Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Jul 1953

Vol. 140 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Forestry.

Tairgim:—

Go ndeonfar suim nach mó ná £813,800 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1954, chun Tuarastal agus Costas i dtaobh Foraoiseachta (Uimh. 13 de 1946), lena n-áirítear Deontas-i-gCabhair chun Talamh a Thógaint.

Tá meadú de £295,100 sa Mheastachán seo thar mar a bhí sa chéad mheastachán anuraidh. Nuair a cuirtear an fomheastachán i gcóir 1952/53 san áireamh tá meadú de £225,100 i meastachán na bliana seo thar an mór-shuim i 1952/53.

Faoi Fó-Mhírcheann A, tá breisiú de £3,000 de bhrí go bhfuiltear ag meadú líon na bhForaoiseoirí, agus tuairim's £7,000 i gcóir gnáth-bhreisiú tuarastal.

Tá meadú de £1,500 faoi Fó-Mhircheann B de bhrí gur méadaíodh na liúntaisí taistil i rith na bliana agus go ndéanfar tuille taistil i mbliana.

Bhí £130,000 ar fáil faoi Fó-Mhircheann C (1) i gcóir talamh a cheannach i gcóir 1952/53. Níor caitheadh £9,393 den mhéid sin agus fágann san go mbéidh thar £172,000 ar fáil i gcóir na bliana airgeadais seo.

Tá méadú de £123,100 faoi Fó-Mhírcheann C (2)—riarú agus forbairt na bhForaois, agus de £32,410 faoi C (3) i gcóir adhmad a ghearradh agus eile.

Béidh an tSuim Faoi Fó-Mhírcheann D (Deontaisí agus roimh-íocanna igcóir Crainnte a chur) ar aon dul leis an méid a bhótaladh i 1952/53.

In introducing the 1952-53 Forestry Estimate to the House I departed to some extent from the normal practice of detailed commentary on the individual provisions in the Estimate in order to give Deputies a more clearly defined general picture of the work which the Forestry Division would be doing during the year and which the Estimate as a whole was planned to cover.

In introducing this Estimate I would like to go into some of the individual figures in greater detail before commenting directly upon the forest work which it is proposed to undertake during the year and for which provision is made in sub-heads C (2) and C (3) (1).

The net Estimate at £1,220,800 shows an increase of £295,100 over the original Estimate for 1952-53. Even after allowance is made for the Supplementary Estimate for £70,000 introduced late last year there is an increase of £225,100. The gross Estimate excluding Appropriations-in-Aid, to which I shall refer separately later, shows an increase of £222,600.

There are increases in individual expenditure sub-heads of £10,222 on sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances; £1,500 on sub-head B—Travelling Expenses; £56,000 on sub-head C (1)—Acquisition of Land; £123,100 on sub-head C (2)—Forest Development and Maintenance; £32,410 on sub-head C (3)—Timber Conversion, and £168 on sub-head E (1)—Forestry Education. The only decrease is £800 on sub-head G—Incidental Expenses.

Of the increase of £10,222 on sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, £3,000 is by way of provision for an increase in forester staff to meet expanding work requirements. Almost the entire remainder is due to the incidence of normal adjustments of salaries. The increase of £168 on sub-head E (1)—Forestry Education— is in the main due to the same cause.

Before passing from the Staff and Forestry Education heads I should refer to the progress made with plans for improving the facilities for the education of forestry trainees. Work on the adaptation of Shelton Abbey asa new forestry school has commenced. The initial contract for the removal of defective portions of the building has been almost completed and there is every reason to expect that the main contract will be placed and put through in time to enable the building to be utilised from the commencement of the 1954-55 training year in October 1954. That will enable the Department to restore the arrangement under which trainees spend two of the three years of the training course at the forestry school.

One year of the training course will continue to be devoted entirely to practical work. It has been decided to utilise Kinnitty Castle as a headquarters for this practical training year. The castle is situated in the middle of the Slievebloom Forest massif within easy reach of Kinnitty, Clonaslee, Mountrath and Ossory Forests which jointly total 15,773 acres. Seven thousand one hundred and twenty four acres are already planted and 2,456 acres are available for planting. This forest group includes plantations of all ages including some up to 40 years of age in Mountrath which is our seventh oldest forest. There is assurance of the steady planting of additional lands in the area for many years including lands where new techniques of mechanical preparation of ground will be applied and there is a nursery attached to Kinnitty Forest itself. The castle is in good condition structurally; its size and layout are generally remarkably apt for the accommodation of one year's trainees, i.e., 20 men with domestic staff etc., and it is estimated that the building can be made suitable for its new use at a cost apart from furnishing of £2,700. Authority for the necessary work has already been given and the aim is to have the castle available for occupation by the end of this year. The new arrangement will permit of much more effective practical training.

