When the House adjourned on this Estimate last night, I was pointing out to the Minister that a serious misjudgment in policy has taken place, in my opinion, particularly in relation to the reduction in the quantity of seed sown in the nurseries last year and the quantity proposed to be sown this year. During the spring of 1949, 1950 and 1951 approximately 14,000 lb. of seed were sown in the nurseries with a view to producing between 45,000,000 and 50,000,000 healthy transplants for the purpose of planting a fairly sizable forestry programme. According to the information given at Question Time yesterday, that has been cut down to less than one-fourth. I think that is a grave mistake, particularly when we know that land acquisition, and that was the really big trouble in afforestation up to this, is easing up somewhat and the figures for land acquisition are a little bit more hopeful than they were three, four, five or six years ago. If the present policy continues, theDepartment will find itself in three or four years' time with sufficient plantable land to carry out the programme laid down by the inter-Party Government but with insufficient transplants to fill the programme.
There may be some argument against planting 12,000 lb., or 13,000 lb., or 14,000 lb. of seed. If the seed is planted and it is subsequently found that there is a shortage of land, labour or anything else and the transplants cannot be utilised by the Forestry Department, they will not go to loss. Room will be found for them somewhere in the country, and good use can be made of them. There was a reduction last year. I appeal to the Minister this year to reconsider the matter before the seeds are sown and put down a larger quantity of seed.
There has been a very noticeable cutting down on the programme handed over to the Minister by the previous Government. That is a mistake. Last year we paid over £8,250,000 for foreign timber of all kinds. I think I am right in saying that the country from which we imported the largest quantity of timber does not buy in return as much as £100 worth of produce. Cutting down the programme now will put off the day still further that this country will be self-sufficient in its timber requirements. We cannot say that we have not plenty of unemployed at the moment and, therefore plenty of labour available for turning over to this very useful development work.
The Government seems to have cast a very jaundiced eye on the forestry programme merely because the Minister's predecessor was keen on expanding that programme. In the light of the Cameron Report, and the advice tendered there, the Minister should review Government policy now in relation to forestry. He should certainly not cut down on it. He took over a Forestry Division in full working order. The staff had been considerably augmented. In reality, of course, forestry should be a separate State Department and not a mere section of another Department.
Cutting down on the programme for the sake of the few pounds that willbe saved is one of the worst steps the Government can take. I do not say that for the sake of scoring political points. This is a section of our national activity that I would like to keep completely free from politics. Every year we hear protestations from everybody in relation to forestry. It is not much good calling for afforestation if the Minister allows himself to be overruled by the Minister for Finance by cutting down this useful branch of public activity.
I was glad to have the figures the Minister gave us yesterday in relation to the acquisition of land. That was the big problem where forestry is concerned. If the land does not come in in a steady stream each year the Forestry Division cannot plant. While I did expect a better return I was pleased with the figures the Minister gave particularly in regard to the acreage for which offers have been made. I did not ask him for the figures for which offers had been accepted but I presume the story there would be equally encouraging.
I appeal to the Minister to expedite the work of the Forestry Division to the utmost because it is there that the foundation of the scheme lies. Once again, I appeal to him to consider planting more seeds in the nurseries this year so that he, or his successor, will not find himself in the unhappy position, two, three or four years hence with plenty of land, labour and fencing material but not enough transplants to carry out a programme. Transplants are not available from outside sources. Apart from that, I doubt if transplants from foreign sources would be a success.
Would the Minister tell us, when he is replying, has Shelton Abbey been given over as a training school and has the change-over from Avondale to Shelton Abbey that was envisaged prior to the taking over of that estate taken place? If it has not, what is the cause of the delay? One of the things that was particularly annoying to me during my term of office as Minister for Lands was the overcrowding which has grown up in Avondale due to the large numbers engaged inforestry training there and whatever necessary staffs were there. I took a keen interest, for that reason, in the purchase of that estate which obviated the necessity of the Minister for Finance providing money to build a suitably sized college in Avondale or elsewhere.
I think the Minister will agree with me that, apart altogether from the valuable crop of standing timber which was on the Shelton Abbey lands, the house or castle itself, whatever you like to call it, was a very valuable acquisition from the point of view of saving the State the necessity for building a new training college to replace Avondale.
Avondale has filled a very useful place in the history of forestry in this country. Apart from the fact that it has such an historical association with Parnell, it has performed a very useful function. I am glad to say that forestry there has grown out of its clothes and great progress has been made.
Would the Minister tell us, if he has the information, what number of trainees are under the Department at the present time and what number it is hoped to take in the coming year?
If my memory is correct, there were between 600 and 700 acres of mature standing timber of first-class commercial quality on the Shelton Abbey lands at the time of taking over. I do not know what has taken place there since but in view of the success from the financial point of view of the saw mill in Dundrum, with its drying kilns and very modern equipment, might I impress on the Minister the great necessity of establishing a saw mill there to make use of the growing timber which in a few years' time—and a few years will not be long elapsing—will be passing maturity and will perhaps go into the firewood stage? One of the greatest handicaps forestry has suffered from is that home-grown timber has never been marketed or presented to the purchaser in the same condition as foreign timber of inferior quality has been presented to the purchaser. I said this before as Minister for Lands and I repeat it now that Irish home-grown timber is second to none in theworld provided we grow it, dry it, saw it and market it with the same care and the same attention as that which is sold to us from British Columbia, Finland, Sweden and the other sources from which foreign timber comes. Our timber is equal to the best and there is only one way to make progress and the Minister for Lands should take the lead in that regard.
