including the Supplementary Estimate. Of that £27,000, he proposes to spend an extra £17,000, over and above what he spent last year, in acquiring land. He proposes to acquire 16,000 acres in the present year, for which he will pay the princely sum of £25,000, in other words, slightly over 30/- an acre. If that Book of Estimates means anything, and if the Minister is going to stand over those figures, he knows quite well he will not acquire 16,000 acres in the present year and that he will not get it at 30/-an acre. The figures in this Book of Estimates mean nothing whatever. There is a net increase of £27,000, of which £9,400 is for increases in salaries, wages and allowances to staffs. In other words, one-third of the total increase will go in salaries.

Under sub-head H, Appropriations-in-Aid, I notice that in 1949-50 the Appropriations-in-Aid are estimated to bring in £84,000, while in 1948-49 it was £91,000. Notwithstanding that, there is £7,500 shown as an increase in the Appropriations-in-Aid. I would like the Minister to explain how that, arises. It is one of the things that has caught my eye, but it may not have caught the Minister's eye yet.

Forestry is a subject in which every Deputy has some interest and of which he has some knowledge. Every Deputy likes to see trees growing and has some knowledge of rural areas, as none of us is far from the country-side. We know that an increase in timber, in shelter belts, woodlands and forestry is to the advantage of the whole community. That is a fact generally accepted by every section of the community. However, we know we have a very low percentage of our lands under woods and growing timber. That is an accepted fact. It is agreed also that an increase in the planted area would be to our country's advantage and the Minister may be assured of the support of every section of the House in his efforts—provided, of course, that the Department does not use its compulsory powers to acquire agricultural land which is being worked by the farmers who own it for their own use and benefit. That must be kept in mind all the time. The Minister is aware that there may be a big difference of opinion amongst the agricultural community as to whether 5,000, 2,000 or 500 acres in any part of the country should be acquired compulsorily or left in the hands of the-farmers who are working it to the best of their ability and gaining their livelihood from it. Apart from that, the Minister's advisers will advise him all the time against using the compulsory powers given under the 1946 Act—and held even before the passing of that Act—or at least that those powers be used very sparingly.

Mr. Blowick

Does the Deputy recommend that such land be taken over compulsorily?

Mr. Allen

Not compulsorily.

Mr. Blowick

Compulsorily or otherwise?

Mr. Allen

No. If land is surrendered voluntarily by any owner, certainly take it, if the price is agreed on.

Mr. Blowick

If it is arable land?

Mr. Allen

Yes. I have no objection to arable land being planted, or a certain amount of it. Remember that the Forestry Department has been planting arable land for the past 20 or 30 years in different parts of the country, in small portions, depending on the area you are in. In the West of Ireland there is a lot of congestion.

Mr. Donnellan

We would love to get enough arable land to settle congestion, not to mind planting trees.

Mr. Allen

I am sure there is a big objection to using arable land in congested areas for the purpose of planting; but there are other portions of the country where you will not find the same objection at all.

Mr. Donnellan

Why?

Mr. Allen

That is where there is no land hunger, in the eastern counties Several times here over many years, I have suggested to the Minister for Lands, whoever he may be at the time, that in the county I come from we have no objection to migrants coming in. I do not believe that any of the farmers or farm workers in County Wexford have any objection whatever to some migrants coming in, as there is plenty of land there for all. I do not advocate that the land held by farmers in Leinster or anywhere else should be taken compulsorily for planting. I disagree with that and think it would be an unsound policy for the Department. I go further and say that the price paid in the past, as long as I have known the Department of Forestry, has been an inadequate and unfair price to owners even of the bad type of land acquired in the past. The Minister should bend his energies to persuading his colleagues in the Government to agree to a much higher price than the Minister proposes for this year. I understand he has authority to pay a higher price in the present year. We have been given to understand that and it is generally known throughout the country already.

Mr. Blowick

For what purpose?

Mr. Allen

For the purpose of forestry. I do not know where that came from, or whether the Minister circulated it or announced it publicly, but it is generally accepted by people who have land to offer for planting. I would like the Minister to confirm that. I gathered from his opening statement that he was proposing to pay more this year, but the increase of £17,000 in these Estimates will not allow him to pay more in the present year. Furthermore, unless he is prepared to pay more for plantable land, he will not get land voluntarily. In the past, to my own knowledge, as low as 15/- an acre, by the time the annuities were redeemed, was offered by the Land Commission for land considered suitable for planting. It is what the farmer will get and not what is offered in the first instance, subject to redemption of the land annuity, that counts. It is the net cash which he receives that counts with the farmer and nothing else, and I suggest to the Minister that the net cash which the Forestry Department are prepared to offer for land is what should be indicated to the farmer and not the gross amount, less the redemption of the annuity, because the farmer will then know how he stands in considering whether the price is adequate or not.

It is all-important that an increase should be given and if the Minister has not already got the necessary authority from the Government, he should immediately seek that authority to increase the price. He would need to give double, treble and even four times the maximum amount he ever paid for land to get any kind of decent land for forestry. I believe, with some slight knowledge of the values of land, that you will get no land fit for planting at less than a net price of probably £12 an acre and the Minister should go up at least to that figure.

It is very poor land that will not bring from £12 to £20 per acre at present, without any buildings or anything else, and the Minister cannot expect to get land capable of growing good timber unless he is prepared to pay a fair price for it. He will get the land, if he is prepared to pay for it. He will get it voluntarily and will not need to use his compulsory powers. Good land will grow good timber. Poor land, a lot of which he has been acquiring in the past, will grow poor timber at best. It never has grown good timber and never will in the future. Taking a period of a hundred years, it will work out far more economical from the State point of view to acquire good land than to acquire poor land which will cost as much or more to clean and plant as the better type of land.

If you are prepared to pay a decent price, you will get sufficient land to satisfy even Deputy Cowan or any section of the country in the matter of land for planting. If you are not prepared to pay a decent price, you will not get it. You will get tenth-rate land, or seventh, eight or ninth-rate land, the kind you have been acquiring mainly in the past. Some good parcels of land were got here and there on estates acquired by the Land Commission where the forestry division got in first. It is a peculiar thing that, although they are all one Department, there are two sections, and I have known instances of a farm of land being offered to the Forestry Department in the first instance and when they consulted the Land Commission the Land Commission said that some of the land was suitable for their purposes. The forestry division, however, held on to a portion of very good arable land on that farm. I have no objection to that, but I am sure the Department of Lands did not like it very much.

There is no reason whatever why there should be two sections acquiring land. There should be one group of officers in the Minister's Department, whether Lands or Forestry, for the acquiring of all the land. If it is suitable for planting, it can be handed over to the Forestry division, and if it is suitable for division amongst uneconomic holders, let the Land Commission deal with it, but do not have two separate sections acquiring land, one on the Minister's right hand and the other on his left. That is all wrong. The same officers are involved under one Minister and they are provided for in two separate Estimates. They are paid out of the one pool and the one political head is in charge of both. There should be only one section acquiring land on behalf of the Land Commission, the senior branch, and what is not suitable for division amongst uneconomic holders should be handed to the Forestry division. There is no reason why Forestry should not have their experts to examine that land before it is accepted for planting.

The Minister mentioned that it might be necessary to use compulsion and said that his powers in this respect would be used very sparingly. We hope they will, and we hope that it will not be necessary to use them in any single respect in the matter of acquiring land for forestry purposes, because there are a great number of objections to it. I cannot, for the life of me, see, reading through this Estimate, how the Minister is to increase this year the number of acres planted last year. He is not getting any more money and he cannot do it without money. The Minister mentioned twice or three times that, if he needed to, he would come to the House with Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Blowick

What is unusual in that?

Mr. Allen

It is most unusual in relation to the original Estimate. It is the first time in my experience here, unless there was some new departure or some new service to be added to a Department, that I have heard a Minister announce, in introducing his main Estimate for the year, that he proposes to come to the House with Supplementary Estimates in respect of the headings provided for in that main Estimate. If the Minister were doing his job, if he were properly advised by his Department, if he had any policy whatever in relation to forestry and if his policy in that regard was not like all the other policies of the Coalition Government, changing and varying from day to day, it would not be necessary, and the Minister in charge of the Department is just fooling himself. His Government have not made up their mind yet what money they can spend on forestry in the present year. This Estimate was brought in and circulated for the purpose of fooling the Dáil and for no other purpose.

Mr. Blowick

Now we are getting places.

Mr. Allen

It was brought in to fool the Dáil. It is the Estimate which the Minister for Finance agreed to and it is the only Estimate he would allow in relation to forestry. His orders went out to each section to keep down the Estimate as low as possible and the Minister now tells the House, not once but twice or three times, that he intends to come to the House in respect of three different main headings in this Estimate with Supplementary Estimates during the year. He will come if the Minister for Finance allows him to come and he will spend only what is in the Estimate unless the Minister for Finance allows him to spend more. Why not be honest and tell the truth? There would be no necessity for the Minister to introduce Supplementary Estimates for the heading under which money is provided here if he or the Government had any settled policy on forestry and if they were honest enough to write into that Book of Estimates the total cost of acquiring 16,000 acres of land this year and of planting, as he said, 25,000 acres of land. There is no provision in this Estimate for that.

Everyone who knows anything about forestry knows quite well that the Minister has not enough money in this Estimate to provide staff to plant 25,000 acres, to acquire sufficient land to plant 25,000 acres this year, to buy seeds. He has not the seedlings. He has not the plants. He has nothing that would allow him to plant 25,000 acres this year. He is just fooling the country and the House by telling them that he proposes and hopes to do that in the present year. I hope he will. Every section of the House, everyone on this side of the House, hopes the Minister and his Department will be able to plant 25,000 acres in the present year but there is no indication in this Book of Estimates that he will do it.