The increase of £1,500 on sub-head B —Travelling Expenses—calls for little comment. It allows for expansion of field staff and work as well as adjustments in rates of travelling expenses.

Under sub-head C (1) the Grant-in-Aid for acquisition of land, £100,000was provided in the original Vote last year and £7,000 in the Supplementary Vote apart from a balance of £23,268 carried forward from the previous year. That made a total of slightly over £130,000 available for last year. At the 31st March, 1953, £9,393 remained unspent and was carried forward into this year. The additional £163,000 now sought will make a total of over £172,000 available for the year.

Expenditure has grown steadily over the past few years, the net figures being:—1949-50, £32,268; 1950-51, £50,341; 1951-52, £126,903 inclusive of abnormal expenditure on the Shelton and Kinnitty estates; 1952-53, £120,875.

While variations in annual expenditure are to an extent attributable to the incidence of expenditure on buildings and woodland included in areas acquired, the figures I have quoted reflect a sustained improvement in the rate of acquisition of land, the plantable area acquired in the years mentioned being, respectively, 6,725 acres, 10,490 acres, 15,659 acres and 16,785 acres. The total area acquired in 1952-53 was 19,419 acres including only 2,634 acres or 13½ per cent. of unplantable land; this was the second lowest percentage of unplantable land in 12 years.

Acquisitions during the year resulted in the establishment of new forests at Mullaghareirk, County Cork; Killorglin, County Kerry; Gweebara, Raphoe and Kilcar, County Donegal; Lough Talt, County Sligo; Scotstown, County Monaghan, and Silvermines, County Tipperary. A further new forest was established at Rosscarbery, County Cork, by the division of Bandon forest.

At the 1st April, 1953, title was being, or had been, established to 23,260 acres which the Department had agreed to buy, compared with 17,231 acres at the commencement of 1952-53. Negotiations were in hands for the purchase of a further 31,577 acres, compared with 27,196 acres in 1952-53. These figures exclude areas likely to be transferred from the Land Commission amounting at the 1st April, 1953, to 2,255 acres, apart from 3,099 acres awaiting inspection. In the three months ended 30th June, 1953, possessionwas taken of 4,000 acres, while at that date 1,650 acres were ready for possession to be taken. There is clear basis, therefore, for anticipating that the rise in the rate of acquisition will continue this year. Expenditure is likely to be higher than in any previous year, but the sum of over £172,000 contemplated by the Estimate should be more than adequate to meet foreseeable expenditure. Any remainder will assist towards restoration of the standing balance on the Grand-in-Aid Suspense Account, which has diminished in recent years.

Accurate figures for the plantable reserve at the commencement of 1953-54 are not yet available but it is estimated that, after deduction of the area planted in 1952-53, slightly over 38,000 acres remained available, as compared with 31,700 acres a year previously. This improvement in the reserve figure is pleasing but we cannot yet view the reserve with complacency or relax in any way our efforts to improve it. The House is familiar with the principle that, for proper conduct of forestry, land should be available for planting before seed is sown in the nurseries so that plants of the proper species for that land may be raised.