A start has been made in Dundrum and it has been extended in Cong. Further progress could be made in Portumna, Shelton Abbey and other places where there are considerable quantities of mature timber. The Minister should take the bit in his teeth, disregard the counsel of the Minister for Finance in this connection and establish a sawmill with the most modern equipment he can get—drying kilns, and so on. The Minister will agree with me that they are not costly. They will not scare any Minister for Finance, no matter how slowly revenue is coming in. The Minister should give a lead in this regard and endeavour to put Irish home-grown timber on the market in as good a condition as foreign timber is marketed to show and convince the pessimists in this country that forestry can be a paying proposition.
Let me refer to a feature of the Minister's opening speech last night. He paid great attention to the way the Department was using up a lot of its energy in attending to thinnings, care of plantations, and so on. I will not be led off the path by that. However, I want to say that I wish the Minister the best of luck in connection with thinning operations and in keeping the existing plantations in first-class order. Let me congratulate him on putting down his foot firmly and insisting that that work be done. As I said last night, it is only waste of the taxpayers' money if we sow a crop of timber and let it grow into a lot of spikes for want of the necessary care. Timber is a crop and it requires periodic attention just the same as any other crop on the land. It must be looked after right up to the time it is fit for felling. I am proud to hear that the Minister has taken such a firm stand in relation to existing plantations.
Let me say this also, that the sale of thinnings, if it is carried out on a big scale, will be a very valuable source of profit, and that he may convince some of the diehards in the Department of Finance that forestry is not all spending and nothing coming in. The sale of thinnings was, and is at the present time, a very valuable source of profit. It must be remembered that if there was never sale for thinnings—even if we are forced to let them rot in the ground—there is a basic necessity for the operation if we are going to produce proper timber.
However, I do not agree with the Minister when he tries to put across the floor of the House that the care of the existing plantations is a good, sound and sufficient argument for dropping down the programme. I am not at all convinced that the Minister was wise in dropping off on the programme I laid down. Preparations were made for the planting of 19,500 acres, and he comes and tells us there is no use in using up all the plantable area in one year or two. I quite agree; but does the Minister deny that the supply of plantable land is going to be increased? What was the cause for increasing the staff to the extent of 15 officials, if we include the three Land Commission men seconded? Land will be coming in. All the figures he has given us have given the lie to that suggestion that land will not be available in increasing acreages. With sufficient acquisition staff, the land will come in, and I think the Minister has made a ghastly mistake that will only begin to pinch hard in three or four years' time, by cutting down the weight of the seeds planted last year. However, the seeds are not sown this year and will not be for the next couple of weeks, and I think it is not too late yet to repair the damage. Unless he takes action now we will find ourselves in a position in three or four years' time that we will have ample equipment and ample young men to work, but we will not have the transplants to plant out.
In conclusion I wish the Minister every success and good luck in this particular branch of his Department. It is one in which I took a very keen interest and will continue to take avery keen interest. Apart from the fact that we should have our own supplies of timber we should at least lay the foundation now for earning that £8,000,000 which we are paying out at the present time so that, by the time the timber reaches maturity, it will be worth between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000.
Now that it is readily acknowledged by all that the Undeveloped Areas Bill is more or less a flop, let me point out once again to the Minister that the onus of providing employment in the undeveloped areas rests largely on the Forestry Department. Nobody can dare raise objection to the Minister for Lands creating plantations in what have come to be known as the undeveloped areas and giving employment to our young men to encourage them to stay at home. It is a very healthy kind of employment and enables us to develop our own country. It is not like making a road, making a drain or a fence in which there is little or no source of profit. From the day trees are put down nature is doubling and trebling the value of that plantation year by year until it comes to final maturity.
I say that in the hands of the Minister for Lands lies the solution for saving what is left of the Irish-speaking population of the Gaeltacht. Secondly, in his hands lies the opportunity to develop our undeveloped areas. The factories, if any, that will be established under the Undeveloped Areas Act will be confined to the towns. In the hands of the Forestry Department therefore lies the solution for maintaining employment in the rural areas and at the same time of assuring this country of decent supplies of native timber. I urge on the Minister the necessity of going about the country and taking even a greater interest than he has been taking in forestry. That is not accusing him of lagging on the job up to the present but I want him to take even a greater interest in this work. I was very proud to hear him say last night that he has visited plantations which are far removed from the capital and I urge on him to do more of that kind of work. The staff of the Forestry Department has not,I am sure, changed since my time and he will find them willing and ready to co-operate with him in every way. He will find that they are as competent at their job as any staff in the Civil Service and that is saying a good deal. I am sure the enthusiasm that I observed when I was in the Department has not waned since. The Minister has it in his power to save what is left of the Irish speaking population. Apart from that, if he carries out this programme energetically he will leave behind him a crop of growing timber that will be of considerable value to coming generations who in their turn will thank him for what he has done for them in this country.