The Minister acquired 3,700 acres last year. He proposes to acquire 16,000 acres this year. I only trust it is possible. We were told by the Minister or a Deputy on the Government side that it is estimated that there are 1,500,000 acres of land available for planting. Is that estimate the result of a survey? Did the Minister tell the House that it was estimated that there are 1,500,000 acres available for planting and, if so, is that the result of a survey of all the land of this country or is it merely an estimate that is in the Minister's mind or is it the target that the Government are aiming at to have planted during their period of office? We know that it cannot be done and that it will not be done.

Timber conversion is estimated to cost £6,940 as against £5,800 last year —an increase of £1,000. That will be spent in addition to the £5,800 that was spent last year on timber conversion although the Minister stressed more than once in his opening statement that the Appropriations-in-Aid that he hopes to get from that activity will be much less in the coming year than in the last year. I wonder how he reconciles that.

Deputy Derrig adverted to the fact that the Minister for Agriculture proposes to spend a substantial amount of public funds in rehabilitating land that needs drainage and manuring. The average cost per acre was put at £20. Eight pounds of that is to go in manuring and £12 on drainage. We all know that much of the land that needs drainage is not first-class land.

Mr. Blowick

That is where you are wrong.

Mr. McQuillan

What about the Brosna?

Mr. Allen

As far as my knowledge goes, it is not. It varies in different parts of the country.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Did the Deputy ever see the Brosna?

Mr. Allen

I will admit straightaway that there is any amount of good land that needs drainage but I will back my knowledge against anyone else's in this matter and I will say that most of the land that needs drainage is not first, second or third class land. It is land of an inferior type. Certainly, most of the land in certain parts of Leinster that need drainage is of an inferior type.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is troubled to know what the drainage of land, that comes for consideration on the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, has to do with this?

Mr. Allen

I am hoping to relate it if you will have patience with me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am very patient with the Deputy.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy will have a job to relate it.

Mr. Allen

I am hoping to relate the fact that the Minister for Agriculture proposes to put into operation a scheme to rehabilitate certain types of land by drainage to this Estimate. Most of the land that needs drainage is third, fourth, fifth and sixth-rate land. Three-fourths of it is land of an inferior type.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that five or six times.

Mr. Allen

I shall not repeat it any more.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope not.

Mr. Allen

That is the type of land that the Minister for Lands proposes to acquire for the purpose of forestry.

Mr. Blowick

It is not.

Mr. Allen

It is so.

Mr. Blowick

Flooded land for forestry?

Mr. Allen

Inferior type of land. Inferior, almost valueless land is the type of land that the Minister and his Department have been acquiring for forestry over all the years. Is not that correct?

Mr. Blowick

Not flooded land.

Mr. Allen

Is it not correct that it was an inferior type of land?

Mr. Blowick

Maybe inferior but certainly not flooded. If the Deputy would plant trees in water, I would not.

Mr. Allen

The Minister for Agriculture proposes to spend a lot of money improving hill lands.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to come to forestry. I have listened to Deputy Allen repeating himself time and time again. I shall not continue to be lenient. The Deputy will come to the Estimate.

Mr. Allen

I am keeping as close as I can to the Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not succeeding.

Mr. Allen

I want to point out to the Minister that he has no hope of acquiring these inferior lands in future unless he is prepared to pay ths additional value they will have when the £12 is spent on them. I want to point that out. The lands that will be improved under a scheme that will be in operation in the present year will not be available to the Minister in future. I want to point that out to him and let him chew it and think it out.

Mr. Blowick

You are chewing it and that is enough.

Mr. Allen

It is all-important that the Minister for Lands and the Government as a whole should think out that problem because it is a problem that will affect this country in the future. There is no doubt about it in the world.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I take it that the Deputy is against reclamation.

Mr. Allen

I am referring to the reclamation scheme proposed by the Minister for Agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

The reclamation scheme does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Allen

I do not propose to mention it any more, unless the Deputies opposite do.

There is not much else that I want to say on this Estimate except to ask the Minister when he is acquiring land in the course of the year to be careful not to acquire land, if possible at all, by means of the compulsory powers he has. That is all-important. That is a matter for the Minister purely and simply. He is the responsible person and he can decide it himself as I am sure he will.

Another question is that concerning shelter belts and the £10 grant. The £10 grant has been in operation for some years now and it is about time that the Minister increased it somewhat. He mentioned the reduced value of money and the Minister for Finance has told us repeatedly that money has only 50 per cent. or less of its pre-war value. That £10 grant was an encouragement and is a certain encouragement still to people who plant land that previously carried timber which was felled during the war, but by the time the work is carried out if there is a substantial amount of fencing and draining to be done £10 is of very little use, and the Minister will know that very well. I would suggest to the Minister that that grant might be increased. A big amount of the best timber that grew in this country in the past and that was felled during the war grew in the vales and the dells, and the sooner those lands that carried heavy, good, strong timber in the past are replanted the better.

I want, further, to suggest to the Minister that he should make one of his foresters available to give free advice to anyone who may require it for the planting of areas that formerly carried timber or of virgin ground. Anyone who is prepared to undertake the planting of an acre or upwards of virgin ground should have an officer of the Department available to give free advice. The grant should also be increased. If a man is prepared to plant two or three acres the grant should be increased proportionately. The more he planted the more per acre he should get. The Minister should see the wisdom of that because, as in the matter of housing, unless private individuals are prepared to come in and do their share the Minister and his Department, with the best goodwill and the best efforts in the world, will unfortunately be unable to replace in an ordinary lifetime the amount of timber lost to the country during the recent war and during the 1914-18 War.

With regard to the question of species of timber, it is of importance that the Department should plant more hardwoods than they have been planting in the past. Their efforts are directed to the extent of 90 per cent., as far as I can see, to softwoods while ash, oak, beech and elm are neglected. They are scarcely planted at all, and they are the type suitable for the heavy lands, the dells and vales that I mentioned a while ago. You want rich, strong land for hardwood timbers for they will not grow in light upper lands, and the Department should acquire that type of land, whatever they pay for it, to grow hardwoods. Hardwoods are going almost out of existence and people in the sawmilling industry will tell you that it is almost impossible at the present time to purchase either ash or elm timber. There is a great scarcity of it in different parts of the country, and the sooner the Department wakens up to that the better. Future generations will blame them for their lack of foresight. All the beech, ash and elm has been cut down during the recent emergency. That is quite true. Men engaged in making farm carts told me that they cannot buy elm or ash within a 20 miles radius of where they live at the present time and it is important that consideration and immediate consideration should be given to that by the Forestry Department. They have not planted hardwoods to any extent in the past. I do not know what the proportions are, but I do know that the proportion of spruce, Japanese larch, European larch and fir, all softwood types, has been high and they are less valuable timber and less utilised in the country than hardwoods.

Mr. McQuillan

Which is the most valuable?

Mr. Allen

Hardwoods are the most valuable, for they take about double or treble the number of years to grow and are therefore expensive to produce. It takes three times the number of years to produce mature hardwood than mature softwood and therefore it must be more valuable in that way.

Mr. McQuillan

Why?

Mr. Allen

It is more scarce than softwood.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a cross-examination.

Mr. Allen

Softwood is more used in building, but the type of softwood we grew was inferior. A lot of the softwood we grew and that the Department has been concentrating on, the timber that comes to maturity in 30 or 35 years, was inferior timber and scarcely suitable for use in the building of houses, if it was suitable at all. I would say that 99 out of 100 engineers and architects in the country would condemn it. If we want to produce a timber which will be of use to the country in the future, we should after careful consideration produce the species that is known to give a type of timber that can be utilised in the building of houses and in all the other activities in which timber is used in this country. Above all, hardwood should not be allowed to die out and become extinct. The Department of Forestry should see to it. They are responsible because the private planter who plants shelter belts is more inclined to plant softwoods than hardwoods because they are of faster growth and are more certain to produce a crop than the hardwoods. The hardwoods are more expensive to grow and are more liable to loss than softwood timbers, so he will concentrate on producing softwood. The private producer who is prepared to plant shelter belts or anything over half an acre should be encouraged by giving him a higher grant than he has been given by the Department over the past years.

Mr. J. Flynn

For years I and other Deputies have been agitating for afforestation schemes in South Kerry, and I am glad that the Minister has taken steps to establish a forestry centre in our district. It is a step in the right direction and we regard it as a test case. What I mean by that is that, so far as afforestation in our county is concerned—and our county is mainly suitable for afforestation—that forestry centre can be developed and several centres in other areas in South Kerry established.

I followed closely some of the points made in this debate. I agree with Deputy Derrig that the proposed scheme of the Minister for Agriculture will sooner or later—at a later date, I expect—be co-related with this forestry scheme. In other words, if you have an extensive drainage scheme you are bound to have in the same area an afforestation scheme. In that way, both Departments would, in my opinion, have to co-operate. Drainage is practically summer and autumn work; afforestation schemes are usually winter work. In that way the rural workers can participate in either scheme. From that point alone, I suppose that these schemes will be co-related as time goes on.

In regard to the planting of what is called non-plantable land, that is, land on mountain slopes, I entirely disagree with Deputy Allen's statement that hardwood timber cannot be grown on uplands or in mountainous districts. Some of the best pine and larch that have been produced in this country were grown in our county on the slopes of the mountains and at a high altitude. I entirely disagree with the statement that it is only in the valleys that the best hardwood timber is found.