This principle is usually referred to as the need for a three-year reserve on the basis that most forest trees are suitable for planting in their third year after sowing. As there is some common confusion as to the real meaning of the term "three-year reserve", it may be no harm to state the position in rather more detail. Ignoring hardwoods, for which only a small proportion of our available land is suitable, we should know when sowing seed in, say, the spring of 1954 the precise lands on which we hope to plant out the resulting plants in due course. The pinus contorta and a small proportion of the other pines, aggregating perhaps 30 per cent. of the total sowing, would be suitable for planting out in 1955-56, most other species in 1956-57, i.e., the third year after sowing, and the Norway spruce and a proportion of the sitka spruce, about 20 per cent. of the total sowing, in 1957-58. In other words, if we were conducting our nursery work properlywe should know when sowing in the spring of 1954 or better still, in the autumn of 1953, when ordering seed what land we would be planting with Norway spruce and some of the land we would be planting with sitka spruce as far as 1957-58 or about 20 per cent. of the probable total planting in that year. We should know all but 30 per cent., i.e., excluding contorta and some other pine ground, of the land we would be planting in 1956-57 and all the land we would be planting up to and including 1955-56. If the annual planting rate remained at no more than 12,500 acres we would thus need in the autumn to have in reserve and allocated to particular planting years nearly 49,000 acres. To allow for inevitable vagaries in the rate of development of nursery stocks and to permit of proper staggering of the planting of new areas attached to busy forests or large blocks in new forest districts an even greater reserve would be needed. I have gone into this question of the reserve in greater detail than has previously been attempted in the House to impress upon Deputies that our reserve is still utterly inadequate to enable proper planning and co-ordination of the work to be attempted and that even greater progress with land acquisition must still be a primary objective.

The increase of £123,100 in sub-head C (2)—Forest Development and Maintenance—is made up of increases of £6,150 for State forest nurseries; £80,750 for the capital expenditure head; and £76,400 for maintenance, offset in part by a reduction of £40,200 under the head of constructional expenditure.

The increase of £6,150 for State forest nurseries is attributable to the provision for labour which is up by £10,000, the net additional amount required for nurseries being limited by a reduction in the aggregate provision under other less significant items chargeable to the head. The reduction in the aggregate of provisions other than labour flows in the main from disappearance of an abnormal provision in 1952-53 for purchase of reserve stocks of tools, non-recurrence of a freight charge on an exchange of plants with the British Forestry Commission and areduction in seed purchases, due to increased home collections. The addition of £10,000 to the provision for labour is required to meet wage increases, there being no change in the quantum of work contemplated.

The nurseries will continue to operate on the basis I described in last year's Estimate debate, that is, on a production programme designed to enable the rate of planting to be increased to or towards 15,000 acres annually as soon as other circumstances permit of that advance. There has been a reduction in the extent of seed sowing this year, due to allowance for surpluses from last year's sowing, but the nurseries are still geared to a planting target of 15,000 acres.

The increase of £80,750 under the head of capital expenditure comprises increases of £50,000 in the provision for labour, £6,500 for materials, £16,200 for running expenses and repair of machinery, £4,000 for cartage and freight, £4,000 for the purchase and construction of buildings, and a nominal £50 for miscellaneous expenditure.

Wage increases would have involved an addition to the labour provision of £12,000 without change in the volume of work. The further addition of £38,000 is in respect of a much expanded road construction programme, the preparation and drainage of ground which is the other main aspect of work covered by the head being on the same scale as in 1952-53. I should explain at this stage that the acreage of land mechanically treated for preparation for afforestation amounted to 5,300 acres as against 7,000 acres manually prepared. As I have said, this year's programme will be somewhat similar.

The additional £6,500 for materials is required to cover more extensive purchase of new equipment than in 1952-53, the most notable item being additional light tractors for haulage work, additional rotovators for nursery work and some small rock drills and mechanical saws.

The increase in the provision for running expenses and repair of machinery allows for the use of the new equipment to be purchased, increased incidence of repair costs on machineryalready in use, including crawler type tractors which have already been in service for about two years, purchase of some spare parts, adaptation of equipment to meet particular types of work and road tax payments.

The increased charge for cartage and freight is complementary to the increased allowance for labour on road construction. The rise in cost would have been greater, were it not for economies to be secured from the use of additional tractors. In respect of buildings, allowance is made for speeding up the provision of official residences for foresters.

The provisions under the head of constructional expenditure on which there is a net reduction of £40,200 are, with the exception of the item for materials, framed on the same basis as last year. There is an increase of £5,000 under the head of labour to allow for wage increases. There is also an extra £1,000 allowed for under the item cartage and freight. There is, however, a reduction of £46,200 in the provision for materials. The principal expenditure covered by this item is the purchase of fencing wire. Notwithstanding that a reserve of about three years' supply of fencing wire was already in stock, allowance was made in the 1952-53 Estimate for the purchase of the major portion of the year's requirements. Fencing wire does not deteriorate rapidly in store, but prolonged storage can cause damage and the storage facilities available are furthermore inadequate for the proper protection of the quantity now held. It is therefore proposed to draw on reserve stocks to meet this year's requirements and to purchase only materials of which inadequate stocks are held.

The increase of £76,400 under the head of maintenance is constituted by increases of £80,000 for labour and £1,300 for building repairs offset by reductions of £4,500 in the provision for materials and £400 in that for protection.

About £27,000 of the additional sum for labour is related to wage increases, the balance of £53,000 being directly attributable to the increasing volume of work covered by the maintenance head. The increased provision for buildingrepairs is made in the hope of overtaking arrears of such work during the year. The reduction under the item materials reflects completion during 1952-53 of the purchase of extra stocks of various tools, etc. The lower provision for protection is not significant; the 1952-53 figure includes a sum of £400 provided in the Supplementary Estimate.

Sub-head C (3)—Timber Conversion —shows an increase of £32,410. This is made up by increases of £29.100 under the head timber conversion in State forests and £3,310 under the head sawmilling.

The increase under the head of timber conversion in State forests is distributed over the various items constituting the head. There is an extra £25,000 for labour, of which some £8,000 is by way of provision for wage increases, the remaining £17,000 being related to an increase in the volume of work. An increase of £2,600 in the provision for running expenses and repair of machinery is due to anticipated increased incidence of repair costs on older machines and the projected use for timber haulage and sawing of some of the new tractors, for the purchase of which provision was made under sub-head C (2). An additional £500 for cartage and freight relates to the increased volume of work anticipated. A sum of £1,000 for tools and other materials has also been inserted in the Estimate.

The increase of £3,310 under the head of sawmilling is due to a slight variation in the amount required for labour and an addition of £3,000 to the provision for equipment. The alteration in the labour figure allows for wage adjustments, the completion of reconstruction work on Cong sawmill, and the opening of the new mill there during the year. The altered figure for equipment and running expenses also allows for commencement of work at the new Cong sawmill, as well as payment for some outstanding equipment, electrical installation, etc. It is hoped to havethe new sawmill at Cong in operation in the autumn.

Sub-head D—Grants and Advances for Afforestation Purposes—is being retained at the same level as in 1952-53.

I have already mentioned sub-head E (1)—Forestry Education. Sub-heads E (2) and F are being retained at the same level as in 1952-53.

Sub-head G shows a decrease of £800, but if the proposed provision of £1,500 is compared with the original Estimate provision for 1952-53 it will be seen that there is allowance for an increase over that figure of £320, including £250 on the advertising head. After the 1953-54 Estimate was framed, it became apparent that considerably increased provision was needed to meet expenditure in 1952-53, especially on advertising, and an extra £1,120 was provided in the Supplementary Estimate for that year.

Higher advertising expenditure is, in part, due to an increase in advertisement charges, but in the main arises from more frequent and extensive warnings in regard to the danger of forest fires. Deputies will have seen from statements issued by the Department in recent months that there has been an exceptional number of dangerous fires this year and that a number, in fact, gave rise to considerable damage. As our plantations advance in age and value the destruction which fire can wreak is of increasing gravity, and the Department is energetically pursuing every available means of awakening public consciousness of the danger of fires.

I promised to refer in more detail to the operations to be carried on during the year under sub-heads C (2) and C 3 (1).

The forestry policy which it is intended to pursue remains based on the principles which I explained fully in introducing the 1952-53 Estimate and which I may summarise as follows:—

Firstly, to give priority of attention to the proper sylvicultural treatment of existing plantations even where such priority militates againstthe rapid establishment of new plantations on bare land associated with older plantations;

Secondly, to lay down new plantations at the maximum progressive annual rate within an immediate target of 15,000 acres annually sustainable without interference with essential care and development of existing plantations and without exhausting in one or two years the available plantable land in new forest areas; and

Thirdly, to maintain nursery production at a level which will permit of expansion in the annual planting rate towards the 15,000 acre target as soon as other circumstances permit.

Last year I informed the House that the maximum planting programme practicable was 12,500 acres and I quoted copious data to enable every Deputy to see for himself that any attempt on my part to secure a higher planting figure would have been contrary to the requirements of good forestry and to the ultimate objective of providing good quality commercial timber from our own resources. Despite the data some Deputies were obviously sceptical as to the volume of other work which I stated to be urgently necessary to secure the proper development of existing plantations. Any such doubts should have been finally set at rest by the information I gave to the House in connection with the Supplementary Estimate for 1952-53 —information which showed that a bigger labour force than was ever previously employed had to be taken on to cope properly with the amount of urgent work in hands.