I would remind the House, with regard to the forestry belt in Killarney, that last year a serious fire occurred in that area and that a valuable section of forestry was destroyed. Our Forestry-Department should, as is the case in other countries, have forestry stewards or guards or caretakers. I understand that the fire was caused by a picnic party and that splendid trees of 70 years' growth and upwards were-destroyed. If we are going to the expense of establishing an extensive forestry belt we should take precautions to look after it properly by appointing suitable men to look after it.

I am not at all certain that the Minister can get all the land he has mentioned in his Estimate. Nevertheless, I refer to that one case as a casein point. I travelled that area in 1936 and 1937 with the then Forestry Director. It has taken from 1936 to the present day to get a scheme started in that area.

Mr. Blowick

Can the Deputy say if the then director recommended forestry for that area?

Mr. J. Flynn

He gave me to understand at the time that he was recommending it.

Mr. Blowick

To give you to understand is one thing but to recommend it is another thing.

Mr. J. Flynn

We travelled miles of that district. If it can be done after the lapse of that period of years why should we not go further and develop other schemes in the Kenmare and Iveragh districts of South Kerry? As I say, this is a test case. I appreciate everything that has been done recently in regard to this matter. I am sure the people whom I represent will appreciate the action of the Minister and of the Forestry Department in taking steps to establish this centre. However, I am anxious that you will go even further.

I disagree entirely with what Deputy Allen has said in regard to compulsory powers. Nobody is anxious for compulsory powers but, in that particular case, it was imperative on the Forestry Department to take action. The land in that district trebled in price and the Department had to seek compulsory powers to acquire the land at a reasonable price. In such a case, compulsory powers are reasonable and necessary. The Minister should not hesitate to use compulsory powers where people demand an exorbitant price. Nobody is anxious for compulsory powers but there are occasions when they must be sought, such as, for instance, in regard to housing. If you want to advance in this country, and you reach a stage when you are up against it and you meet with serious opposition, you must make use of compulsory powers and get down to business. We are fed up, as Deputy Cowan has said, with talk about what may happen or may not happen. That is not the way to do business.

Mr. Blowick

Hear hear.

Mr. J. Flynn

We must get down to work. By the efforts of the Minister and the efforts of the Department, we have advanced in this case. Let me say that I hope it is only one of many as far as our county, and the country in general, are concerned.

I wish the Minister every success and I appreciate the work he has done.

Mr. McQuillan

In this debate, as in similar debates in the past, much emphasis has been laid on the value of afforestation. I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House in emphasising its importance much further. I have very little criticism to make because anybody who knows anything about afforestation will understand that it is a matter that cannot be accomplished overnight. However, what we want to see are signs that this afforestation campaign will materialise within a specified period. Obviously, to have a first-class afforestation scheme on foot, it is necessary to have nursuries for seedlings. It is in that respect that I would criticise the Minister. I understood from him that he had approximately 300 acres available for nursery purposes and that his intention is to increase that area. If that afforestation scheme is to be got going within a reasonable time it is necessary for him to acquire three times that quantity of land.

Personally, I look upon afforestation as one of the key solutions to unemployment and emigration, especially on the western seaboard. Up to this we have looked upon agriculture as our main industry. We could develop afforestation as another main industry equal in importance to agriculture. We all know that any country which is dependent on one major industry will be in a very bad state if that industry goes down. It is only natural, therefore, that we should have another major industry to depend upon if one industry is hit by world conditions or adverse markets abroad. Afforestation would provide an ideal key or main industry side by side with agriculture. It is a matter of ordinary common sense or prudence that any country which hopes to have an industrial future, or indeed a future of any kind, should ensure that the raw material for industry is available. If we are to develop industry and are to be dependent upon supplies from abroad in order to foster that industry, then we are up against world conditions straightaway. In afforestation we have one example of what we can do with our own raw material.

Much has been said about the various articles which are made or processed from timber. I do not propose to go into that. What I really got up to speak about was the West of Ireland and, in particular, the Gaeltacht areas. Certain people have stated that there are areas in Connemara and other places in the West which are not suitable for afforestation. Some of these people I believe are experts. We should not always follow the advice of experts. That is not taking away from their use or their value, but they have been found to be wrong in the past, especially in connection with afforestation. It is a well-known fact in connection with that portion of France facing the Bay of Biscay which is subject to terrible storms and where the land had been inundated with sand for years, the experts stated that the land could never be planted. I think it was Napoleon who was responsible for turning down the experts' advice. I do not know whether the Minister has any aspirations to be a Napoleon, but at any rate he could take a chance.

Mr. Blowick

I might finish up in St. Helena.

Mr. McQuillan

That particular portion of the coast was planted. First of all they put down the seedlings and, in order to protect them, they had to be covered with seaweed for a long period. When the outer fringe of timber started to grow it was warped and twisted, but it provided protection for the inner belts of forestry which were planted at a later stage. The inner plantation was protected from the storms and as a result that portion of France to-day is one of the richest in the country. We have also the example of Scotland.

It is acknowledged in Scotland to-day that there are three solutions for emigration and poverty in portions ot that country—afforestation, hydro-electrification and tourism. Afforestation is put first on the list. In Scotland, it is intended to plant all the bogs and hillsides and marshy land. The people concerned know that there are difficulties ahead of them, but they are prepared to face up to them. In his opening statement the Minister mentioned that the Forestry Department were now the proud possessors of a bulldozer, as if that was something to be proud of. There are thousands of bulldozers employed at afforestation work in Scotland.

Even from the employment angle, would it not be much better to have men at home working on afforestation than to see them going in droves weekly to Britain? Every man who goes abroad is a loss to this country. Then there is another way of looking at it. Many men and women who leave this country for work in Britain send their savings home. That money which they send home helps to send up the cost of living here, so that all the efforts of the Government to reduce the cost of living will go for nought unless they tackle this problem of emigration and in afforestation they have an ideal solution for it. All sections of people are interested in the Gaeltacht so that it may be preserved from extinction. There is no better way of doing that than by starting afforestation in a big way in the Gaeltacht. It would mean a large increase in the number of people employed. Apart from the employment angle, you would have an increase in agricultural produce in order to feed these workers, so that not alone would you be helping to increase the national wealth, but you would be increasing the farmers' wealth also, because their output would have to be increased in order to feed the extra population engaged on afforestation.

I think it was Deputy Mongan mentioned Ballinahinch. I happen to know that area fairly well. At present there is great talk of Ballinahinch Castle being put up for sale as a tourist hotel. I would throw out the suggestion to the Minister that he should consider taking it over as a forestry school. It is situated right in the heart of a country which is ideal for afforestation. It would be a great kicking-off ground, you might say, because the country for miles around is eminently suited for afforestation.

I think it was Deputy Allen who stated that hardwood was more important from the point of view of commercial timber than softwood. That is complete nonsense to my mind, because softwood is most important from a commercial point of view. I agree with Deputy Allen, however, that hardwood should be grown in proportion. I am not going to say what the proportion should be. It is for the experts to say what amount of planting there should be of oak, elm, beech and ash. There should be reasonable quantities planted.

Ash is valuable from the sports point of view. As one associated with the national games, I would like to advocate the planting of considerable quantities of ash. Our national game of hurling depends on ash being available. At times great difficulty is experienced in procuring the right type, and sufficient quantities, of ash.

One of the most important things about this afforestation campaign is the publicity end of it. I think that, until we make everybody in the country afforestation conscious, we will never get anywhere. I believe that in Greece the position after the last war was that most of the timber and afforestation in the country was destroyed. The stage has now been reached there that the young people are taking such an interest in planting that young trees are being made available to them by the State. They are vying with one another in the villages and in the different localities in carrying out planting. Of course, that will not be commercial planting. It will, however, add to the beauty of the countryside and will provide shelter. It is absolutely necessary that the same thing should be done here. The State can never hope to be responsible for clothing once more the entire countryside in timber. A lot will depend on planting by private individuals, but so far there has been a deplorable lack of initiative on the part of private individuals to undertake a planting campaign. The reason, to my mind, is that they know absolutely nothing about the value of afforestation or of timber.

There should be a small plantation around every farmer's house. It would be ideal for shelter and would add to the appearance of the house. There are many houses throughout the country to-day and you do not even see a bush in the vicinity of one of them. In my opinion, a publicity campaign is the only solution. America is the big country for publicity stunts. I think it would be money well spent if we got some kind of a publicity campaign on foot that would wake the people up to the advantages of afforestation. We must sell them the idea of afforestation, and until that is done we will not get anywhere.

Deputy Moylan talked about publicity. He referred to the fact that the Clann na Poblachta Party gave publicity to afforestation. I remember distinctly Deputy Moylan's publicity some years ago in the case of afforestation. I read his speeches, and the publicity that he gave to it was anything but of the hopeful sort. He referred mostly to the fact that there was no netting wire available and that we had no shovels or picks—that there was nothing available. That was during the period of the emergency. I do not want to blame Fianna Fáil for not planting 20,000 or 25,000 acres during that period, but we must remember that during the war years, in England, they continued to plant trees and to carry out afforestation work at the rate of 30,000 acres a year. That was done by Britain at a time when she felt she was going to be invaded. Here we blow a lot because we are putting 4,000 acres under afforestation.

Apart from anything else, the new drainage and reclamation scheme cannot be divorced from afforestation. As far as drainage is concerned, timber is one of the ideal solutions for the problem of flooding. We know that, in areas where you have a mountainside on which there is no timber, when heavy rain comes it washes down all the soil and strips the mountainside bare. The soil is washed into the valleys. If these mountainsides were planted they would absorb the water like a sponge. Afforestation acts like a sponge. The worst type of land for holding water is grass land. I would advocate that, in as many areas as possible, where drainage will be done and where the land may not, possibly, be of the highest value agriculturally, it should be taken over for afforestation purposes. I make that suggestion to the Minister. The ultimate value of that land will be much greater than if it were used for agriculture.