I am now able to give the House an approximate summary of the main works actually carried out during 1952-53 although the figures are necessarily at this stage liable to minor adjustment.

Fresh planting totalled slightly over the target figure of 12,500 acres and was spread over 119 forests including eight new centres where no planting had previously taken place.

In addition to this fresh plantingareas destroyed by fire etc., totalling about 630 acres were replanted during the year, an appreciable advance towards disposal of arrears of such work. Gratifying progress was also made with the replacement of failures in young plantations, some 11,500 acres being dealt with. The importance of progress on this side of the work lies in the fact that replacement of failures becomes impossible when the original plantation reaches a certain stage of development.

Increased work also had to be undertaken in the cleaning of young plantations.

Deputies might like some idea of the distribution of the new plantations over the country. Detailed figures for each forest or even each county would not readily show the general picture but I have had figures prepared for four main regions: The South-East, comprising Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, Carlow, and South-East Kilkenny; the South-West, including Clare, Limerick, Kerry, Cork, Waterford, Tipperary and South-West Kilkenny; the West and North-West, i.e. Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon and Galway; and the remainder of the country which for convenience I shall refer to as the Midlands, comprising Laois, Offaly, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath, Monaghan, Longford, Cavan, Louth and the northern portion of Kilkenny.

The new planting was spread over these areas approximately as follows:

South-East—2,250 acres,

South-West—4,700 acres,

West and North-West — 3,950 acres,

Midlands—1,600 acres.

These figures show the extent to which land availability considerations have switched the emphasis on new afforestation from the traditional southeastern area towards the western counties. At least half of the planting during 1952-53 was in the western half of the country although about two-thirds of our total existing plantations lie in the eastern half and one and a half times as many men are employed in the East as in the West.

These comparative figures reflect also the extent to which priority must be given to the management of existing plantations in the older centres, a higher labour force in the eastern half of the country being required because of the greater incidence of thinning, weeding and pruning, road construction, etc.

Thinning was the operation upon which I laid the greatest stress in the survey of our forest management requirements which I gave the House last year. I laid stress upon it particularly because of the serious retardation of proper growth and development which results from neglect of the regular thinning of plantations. Each year that passes brings additional plantations to the stage where thinning is needed. Once the need arises the operation must be repeated at regular intervals until the crop reaches maturity and the area of our plantations requiring thinning has been increasing progressively and sharply in recent years in consequence of the acceleration of planting in the decade following 1930. I emphasised last year my anxiety that the growing arrear of thinning should be given the priority it deserves and I was pleased to be able to tell the House in the Supplementary Estimate debate that up to or over 7,000 acres would be thinned during the year. The final figure was about 7,500 acres all but 700 acres being thinned by direct labour. The work is still in arrear and we cannot relax the efforts made last year to cope with it but last year's progress was nonetheless a substantial advance; the figures for the two previous years being 1950-51—4,059 acres and 1951-52—5,528 acres.

Considerable progress was made also with the elimination of arrears of weeding and pruning of plantations approaching the thinning stage, over 12,500 acres being completed. This operation is the first step towards thinning and marks the end of the long interval of sylvicultural inactivity between the cleaning of plantations during their first few years and the systematic removal of less promising stems by regular periodic thinning. The operation consists of the removal ofdeformed and useless stems and the pruning of the lower branches of the remaining trees to produce cleaner timber. It is sometimes accompanied by a light thinning of the remaining trees. The same criticism applies to neglect or undue deferment of weeding and pruning as to neglect of thinning itself and I am glad to be able to report to the House that good progress was made with this work simultaneously with the improvement in thinning progress.

I mentioned also last year the need for a more intensive programme of road construction to enable thinnings to be extracted. That work also was accelerated during the year, a total of about 50 miles of new roads being laid down.

Besides these particular operations readily capable of statistical summary, the usual round of routine management and maintenance work had to be handled in the forests and there was the normal annual increase in the volume of maintenance work due to expansion of the total area of properties and the total planted area.

The year's work as a whole may be summarised by saying that it followed closely and with a good measure of success the objective of putting the management and development of our existing forests on a proper basis by devoting to them the increased attention which they now demand while pursuing a policy of fresh planting on the maximum scale of which our resources of land, etc. and the requirements of good management would permit. The year's work made a more effective contribution to the ultimate national good than if higher planting figures had been achieved by neglect of our existing plantations and disregard of principles of proper forestry. In the process greater employment was given than in any previous year.

Turning now to 1953-54 it is intended to continue vigorously the same policy as that followed last year. Weeding and pruning may not have to be on quite the same scale as in 1952-53, but it is estimated that between 9,500 and 11,000 acres will have to be dealt with. Thinning, on the other hand, must be maintained at the same rate as in 1952-53 and, if possible, expandedstill further. The sharp increase to 7,500 acres in the area thinned last year made, as I have said, a notable contribution towards elimination of arrears of this work but the area to be handled annually will continue to grow with the steady development of additional plantations to the stage where periodic thinning is required. Long-term speculation as to exactly when thinning will become necessary in particular plantations is dangerous in so far as growth conditions cannot be forecast accurately, but such estimation as is possible indicates that the area of our plantations requiring thinning will increase steadily towards 20,000 acres a year over the next ten to 15 years. No interference with this work can be contemplated. In the present year the Department's aim is to treat about 8,000 acres.

Road construction must also continue to enjoy a measure of priority in the light of the increasing area to be thinned in future years. It is expected that about 70 miles of new roads will be constructed in the year, an increase of almost 50 per cent. over last year's expanded rate.

In the younger plantations, a further increase in cleaning is to be anticipated, an area of some 50,000 acres being due for attention, but there will be some reduction in the area of plantations in which replacement of failures will be effected, the probable total being slightly under 10,000 acres. Complete replacement of areas destroyed by fire, totalling about 750 acres, is also on the year's programme.

Fresh planting will again have to be limited to 12,500 acres because of the inadequacy of the available reserve of plantable land, its uneven distribution between forest centres and the other factors which I mentioned last year as militating against greater planting targets at many individual forest centres, principally the prior demands of thinnings, etc., at long-established forest centres and the undesirability of planting available ground in new areas at such a rate as to preclude the employment of a regular forest staff on a steady programme of work.

The planting programme will be spread over the regions I mentioned earlier in somewhat similar proportionsto those which obtained in 1952-53, the approximate figures being: South-East, 2,100 acres; South-West, 4,800 acres; West and North-West, 3,800 acres; Midlands, 1,800 acres.

I would have liked to be able to tell the House that the planting programme was being extended this year but there is as yet no room for extension without sacrificing good management. If satisfactory progress is made in the meantime with the acquisition of land I may be able to announce some increase in the planting rate in another 12 months.

The data I have given in regard to the year's work explain the changes made in sub-head C (2) and C (3) (1) of the Estimate which I mentioned earlier as attributable to increases in the volume of forest work. The increased road construction is covered by the enlarged provision under sub-head C (2) (2), additional thinning under sub-head C (3) (1), and weeding and pruning, cleaning and replacement of failures along with the general increase in maintenance work contribute to the rise in the provision needed under sub-head C (2) (4). The Estimate as a whole allows for the employment of an average of approximately 4,000 forestry labourers during the year compared with an average of 3,550 during 1952-53. The present number employed is 3,700 compared with 3,400 in the corresponding week last year and there will be the usual increase in employment later in the year.

To help Deputies to realise the amount of work which goes on in the forests and which absorbs all this manpower, I have had a summary prepared of the position at a typical long-established forest which I visited recently, Kilsheelan in County Waterford, which lies along the foothills between the Comeragh Mountains and the River Suir. The forest provides steady employment for about 70 men. Its total area is 4,718 acres including 350 acres of acquired woodland and 3,760 acres of State plantations. The acquired woodland consists of middle-aged stands of European larch, Douglas fir and Scots pine which need continuous sylvicultural treatment. Six hundred and thirty acres of State plantations have already reached the thinningstage and 570 acres are at the weeding and pruning stage, making in all 1,500 acres already needing regular sylvicultural treatment. Good shelter is provided on the northern slopes of the Comeraghs by the steep cliffs forming the summit and the plantations extend to the exceptional height of 2,000 feet.