I have not the figures with me, but I know that the return from an acre of matured spruce and other timbers amounts roughly to £1,000. I am certain that was the pre-war figure. The value has gone up considerably since then. If you compare the value of an acre of land under afforestation—of land drained under this land reclamation scheme—at say over £1,000 for the timber on it when it matures, with what you would get from that acre of land now, even though the value of land has gone up considerably, I think that should make afforestation an attractive proposition to the Department of Forestry. I hope the Minister will go into that matter.

To come to my own constituency, we have quite a lot of land there that is suitable for afforestation. In the last few months various offers of land for planting have been made. These have come from Slieve Bawn in the Strokes-town area. The people there had not even to be asked. They came along and made offers of land ranging from ten acres up to 100 acres. The ideal thing about these offers is that all this land is adjoining. In other words, the Minister need not be afraid that he would have to take ten acres here and then go ten miles for another few acres. That, I suggest, eliminates all the talk there has been about taking compulsory powers. If the people realise the value of afforestation they will be anxious to co-operate in any scheme that is put forward. There is another area suitable for planting. It is in the region of Mount Mary near Ballygar. There is a lot of marshy land there that can never be made into good agricultural land. It is land that, in my opinion, would be useful for afforestation purposes. If the object of the Department be to grow only first-class commercial timber, then, of course, a lot of this type of land that is being offered to the Minister will not be accepted. I think it was Deputy Moylan who stated that it would be better to suffer a loss by draining and planting this land than to have it going to waste. I do not believe that you would suffer any financial loss at all.

Our aim is to leave something for the next generation. The idea up to the present has been somewhat short-sighted—we want an immediate return for the money we invest in any project. We cannot hope for an immediate return from the money invested in afforestation. That return will come to future generations who will thank the present generation for its energy and initiative in starting afforestation. But we will get a return in our time by keeping our young people at home by offering them permanent employment at a decent wage. There is no other means by which they can get that permanent employment. In these poor areas, especially in the West, no nibbling at the problem will solve it. Small cottage industries, glasshouses— they all help, but they do not get past the outer ridge of the problem. Until we get afforestation going in the West we will have a stream of emigration.

I have often talked to men about to go away and I have asked them why they will not stay at home when there is a certain amount of work for them to do. Very often their answer is that that work will last for six weeks on a bog drain or five weeks on a bog road and then they will be out of work for a fortnight or three weeks. If they are in the good grace of the ganger they may get another week or a fortnight. They switch over in April or May to working for farmers for a couple of months but they have no definite guarantee of employment the whole year round.

We are going to develop, I hope in a big way, our peat industry. The cutting and saving of turf take place in the summer months. That will employ numbers of our people during that period. The winter months are suitable for afforestation and these men working on the turf scheme could be switched to afforestation. If that matter is considered by the Minister, I am sure he will see there is reason attached to it.

I should like to repeat this as regards the West of Ireland. Do not accept as final any expert advice that may be given to you. If the Minister wants proof of that, I can give it to him from the most eminent writers who have dealt with the marvellous work done in France. If any other proof were needed, I can instance where people in a responsible position refused to be guided by the experts; they took it upon themselves to chance this work and they proved that they were right in spite of the experts. The conditions in France are far worse than they are in the West of Ireland. Bad and all as the storms are from the Atlantic facing Connemara and along the west coast generally, they are nothing to what happens in France along the Bay of Biscay. If France can do a job of afforestation along her exposed coastline, I do not see why Ireland cannot do it in the west.

I hope that this business of getting the nurseries going will be successful and that the Minister will come back to the House with a Supplementary Estimate. I am sure if he does he will get co-operation from all sides and will get the money that he requires for this urgent work.

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Nuair a glactar eastát agus nuair a deintear roinnt idir na daoine sa cheantar is minic a bhíos píosa foraiseachta ar an dteorainn. Leagtar gach crann ag na feirmeoirí nua agus ní cuirtear an dlí i bhfeidhm, chun na crainn óga a chur. Sa chaoi sin deintear an-scrios agus bíonn an fhoraiseacht ag dul i laghad.

When Deputy Allen talked about planting arable land the Minister for Lands and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance were shocked at the suggestion. And this is the Government that declares they will plant so many million acres with trees! Let us be practical on this whole question and let the Government indicate to us, through the Minister, where these millions of acres are to be found. Let each Deputy go into his constituency, as I shall go into mine, and examine the land position there and find out where are these thousands of acres. Deputies from the west and from the east, Deputies now in the House, know from practical experience that, when an estate is divided, along the boundary of that estate there are a number of acres of forest and portion of that forest is put in with a farm. It has been the practice for years that the farmer knocks down every tree and does not plant a tree in its place. There never has been an enforcement of replanting. I do not see how it is going to be done now. In Westmeath there are a number of Mayo men who got farms at Ballinagall, near Mullingar, and they have complained to me that the Forestry Department are planting good land in Ballinagall with trees. Deputy Lehane says that he does not see that there can be any conflict between the interests of agriculture and forestry. There is a conflict, and a big conflict.

Mr. C. Lehane

Not if you utilise the waste land.

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

If the Government try to put into operation the compulsory acquisition of land all over the State in order to plant hundreds of thousands of acres, they will be up against a very big problem. I have seen land divided in County Roscommon and in my own county and if you were to suggest that a considerable portion of an estate should be held for forestry, you would be lynched. There is no use in trying to plant trees where, as the saying goes, a snipe would die of cold feet. That is not the sort of land that grows good timber. We all know that, during the war, in the Midlands and in the eastern and western counties trees were bought and cut down and farmers took in hundreds of thousands of pounds for those trees. Those trees were grown on the best of land—oak, ash, beech and elm. Their circumference was immense and they could be seen in Meath, Westmeath, Mayo, on the drive to Athlone and the south. To say that one can go into Connemara and grow trees there 150 feet high and with so many feet of a circumference is altogether ridiculous.

Mr. McQuillan

Who wants to do that?

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Apparently Clann na Poblachta want to do it.

Mr. C. Lehane

Would the Deputy answer a question? Does the Deputy suggest that there is no land at present not in profitable use which is suitable for afforestation purposes? That is the case I made.

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

I am as keen on afforestation as any Deputy. I belong to a small Gaelic society and every year that society collects funds with which it subsequently buys and plants trees. When we go into a farmer's land it is not down to the snipe walks we go. The land he gives us must be developed and it must be fairly good land. In the 1946 Forestry Act there is a section which says that one must replant. There is complete evasion of that section. I am not criticising the Minister for that but I put the suggestion that that section should be rigidly enforced. I have seen thousands of pounds worth of timber cut in my constituency and those who cut it have gone down to the snipe walks and thrown a few hundred trees in there—trees which can never grow, They have turned the areas where they cut into pasture. That is a problem one is up against all over the country.

There is a conflict of interests and that conflict cannot be resolved very easily. I suggest that every Deputy should examine his own particular area to find out what the possibilities are. Let us call it "waste" land for a moment. There is a certain amount of such land. Now that land must be developed and drained. There must be a certain depth of soil in it. It would be better to make it serve some useful purpose rather than leave it growing a lot of rushes. It must be put into a state where it will be fit for planting. I agree with the suggestions put forward that we should examine the experiments carried out in France and Scotland. I have read about those experiments. They had to begin with bent grass, shrubs and so on. Eventually they succeeded in afforestation but it took them years to do it. It has been contended here that there is no fencing. There is plenty of fencing now and there is no longer any excuse for non-enforcement as regards replanting.

After Munich certain English firms came over here in 1938 and they bought up all the ash they could get. They bought a considerable quantity of ash which we commonly describe as "ditch timber". But there was no enforcement of the section as regards replanting. A considerable quantity of commercial timber has been cut down in the Midlands and around the east coast and there has been no replanting of any kind. I do not agree with Mr. Carrigan that we have too many ditches and too many hedges. I think our hedges and ditches should be increased because they are beneficial as regards climate and they help to prevent soil erosion. I think the people who compiled the statistics have not taken into consideration the timber in our ditches and hedges. It is quite considerable in amount. I would like to see shelter belts, hedges and ditches developed to a much greater extent. The Land Commission have done something in that respect by means of land division.

There are some particulars which I wish to get from the Minister. Possibly he may not be able to give them to me now. Has any progress been made in the acquisition of more land in the Castlepollard forestry area and the Clonhugh forestry area? What progress has been made in the Kinturk area as regards the land proposed to be acquired from the Sacred Heart Order? I would like to point out the fact that there there is a considerable amount of turbary involved. Is it proposed to acquire that turbary together with the land to be replanted? A number of people have banks there and I suggest they should be left those banks until the turf is completely cut away. If it is then possible to develop the subsoil to any extent subsequently it can be developed for afforestation. It would be a hardship on these people to take away their turbary. There is plenty of other land available in the area on which to carry out this forestry scheme. I would also like to know what progress has been made in the Granard and the Ballinagall forestry area?

I want to emphasise again the necessity for compelling those who cut timber to replant. That is particularly essential in the Midlands. These people made thousands out of the timber they cut and they should be compelled to put back on the land an equal number of trees to that out of which they made such tremendous profits during the war.