Planting has gone ahead steadily for many years but the area available for planting is now only about 300 acres of which over half is likely to be planted this year. Apart from a considerable volume of work in a nursery attached to the forest, the programme for the six months ending 30th September next includes the preparation of ground for this season's planting; grass cleaning of 700 acres; cleaning of coppice shoots, furze, etc., over 750 acres; weeding and pruning of 272 acres; thinning of 60 acres; felling of 500 tons of mature timber; provision of 1,300 yards of new fencing; repairs to 2,000 yards of fencing; construction of 800 yards of new roads; repair of 880 yards of existing roads; erection of a bridge and repair of another, and other routine maintenance work such as the cleaning of firelines and rides and extermination of vermin. There is a heavy local demand for forest produce of all kinds from light poles to commercial timber. The thinning of the middle-aged acquired woodlands provides commercial timber, E.S.B. and telegraph poles, while thinning of State plantations provides fencing poles, stakes, pit props, etc. There has also been a steady demand for firewood, but the supply is drying up. The total gross revenue from the forest during 1952-53 amounted to over £4,200.

Mention of revenue brings me fittingly to the last sub-head to which I have to refer, sub-head H—Appropriations-in-Aid. There is a net decrease in the allowance for Appropriations-in-Aid of £2,500 attributable to a reduction of £10,000 in the allowance for receipts from sales of timber in the forests offset in part by an increase of £7,500 in the allowance for sales of sawn timber in the departmental sawmills. Under the head, Sales of Timber,receipts in respect of the sale of mature commercial timber, thinnings and firewood are credited. The forest service is still too young to have any appreciable receipts from the sale of commercial timber from State-formed plantations and revenue of that nature derives mainly from woods and plantations taken over from private owners. So long as that situation continues, and certainly over the next ten or 15 years, there will be no question of a steady upward trend in receipts from the sales of commercial timber, and in the meantime revenue is liable to rise and fall somewhat erratically in relation to the vagaries of both supply and demand. In 1952-53 there was some falling off in sales and it is possible that this trend may continue in the current year.

Some of the produce of thinning is absorbed by local demand for fencing stakes and so forth, and departmental requirements of a similar nature. Much of the remainder is suitable either for pitwood or pulping. Here again there was a reduction in sales during 1952-53 due to instability of the pitwood market and a falling off in demand for material suitable for pulping. The demand for pulpwood material was exceptionally high in the previous year because the Athy Wallboard Company were accumulating initial stocks of material.

Total receipts from sales of timber during 1952-53 were of the order of £158,000 as compared with £172,000 in the previous year, and in view of the difficulties I have mentioned as affecting estimation of receipts under this head it was decided to frame the Estimate for 1953-54 on the basis of allowance for receipts falling as low as £140,000, whereas allowance had been made in the 1952-53 Estimate for receipts totalling £150,000.

The increase of £7,500 in the allowance for receipts under the head of sales of sawn timber is related to the prospect of having the new sawmill at Cong in operation for part of the year. Receipts at present are almost entirely in respect of Dundrum sawmill as the old sawmill at Cong is unable to continue production at its full previous rate.

Finally, I would like to refer to the control of tree-felling on privately owned land under the Forestry Act 1946. There has been little change in the number of felling notices received in 1952-53 as compared with the previous year.

Last year, I pointed out that the replanting conditions attached to felling licences under the 1928 Act were due for fulfilment by the 31st March, 1952, and that in spite of repeated warnings many licensees had failed to fulfil their planting obligations. I warned that it would be necessary to undertake proceedings in many of these cases. I have since taken legal advice as to the form of prosecution and am having particulars prepared of all unfulfilled obligations with a view to the institution of proceedings in the near future. Any person who wishes to avoid such proceedings would accordingly be well-advised to communicate at once with my Department stating the circumstances which have prevented him from fulfilling his obligation and submitting reasonable proposals regarding the fulfilment thereof at an early date.

I am glad to see that there has been some reduction in the number of illegal fellings reported last year as compared with the previous year. The number of cases so reported amounted to 124 as compared with 169 in 1951-52 and is still far too high. Proceedings were instituted in 77 cases and convictions obtained in 71 of these. Those convicted included eight timber merchants, who were found guilty of offences arising from the purchase of trees which the owner was not entitled to fell. As I have previously pointed out, purchasers of timber can easily obtain evidence of authority to fell from the vendor or the nearest Garda station. All timber merchants or other persons engaged in the purchase of timber should by now be fully familiar with the provisions of the Forestry Act, 1946.