Mr. Browne

I want to congratulate the Minister on putting into operation this scheme of afforestation. I agree with Deputy McQuillan that that is one way of solving our emigration problem. In accordance with Deputy Kennedy's suggestion that we should acquaint the Minister with the situation as regards our own particular constituencies, I can tell the Minister that there are thousands of acres of suitable land in my constituency. I believe that it is land suitable for afforestation and I believe that it can be made useful and productive. Every year thousands of young men are leaving the West of Ireland because there is no employment for them at home. I believe that afforestation would keep them at home and I would suggest to the Minister that instead of taking an area of 1,000 acres he should take four areas of 250 acres each. That would help to give the local people employment near their homes. If the young men could get employment at home the possibility is that our young girls would remain here. The young girls have to leave this country simply because the boys have no employment to get at home. When there are two, three, four or five boys in a house in an area such as I have mentioned there is no alternative but for the young girls to leave also. I believe that if forestry on a big scale is started it will have the effect of keeping the young boys and girls at home simply because more money will be available for circulation which will give them an opportunity of living in their own houses in their own areas.

Coming back to the question of the suitability of the timber that will be grown, I am not prepared to discuss that because I have not sufficient knowledge. I am sure the experts of the Department engaged in forestry will be able to decide the question as to the most suitable timber for plantation— oak, ash, beech or elm. I would certainly bring before the Minister the necessity of timber especially grown for egg case material. After 25 years of native Government we find that we have to import the timber for cases for exporting eggs. Practically all the timber used to-day for exporting such things as fowl and eggs has to be imported. The value of every egg case that leaves this country, from the point of view of the timber and the employment given for the making of that case, averages about 3/6. That is a huge amount of money leaving this country. If sufficient timber had been planted 25 years ago when forestry was started all that money would have been saved to-day or would have been spent in our own country. I, therefore, make a special appeal for timber for egg case material.

I agree with Deputy McQuillan on one point of view. In my constituency, like Galway, we have a large number of lodges and mansions spread over the area which are more or less derelict. I believe those will be a help for the housing and operating of the scheme of forestry. In my area if afforestation were put into operation the possibilities are that the bog areas would be improved from the point of view that where plantation takes place I am informed that it will have the effect of draining the area for miles and miles around. I am just quoting the view of people who seem to know something about it.

I want to make a special case for my part of the country. If afforestation is going to take place I hope that the Minister will not overlook the area I represent. I may mention Ballygar, Belmullet and Achill. We have plenty of land there which is to-day derelict. Every facility is there and there will be no trouble as far as acquisition is concerned. There may be portions of it in rundale but I am satisfied that if the Minister wishes to acquire land which is even under the rundale system he will have no trouble in doing so. Not a fortnight ago a farmer told me that he had 1,000 acres of land, some of which may have been grazing land. He told me that if a forestry scheme were carried out he would be prepared to sell his 1,000 acres of land. I asked him what he would be inclined to take for this land. The price that he would be agreeable to accept was the surprising part of it. I do not say that he would get what he asked for it but from the point of view of what he would expect per acre there would be very little trouble in coming to an agreement. The Minister would have very little trouble in those areas I have mentioned and he should not overlook them when carrying out his afforestation scheme. No one knows more than he about the young people who have to emigrate because he lives along the border of those areas. He sees thousands of those boys and girls leaving the country for nine months of the year. If the scheme is put into operation he will keep at home at least 80 per cent. of those boys and girls who leave the country, doing the work in their own areas for their own country's sake.

Mr. Commons

I will not say very much in this debate because we have got into the habit of saying the same thing each year and there is not much to be added. The Forestry Debate in this House keeps to the same line of thought each year and even the same line of action as regards speed in planting more trees. However, the present Minister has set up a record, I believe, in that he has planted the highest number of acres of forest in the last year that ever was planted in this country. We are a long way from the target of 25,000 acres that the Government seems to have set itself out to accomplish. We will not blame them unduly, however, for their failure to reach that target in a short time because everybody knows that we need more seedlings and that it is practically impossible to get them now because all forests are depleted and nurseries where timber is used to add to the nation's wealth by exporting are, in turn, trying to restock their own depleted supplies. Therefore, they have not sufficient to sell to anybody else, However, the fact that there will be an increase of seed imported next year leads us to assume that another 1,000 or 2,000 acres may be added next year. Perhaps in four or five years the forestry situation will go ahead of its own accord, slowly we admit, but it will be coming nearer to something we should all like to see and have in this country. Now is not the time to blame anybody for what should have been done 25 or 30 years ago. In 1922 and 1923 if this country had set about the development of forestry in the proper way we should have plantations now up to 27, 28 and 30 years old which would be of immense value to this country. The unfortunate thing about our legislators at all times is that they will look to some scheme which will pay quick dividends in the following year or the year after or at least in five years.

Anybody with an ounce of sense in his head knows that nobody in this generation will ever gain any benefit from trees that are planted this year or next year, but posterity will reap the advantage of these plantations. There can be really no wealth derived from afforestation until we reach the stage of rotating forests, such as they have in the Scandinavian countries where, if a thousand acres are cut down this year, they are replanted next year, and the system is carried on in such a way that at the end of every 40 or 50 years the same ground is covered again. That is the only way in which real wealth can be derived from forestry, but a start must be made some time. There is no use in blaming anybody now for the neglect of past years. Our object should rather be to give as much encouragement and hope as we possibly can to the present Minister and to enable him to get all the things that are necessary for a proper scheme of afforestation.

I listened for some years back to the statements made on this question by the ex-Minister for Lands, Deputy Moylan. I always looked upon him as a very keen forester and I often thought that his intentions and ideas were much more concerned with afforestation than with schemes for the resettlement of land. He, however, happened to be Minister for Lands and his attitude generally was that it was impossible in the conditions which prevailed during his occupancy of that Ministry to do anything more than was being done. In fairness to him, I believe that if he had been Minister for Lands in the earlier years of the Fianna Fáil administration, he would have used much more force to promote afforestation, but still he cannot go scot-free from all blame for the poor progress made during the years he was Minister because, being a very forceful member of his Party, he should have exerted more pressure on the Department of Finance to see that the necessary funds were made available for more extensive schemes of afforestation. He always seemed to think that the scarcity of rabbit-netting was a real drawback in the operation of forestry schemes. Everybody knows that while rabbit-netting may be of great value in the protection of young trees, it will not keep rabbits out of forests; it may help but it will not succeed in entirely eliminating them. Therefore that is no excuse whatever. If he were honest enough to admit it, he should have said that the Fianna Fáil Party as a whole was not so much concerned with forestry and the Department of Finance was not willing to provide sufficient money to enable forestry schemes to be initiated on a satisfactory scale. I am glad to see that the present Minister has assured the House that if there is any possibility this year of increasing the acreage devoted to forestry, he will come to the Dáil with a Supplementary Estimate to provide the necessary fund. That is definitely encouraging, and while we may say that sufficient progress has not been made during the past year, having heard the reasons given by the Minister and having heard of the efforts made by the Minister for External Affairs to secure seeds and the necessary equipment for forestry work, we cannot lay too much blame on the Government for the slight increase in progress shown during the past year.

Coming from the western seaboard, I think the Minister should devote more attention to that area and should endeavour to provide there much needed employment by extending forestry operations. Everybody knows that there is a vast amount of unemployment in that area and that, in consequence, we have the greatest amount of emigration from it. The farms are small and congested and the people cannot make a living on them. Take for instance, the Barony of Erris and estates such as the Roy Carter Estate and the Bingham Estate where the congestion is the worst to be found in any place in Ireland. It would probably take £500,000 to resettle these people on suitable holdings. Why not, then, as an experiment, seeing that in present financial conditions £500,000 or £250,000 is a mere bagatelle devote £100,000 or £200,000 to replanting the waste mountainsides and the waste bogs there? Those of us who have travelled that countryside know that in some places you could travel along main roads for 14 to 20 miles without seeing a habitation of any kind and then suddenly you come along to find a small village at the butt of a mountain with people trying to live on holdings of 20 acres of poor land. Would it not be worth a trial to embark on a scheme of afforestation in these areas and, instead of trying to resettle these people on other lands, to provide them with an industry at their own back doors, as it were?

There are various opinions as to the type of land that is most suitable for forestry. Some people will say— Deputy Kennedy has just said it—that you want first-class land to produce first-class timber. Of course he may be right but I can guarantee, from my own personal experience, that first-class land can also produce a very poor class of timber whereas a very fine class of timber can be grown on second-class land, especially on cutaway bog. I have seen in my own village an instance of where two plantations were put down about ten years ago by one man. One plantation was planted in very good arable land but the other was planted in a piece of cutaway. The trees on the cutaway bog are now 20 feet high while the trees planted on the good arable land are not yet ten feet high. Both of them were planted by the same man and the trees planted—sitka spruce, European larch, etc. were of the same type. That goes to show that you do not necessarily require first-class land to produce first-class timber. Even so, if we could get 1,000,000 acres of land which is non-agricultural land planted, the produce of that 1,000,000 acres, while perhaps of not as much commercial value as timber, would be of immense value for wood pulp alone. We know that at the present time there is a big demand for timber for wood pulp and we know that second-rate timber is as useful for wood pulp as first-class timber.

From time to time we also hear the question asked as to what is the use of planting timber in wet land or snipe land. But it is not impossible to drain marshland. It is not impossible to see that the correct type of drains and watercourses are made even though it may be necessary to have them at a width of ten to 20 feet. It would be possible to make a start in that way and we all know, from what we have read, that plantations automatically raise the ground as they spring up and dry up the land on which they are planted. It has been proved that trees planted in very wet land leave that land quite dry in 50 or 60 years' time and often raise the level of the land as much as ten feet.

We are sometimes told that we should get expert advice on these matters but I am not at all too keen on or too much of a believer in the advice of such experts, particularly after an instance in my own county where two years ago experts of the Forestry Department condemned certain land as unfit for forestry. Last year a private firm of seed merchants and nursery-owners stepped in, took about 30 acres of that land and planted it with trees of their own. I have been told by an inspector sent there by the firm that no part of the land they have has produced more healthy or more promising plants than this particular land which was condemned before by an inspector from the Forestry Department. I wonder do the inspectors as a whole rely too much on what they learn from big volumes in their own comfortable offices or are they a bit slow to accept the advice of practical men who know from experience the capabilities of any particular district?

I have another instance of this inspectorial failure. There is a stretch of mountainside not far from my home, and when I was a small boy, about 1919, a Scottish firm came over and cut down about 60 acres of forest. That has never been replanted since. It was classified as unfit for plantation a very short time ago by inspectors of the Forestry Department; even though it produced first class timber 50 years ago, to-day it is not fit for plantation. There is something wrong somewhere. I wonder if, in this Department of which I have such suspicion, the dead hand of the Land Commission is beginning to stretch over to the Forestry Department. There has been an increase of 1,000 acres in the last year.

Mr. Blowick

Four thousand in the last year.

Mr. Commons

It is only 8,000. Seven thousand acres were planted in previous years and that was the highest figure. That increase saves them from being put on the same grade as their colleagues. These are instances which I can give from my own knowledge and experience and which are perfectly correct. Then there is this idea of not going into an area unless there are 300 or 500 acres. I think the minimum is 300. What is wrong with the Forestry Department taking over as low as 50 or 60 statute acres and planting it?

Mr. Blowick

Nothing.

Mr. Commons

Nothing should be wrong. I do not suppose there is, but up to date there seems to be an awful fear of going in to plant a small plantation, that it is not worth the trouble, with wire fencing and so forth, and that the Department would not be justified in taking it over. I know the Minister will take a serious view of that, as he knows that places of 100 and even 50 acres of forest planted in County Mayo—his constituency and mine—would give a fair amount of employment and be of great benefit to the people of the locality. He will find —and if he does not, whoever comes after him in years to come will find— that congestion and forestry can eventually help to cancel one another out, the furtherance of one helping to relieve the other. Everyone knows you cannot just stick down 100 acres of forest and leave it there and expect it to produce good commercial timber in 30 or 40 years. The trees have to be looked after, thinned out and undergrowth kept down, until they reach a certain stage. The figures I have show that in 100 acres of forest there are 1,680 cubic feet of thinnings to be taken out, valued at £2,000 per annum.

Mr. Blowick

That should be 1,000 acres.

Mr. Commons

That would be more like it. However, even at 1,000 acres, there would be a good market for the timber for fences, paling posts and pit props. The general outlook of forestry is so good that more encouragement and attention should be given to it by the Government than it has got. I know the present Minister is doing his very best and his colleagues in the Government do not seem to stint him in regard to money, as he has told us he can come back and get money any time he wants it to help in the work. Therefore I am hopeful that things may be better than they have been in the past.

Another thing that should be encouraged is planting by private individuals. There is nothing so beautiful as a small plantation, even at the end of a field or around a house. While we never had respect for the old landlords, if they had not done a certain amount of planting in their time we would have no trees now. It is unfortunate to have to say that, in my own constituency, the only good scheme of plantation carried out in the past 20 years was at Castlemagarrett estate, near Claremorris, by Lord Oranmore and Browne. Some 500 to 600 acres have been planted in the last 22 or 23 years. He has taken one-acre and two-acre plots and planted them with fertile, flourishing trees. He has picked out land that was no good for anything else, drained it and planted it, and the forest is beautiful to look at. Planting by private individuals should be encouraged, by an increase of the amount of the grant per acre. Ten pounds are not sufficient to encourage an individual to plant land. In the case of the small or middle-class farmer in the countryside, he cannot afford to plant, with the increased cost of forest plants at present. He cannot do very much for £10, and when he is supposed to fence the trees in a special manner the grant is not much good. If it could be doubled, it would give a certain amount of encouragement and would tempt men to plant in a better way than in the past.

The trouble in getting land seems to lie always in the fact that a piece of waste ground, 100, 200 or 1,000 acres in a locality may be available, but immediately it comes to the ear of somebody that the Government may step in to make use of it, it suddenly becomes mighty valuable. It was worthless ground before that, over which there may be commonage rights, and people begrudged paying rent and rates for it every year; but when a Government scheme is mentioned land not worth tuppence an acre becomes worth £5, £10 or even £20 an acre. The Minister has often said, and still says, he would prefer to get land without compulsion, but I welcome the statement he made to-day here, that he will use compulsory powers, if necessary, to acquire this type of land. He need not ever think he will get enough co-operation from the people who own sides of mountains and commonage rights, to allow him to carry on. We know that useless land suddenly becomes valuable when the owners think they can squeeze the Government. Everyone seems to think the Government a great paymaster, and a good development scheme can be held up for years because two or three individuals in the centre of commonage land hold out against the efforts of the Government to do something useful for the community.

I want to refer also to a particular group of workers, the forest workers, and to another section of the Forestry Department who, up to this day, seem to have got little or no consideration from any Government—the men who are called foresters. These are types of foremen over the ordinary forest workers, and there are not many of them employed by the Department at present. When a scheme of forestry in relation to, say, 200 acres of land is about to be embarked upon, these gentlemen are brought down by an inspector and told: "Here are 200 acres —go and plant them." In addition, I am informed that they are also burdened with the responsibility of paying the forestry labourers each week and of sending back reports as to the amount of work done, the amount of work to be done, the numbers of trees wanted and the amount of fencing wire, posts, spades and shovels and so on required. They have to keep an entire check of these.

These men are an unestablished body of civil servants. Following an open competitive examination, they do a course of training in the Forestry College at Avondale and are then sent out with no chance of reaping the benefits to which they are entitled. The rates of pay are by no means attractive and worst of all is the fact that these men have no pension rights, no matter how long they stay in the service. They have never been recognised as established civil servants. I believe that there is some sort of inquiry in progress at present with regard to their status, but it has been going on for the past seven years and it is time it reached a decision one way or the other, so that, if necessary, these men will have a chance of getting out of the country and going to England where they can become established civil servants and enjoy the benefits they are entitled to, benefits to which any other civil servant is entitled.

These men are very valuable and they have hard work to do because, when new recruits come in, these men have to teach them how to plant trees—the proper widths, the manner of setting them down and the depths at which they should be set. That work cannot be done by pen or pencil—it must be done by practical work; and these foresters have to teach that work to the recruits under their care. In the past few years, some of these men have fallen into bad health, and, in one or two cases, men have died as a result of hard work and exposed conditions. Their families have been left in complete destitution and only a whip-round amongst the men who know the conditions of the families has kept them from the workhouse.

I should like the Minister to take a special note of the conditions under which these men work. I am sure they have been brought to his attention already, and I know that these men have his sympathy because I know that he or any Minister would not want to see a useful body of men such as these deprived of any benefits which they should enjoy. They are a most useful body of men because on them falls the burden of carrying out the spade work in relation to the starting and rearing of the infant tree until the time comes when it can fend for itself. There are only 160 or 161 of these men in the country and they are entitled to the same status as other civil servants.

I hope the Minister's good and sincere efforts will meet with great success. In Scotland we see that, in Ross and Cromarty they are working with gigantic bulldozers and tractors, levelling waste land, bogland and swampland, land which for the past 200 years grew nothing but heather, bracken and furze, and they expect to have something like 2,500,000 acres of forest planted within the next five, six or ten years. That is a headline which we should keep our eyes on, because we, in this country, are blessed in a way in which people in other countries are not so lucky, that is, we have little or no erosion, or none involving any great harm. There may be some slight erosion in some parts but it is a fact that, on the mountainside of Croagh Patrick, there has not been a bit of erosion for the past 50 years. Even the boggy soil which is windswept by the Atlantic is still there. I do not suggest that you could grow forest trees so high up, but there are low valleys which could and should be used in a forestry scheme which should have been in operation for a long time. Such a scheme has several purposes. It provides a certain amount of employment; it does something from which the country will reap benefit in years to come; and it has the effect of beautifying the countryside and taking away the bleakness and barrenness of large stretches of infertile, useless land.

It has been said that there is a clash between forestry and agriculture, but it is a bit early in this country to think of any such clash, although that is not the case with regard to some countries in Europe. In Norway and Finland, the average farmer finds it much more profitable to plant ten, 15 or 20 acres of his finest land each year rather than to have it growing crops, and I understand that it will soon be necessary in one Scandinavian country to introduce legislation to prevent the farmers from planting land which should be used for agricultural purposes. We have 40 or 50 years yet before we need worry about that here, and, on the basis of the rate of progress so far, we would have 500 years to go, and it will be our great grandsons who will see even half the amount of forestry land available planted with trees, so that those who are worrying about the danger of a clash between the forestry and agricultural side of our economy can cease from worrying. They can sleep quite peacefully. They, and the following generation, need have no worries whatever, no matter at what speed the Department goes ahead, and even with the target of 25,000 acres, they have no reason to worry. There will be no need to worry. There is plenty of waste land and infertile land which can be used for the benefit of the country.

I do not know where the ex-Minister for Lands got this figure of 100,000 acres. He seemed to throw it over to the Clann na Talmhan Party. I do not know why he turned his attention to that Party. I have been quite a good while in the Clann na Talmhan Party and I never heard more than 15,000 acres mentioned at any meeting as the figure at which we should aim at planting each year. It may have been mentioned by way of suggestion by a Deputy in this House, but personally I would be very pleased if we could get between 15,000 to 25,000 acres of forest planted each year. The Deputy must have got his information from the Irish Press which is one of those papers on which we cannot place too much reliance. It is humbug to talk about 100,000 acres. Anyone with an ounce of sense would not mention such a figure. It may be possible to have 100,000 acres planted in 20 years and it is doubtful if it would be a wise policy to try to plant 100,000 acres a year. If we could aim at planting 20,000 to 25,000 acres each year until all the available land was planted and at the end of 40 to 60 years if we could start to fell the forests and continue in the Scandinavian system we would have brought the forestry industry to a satisfactory position and would have made it of real value. We should aim at that rather than talk of something which we know is impossible.

The most encouraging part of the Minister's statement is the indication that if necessary he will introduce a Supplementary Estimate. In that he will have the support of every Deputy. I am glad that he will have the support both of the Government and of the Opposition. We are all of opinion that forestry has been neglected and that it is time a real effort should be made. While the Minister may not have gone as far as he would like to go, the fact that he has set up a record in his second year in office will save him the hard comments and abuse on this Estimate that he was subject to on the Estimate for the Department of Lands which was before the House recently.

Mr. A. Byrne

Deputy Commons has made my task very light and I will merely emphasise the point he has made and appeal to the Minister to give careful and sympathetic consideration to the demands of the foresters. I would ask the Minister, if he does not think their demands unreasonable, to remedy their grievances as soon as possible. Deputy Commons has drawn attention to the fact that these men have important work to do in directing operations. They are not allowed to go to England where they would get double the wages that they get here. Ten or 15 years ago the salaries of veterinary surgeons in the Department were so small that the men went to England where they could get double the salary. Immediately, the Government here increased the status generally of these men. Deputy Commons and other Deputies and I received a deputation of foresters and heard from them the conditions of employment. Their wages are not anything to boast about. They could be called good wages but they are not exceptionally good having regard to the importance of the work. Their service is not pensionable. If these men were established they would have pension rights and in the event of death their widow or dependents would receive a gratuity. At present they have good, constant employment but, as I have said, they are not pensionable. The Minister realises the importance of having a contented staff and I am sure that the men will give a good return for anything the Minister may do for them. I join with other Deputies and with Deputy Commons in making this appeal on behalf of these men who are doing splendid work for the nation.

Mr. O'Leary

I put down a question to-day to the Minister for Lands with regard to the workers in State Departments. I cannot understand why a State industry should limit the wages it pays to the wages paid by the ordinary farmer. The Government should depart from that low standard of wages and that must be done in this connection if we are to have forestry work undertaken. The people who plant the forests must get a living wage. Three pounds a week for forestry workers is not a living wage. If they were building houses they would have trade union rates of wages. The Minister should see to it that forestry workers are supplied with proper clothing, rubber boots and shelters. They are State employees. Other State employees are very well protected. They have trade union rates of wages. They are supplied with uniforms. In this great industry that we are discussing there is a sprinkle of men employed in County Wexford planting trees. I would like to see more men employed in the industry. It is no use sending down a man in charge with a few men. They could not plant the trees that we are talking about in a lifetime. I, as representing the working class, insist that the Government will have to do better than the Fianna Fáil Government with regard to the wages of these workers. The Minister has sympathy with the people in this industry, and I appeal to him to increase their wages to a point above the agricultural rates of wages. No Government should put the workers in their employment on the same level as farm workers who are employed by an individual farmer who has a few acres of land.

This State has money for everything except for the downtrodden, the worker. Previous Governments said 32/- a week was sufficient. The ex-Taoiseach, before the last general election, said 45/- was enough. I do not believe that to-day £3 a week is sufficient for these men. This is a very serious question. These men have to travel five and six miles. Some of them have not bicycles and have to walk. They are men with families who are faced with higher rents for agricultural cottages. There is no doubt that they will have to get an increase the same as other classes of workers. You will have no progress or contentment in rural Ireland until the State gets away from the idea of low wages, and I appeal to the Minister in all sincerity to look after that. The most important thing, as far as I am concerned, is to see that the workers get justice.

Mr. Little

I must say that I have not much complaint to make as far as County Waterford is concerned. For many years past quite a number of estates have been taken over and forestry schemes have been developed on a pretty wide scale, to such an extent that I feel very keenly that the important thing is rather the interests of the workers themselves and I am very much in agreement with those who have appealed to the Minister to try to improve their condition. They are not even on the same footing as county council workers; they do not stamp unemployment insurance cards; unlike certain classes of road workers, they are not entitled to be included in any pension scheme; they have not the same facilities to get time off for holidays, and the Minister will remember that this question has been raised more than once in this House. Foresters deserve more than they are getting because a considerable amount of skill is required and because of the importance of forestry generally, and I think that something should be done for those who work in connection with the planting of trees.

Everybody in this House is impressed by the importance of the development of forestry and I was very interested to notice during some uncomplimentary remarks about the Irish Press that some people who support the Government quoted a recent article in the Irish Press.

Mr. C. Lehane

It was quoted from the Standard.

Mr. Blowick

You are caught, I am afraid.

Mr. Little

I am perfectly sure that they read it in the Irish Press and not in the Standard.

Mr. C. Lehane

We do not read the Irish Press.

Mr. Allen

You read the Standard, I am sure!

Mr. Little

I made a list of things for which forestry is useful and commercial purposes are of course the biggest, but another which is extremely important—and while I was in the House I heard no reference to it; maybe it was referred to before I came in— is defence. During the past war armies were very anxious to take advantage of any place where trees were planted along the roadside. That is of immense importance in modern warfare, because that is the only concealment that can be given to troops viewed from the air. Now that most roads are tarmacadam roads, trees do not do any harm. I do not, know whether this is a matter that should be raised on Defence or not, but ultimately the forestry people would be the people responsible for looking after the matter.

That brings me to the whole question of public opinion with reference to trees, because there is a terrible lack of publicity in this Department. They do not go out to try to fire the imagination of people all over the country for the planting of trees, whether along the roadside for defence purposes, shelter belts or for the purpose of helping drainage. The last is very important because if you can arrest water at the sources of rivers you can do a great deal to prevent the flooding of lands. There are lands in Cork along the borders of Kerry where, if trees were planted in quantity, they would hold back water and prevent a good deal of flooding and that must apply to other parts of the country as well. There is also the question of development in the West of Ireland of trees to prevent soil erosion. That problem is dealt with in France by first planting bent grass, then some other sort of bushes and the earliest trees and then the first rank of trees which later grow larger. The same system would require to be developed here but it would take a number of years. I do not think, in fact, that any of these schemes is going to solve the immediate problem of emigration because the number of people employed on such schemes at the beginning is small, but the present Estimate and the Minister's statement is not getting us on very far. Maybe the best he can do is to bring in a Supplementary Estimate, but it is obvious that the money in this Estimate is not sufficient to carry out a scheme of planting 25,000 acres.

Mr. Blowick

It is not proposed to carry out a scheme of planting 25,000 acres because we will not have enough plants.

Mr. Little

You will not have enough land in any case.

Mr. Allen

Or the money.

Mr. Blowick

The money is your headache, it is not mine.

Mr. Little

If the money is not your headache, you should indicate what price you are going to give for land. I do not say that you can give the same price for all land, but at present the average price is about £3 8s. 0d. Is that not right? If you take into consideration the changed value of money as compared to what it was; if you give a proportionate increase, say twice or three times as much; if you publish that and make it clear to the people all over the country that you are going to do that and do it quickly, you will soon find farmers coming along and making offers of land to you to help to increase the number of acres. You were able to plant 8,000 acres last year only because the ground was prepared for you by the previous Government.

Mr. Blowick

You are talking through your hat.

Mr. Little

We were all glad to give you a year's opportunity of finding your feet in the Department

Mr. Blowick

If there had not been a change of Government what acreage would there be?

Mr. Little

If ifs and ands were pots and pans——

Mr. Blowick

The same amount would be planted. You are talking through your hat.

Mr. Little

We would probably have planted another 8,000 acres. There was an increase since the war was over and we did not promise 1,000,000 acres in five years. I hope that the Minister will not use his compulsory powers. There would be a danger when the trees were planted a little while of fires if you had not the goodwill of the people.

Mr. Blowick

They would get a little help, I suppose.

Mr. Little

You can use compulsory powers when there is agreement of the majority of farmers or if the land is owned by absentees, but the Minister will find out, or his own sense will tell him, that he cannot use compulsory powers in other cases because he is always in a vulnerable position. The Minister has not told us how far he is increasing his acreage for nurseries. The present position is that there are about 300 acres for nurseries and it would be interesting to know if that is to be increased very largely.

Mr. Blowick

It will have to be more than doubled.

Mr. Little

Will this be done under the present Estimate, or are you bringing in a Supplementary Estimate for it?

Mr. Blowick

There is an old saying to the effect that one should not bite off more than one can chew. It will come in its own good time.

Mr. Allen

Do not bite off more than you can chew.

Mr. Little

It seems queer to bring in a main Estimate and not to deal in a complete way with the expense you anticipate. Supplementary Estimates are inevitable but they generally arise out of unexpected expenses occurring during the year.

Mr. Blowick

No. They generally arise out of expenses that cannot be calculated when preparing the Estimate but which are quite foreseen. As an ex-Minister the Deputy should know that. I should not mind an awkward Deputy on your side of the House making that mistake but you know Cabinet procedure as well as I know it.

Mr. Little

I think it would be unscrupulous on my part if I were to bring in an Estimate with the intention, at the back of my mind, of asking for more money that I expected to spend during the year——

Mr. Blowick

It would be more unscrupulous to estimate for expenses for a long time ahead.

Mr. Little

You bring in a token Estimate.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You bring in a Supplementary Budget when you leave office.

Mr. Little

I feel that the most damaging criticism is that the Minister is bringing in an Estimate with the promise of a Supplementary Estimate on which the main work of his Department is going to depend.

Mr. Blowick

Practically every aspect of the work of the Forestry Department has been covered in this debate. I want to say that on the whole, while the speeches of some Deputies were a little critical in their nature, the Deputies were inclined to be helpful even if some did show a complete absence of knowledge of the work of the Forestry Department. Two issues were very prominent in this debate (1) that the Minister should have outlined his programme. I thought I did so, but as it would seem that I did not make myself clear to some people I shall go over that again.

The second issue was that a lot of Deputies, particularly on the opposition side of the House, seem to fear a clash between myself and the Minister for Agriculture on the question of suitable forestry ground. Forestry and agriculture need not clash, and will not clash for the reason that under the land reclamation scheme proposed by the Minister for Agriculture it is intended to reclaim land that is not arable at the present time but that, by reclamation, will become arable. Deputy Allen knows the type of land I refer to—the type of land he advised me to plant but the type of land I will refuse to plant during my time because, as it is, we have little enough arable land in this country for those who live by agriculture, despite the fact that Deputy Commons pointed out that the Governments of Norway and Sweden are thinking of introducing legislation to prevent their farmers from encroaching still further on their arable land. I believe there is enough waste land in this country to which it would not be wise for the Minister for Agriculture to apply his land reclamation scheme but which is, on the other hand, eminently suitable for the production of timber. That is the kind of land I am going after.

Mr. Allen

Will it produce good timber?

Mr. Blowick

Yes, definitely. It has been said by somebody on the other side of the House that it takes good land to produce good timber.

Mr. Allen

Yes.

Mr. Blowick

Of course good land will produce good timber but that does not mean that good dry mountain land and good dry moorland will not also produce excellent timber, but perhaps of a different species. We know quite well that good upland will produce either good softwood or hardwood in most cases with the same readiness. It takes a good forestry expert to be able to determine what trees are most suitable to a particular place; he needs to have quite a good deal of experience in every type of land. I have the greatest respect for the forestry inspector. We have plenty of men who can go into a piece of very rough ground and determine, after a few experiments, what particular type of timber will flourish on that particular ground. We have men who can take a spade and tell you to a nicety what particular type of timber will flourish on that particular ground and what particular type of timber will not grow on it.

I want to take this opportunity of paying a very high tribute to our inspectorial staff who are out in the country and whose duty it is to determine whether land is suitable for forestry or not and, if it is, the type of timber that will grow on it. The best proof, even though the pace of the Forestry Department is slow, that the men are good at their work is that the percentage of failure is something as low as 3 per cent. That speaks volumes of credit for the inspectorial staff who have been very particular and who have thrown their heart and their experience into their work and who have been scrupulous and careful enough not to sink the taxpayers' money in planting land which was even doubtful. My one grouse in regard to the Forestry Department up to a short time ago was that they were too careful.

Mr. Allen

We handed you over a good machine.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Allen cannot take that credit now.

Mr. Little

This Party handed you over a good machine.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Allen is in the front line now.

Mr. Blowick

I have told them not to be so careful in the future—in other words, with perfect safety, seeing that they have had up to this such a very small percentage of failure, they can encroach a little bit more. Further, Deputies from every Party in this House, Opposition as well as Government, say that the Forestry Department in the past have condemned lands which later produced timber. Such is the case because more and more attention is being given to this matter, particularly in the United States and Canada, and in England, France, Poland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Finland and experts are constantly carrying out experiments to see how exactly they can utilise more and more and more of what up to that, was described as unplantable land. We are reaping the benefit of their experience, their efforts and their experiments with the result that we also are able to encroach year after year on land that would definitely have been pronounced unplantable 25 years ago. With the knowledge available 20 years ago, they would probably have planted a species of tree or plant on a particular piece of ground which would have resulted in failure and that, perhaps, did happen and so scared them.

The land reclamation scheme, as outlined by the Minister for Agriculture, and which is going to come into operation on the 1st July next or thereabouts will not interfere with the land I need for forestry. I should not like to see any land, except the very barest minimum, planted which could be brought into cultivation and made to produce useful food crops for man and beast by the application of the land reclamation scheme under the direction of the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture will work up to a certain point; he will stop there and I will begin and go into the coarser land for forestry. As far as harmony between the two Departments is concerned, I would say that there have been quite a number of consultations and a number of points have been cleared up. Not alone has there not been a clash but there has been a perfect understanding between us in regard to the type of land we need for our respective schemes.

Several Deputies wanted to know what is going to happen next year and the year after. I think Deputy Allen insisted on saying that I said in my opening speech that we were going to put down 25,000 acres of forestry next year. I said no such thing. In any statement I have made in this House, either before I took office or since, I did not aim at misleading the House. If I made such a statement I should definitely be misleading the House and I did not make that statement. If Deputy Allen looks up the official report he will find that I did not do so.

Mr. Allen

What are you aiming at?

Mr. Blowick

I shall give the Deputy an outline of the difficulties, as he cannot have paid much attention to forestry up to this.

Mr. Allen

I heard all about it.

Mr. Blowick

Hearing does not give you the necessary experience. At present we have 21,000 or 22,000 acres of plantable land on hands. I do not know the exact figure, but we have a pretty sizeable acreage of unplantable land which accumulated during the years and which could be described as barren mountain tops or sides that would not bear timber or which for other reasons is absolutely unplantable. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at me because only 3,000 acres were acquired last year. That means that there were only 3,000 acquired up to the end of the calendar year. Since the Government finally decided upon embarking on the 25,000 acres programme and since other steps were taken, the acreage coming in is very satisfying to me. It would be almost impossible to get 25,000 acres per year by ordinary methods. When we get going, unless some unforeseen snag occurs, I think we shall achieve 25,000 acres. That is a pretty big undertaking, as it works out at about 40 square miles of planting per year.

It is all very well for Deputy Moylan to cast slurs on Clann na Poblachta and other Parties who came in here with a large forestry programme. Perhaps they were wide of the mark; perhaps they were not. Whether they were or not, it is young Parties like the Party to which I belong and the Party to which Deputy Con Lehane belongs which have brought afforestation into the limelight and removed the cobwebs with which Fianna Fáil sought to cover it up. I do not know whether Clann na Poblachta mentioned 100,000 acres or whether any one spoke of 60,000 acres. It is better to say that than to have it dwindling down to a miserable 4,000 acres, which meant keeping an important Department of State smothered up and choked and not giving it the money or the assistance it should have. One thing at least has resulted from these two young Parties coming into the Dáil—there is a definite afforestation programme which both the Opposition and those on this side of the House can be proud of. I have no doubt that as it unfolds and develops the Opposition will be just as proud of it as we will be—at least the more manly spirits, because of course there will be a few carpers. Twenty-five thousand acres cannot be planted next year or the year after, as even if the Director of Forestry had 100,000 acres of land on hands next year or the year after, he can only plant as much as he has plants in the nursery to cover.

Deputy Moylan chided me for referring to the fact that the Minister for External Affairs had assisted me in getting seeds that we had failed to get through the ordinary channels. I think there is nothing wrong in paying a well-deserved tribute to a colleague. I would not have mentioned the matter again if it were not for the attitude adopted by Deputy Moylan. After we had scoured the world's markets, we were 2,000 lbs. of seeds short of the quantity necessary for the 25,000-acre programme. I mentioned the matter to the Minister for External Affairs and he said he would see what he could do. He asked me how much I was short and I told him I was 2,000 lbs. short. The result was that in a very short space of time he had secured 1,200 or 1,500 lbs., and I have no doubt that another 500 lbs. will come along. That meant the difference between 15,000 and 25,000 acres in three years. We had enough of seeds to plant about 15,000 acres in three years' time, after exhausting every known market for seeds. He has got us seeds which will plant 8,000 or 10,000 more acres. I felt very thankful to him, because he had got through diplomatic channels a certain quantity of seeds which we could not get, although we had got all we possibly could. That extra quantity was a very welcome gift to me and to the Department, which is anxious to get on with the programme as quickly as it can. In 1952, if we transplant all the plantable seedlings which are being sown, we shall be planting a year earlier than is expected, as the usual time is from three to three and a half years. We hope to plant 10,000 acres next year, provided we have got sufficient seedlings to plant. I might point out that a severe winter often-times thins out the number of plants. It kills off all but the hardiest plants and reduces the number available in the nurseries for the coming programme. Very often the acreage of a particular programme is affected by the weather in the previous winter.

Deputy Little wanted to know what nurseries we have. We have something over 300 acres of nurseries. That is adequate for the 10,000-acres programme. When the 25,000-acres programme is in full swing, about 740 acres of nurseries will be necessary. As Deputies know, it is only when the planting-out stage comes around that you want the extra land because eight or ten Irish acres will take all the seed necessary to cover a large area. One-third of the nursery ground has to be left fallow each year in order to enrich it. It is impossible to get all the farmyard manure or fertiliser necessary to keep the land in good heart, as the constant putting in and taking out of young trees robs even the richest land of its fertility. Therefore we have to allow it to recuperate by leaving it fallow. The usual thing is that one-third of the nursery is left fallow each year and you use the other two-thirds while the one-third is recuperating for the coming two or three years' period.

We cannot possibly reach the 25,000-acres programme until we have sufficient plants. That will take about three years from now. As Deputy Commons said, if we attain between 15,000 and 25,000 acres and keep at that steadily this will be a changed country in the space of 20 years. If this Government and succeeding Governments —if there is a change of Government in the next 20 years, which I do not believe there will be—can do that, we shall have a changed and improved country. We have set ourselves a target of 25,000 acres. Taking one year with another, that 25,000 acres may be reached one year and it may be down another year. You cannot just plant the exact amount each year. If you have land available, you use all the plants in the nursery. You cannot guarantee that you will carry out a definite programme to the last acre or the last ten acres. If you set yourself a target of 25,000 acres and come near it, you will be doing remarkably well.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, 28th April.