The Minister has certainly given us a very extensive survey of the activities of the Forestry Department over the past year. It is gratifying to know that headway is being made, even though it is not perhapsas great as we would like or as the country would require. The management and control of our forests is, of course, a very big undertaking and a very important business, if I may use that term, in relation to the economic life of the nation. I should like to say that forestry has ever been the aim and ideal of every Government we have had here as it was of those who went before us. All have felt that forestry is necessary from many points of view. There should be no great difficulty in securing suitable land for even more extensive activities as regards plantation. I agree with what the Minister said that the plantation of land is only the beginning, and that the pruning, the thinning and the cleaning of the young forests is even more important in a sense than the planting.

Before I go into details, I should like to suggest to the Minister that, in my opinion, the time has arrived in which houses should be made available for those engaged on forestry work, if not on the forests at least in the forestry districts. It is hard on men to have to travel long distances to and from their work, day after day. I think that, under that system, their effectiveness is considerably reduced. I should like to see, in every district where there is a reasonable amount of forest planted, suitable housing accommodation provided not only for the forester but for the workers likely to be permanently engaged on forestry work. Indeed, it would even be better if, as regards workers who are employed in a semi-temporary way, sleeping accommodation were provided for them near the forest so that they would be relieved of the fatigue of travelling long distances daily to their work. I think if that were done it would evoke from the forester and the workers a greater interest in the care and wellbeing of the forests. They would then realise that not only were they doing good work for themselves but also good work for the nation.

There has always been a certain amount of competition in the speeches made here on this Vote as to what is the proper amount of afforestation that should be done in any one year. Whenthe Minister says he has decided on, approximately, 12,500 acres for next year, I suppose that is as much as we can expect him to do, although I fear his announcement will be a disappointment to many people.

It was considered that 15,000 or 16,000 acres per annum should be a minimum. However, if steady progress is made at the rate of even 12,000 acres per annum, it will be some headway, and I suppose we have to be satisfied with what we can get.

In connection with the employment of workers on forests, I would like to stress that the Minister or the Department should not terminate at very short notice the services of people who are employed on that work, because money runs out or something else like that occurs. The Minister need never be afraid to face this House with a Supplementary Estimate if he feels that he requires more money. Forestry is one of the expenditures that this House would sanction with a very great will and he would have no difficulty in obtaining whatever money is required. Every tree that is planted is a new asset to the State and it is certainly one of the best investments that a country or an individual can undertake.

I am glad the Minister has issued a warning to people who got felling permits and who have not fulfilled their obligations under the permits. It is a matter which should be brought very forcibly to their notice for immediate attention. When these people were getting permits to cut down timber, they were receiving good prices for it and it is only reasonable that they should comply with the requirements which the Forestry Department laid down. They would not have got the permit if they said they were not prepared to undertake the replanting. As a great number of the people who got these felling licences never had the responsibility of planting that timber—they were really reaping the benefit from some previous generation —they should now reinvest that money.

If persons who have been granted a felling permit want to have land replanted, there are nurserymen who willtake the contract for replanting from one acre to 50 acres at a very reasonable price. If they make inquiries from good nurserymen for a tender to replant the forest they have cut down, they will find they can have it done far cheaper than they could do it themselves. The nurserymen know how to do it. I have had some experience of it myself and I know what I am talking about. The nurserymen will undertake the planting of young trees at so much per 1,000 and there is nobody can do it better than they can. They prepare the ground; they bring the young plants, larch, spruce, or whatever they may be, fresh every day from the nursery and plant what they bring in the day. These plants never stop growing and there is no failure. It is easy, therefore, for those people who get felling licences to comply with the Forestry Department's requirements. I would add my voice to that of the Minister in asking them to fulfil the obligations they undertook when the felling permits were granted. That is one of the ways in which they can get it done reasonably, cheaply and efficiently. They have wiring, and so forth, to do themselves, of course, but they can do that very easily if the will is there. I am glad to hear that the Minister has taken in hands the thinning and pruning of plantations and intends to do a good deal of it. He should leave no plantation undone and he should see to it that all the pruning and cutting of the under-branches, and so on, is done every year where it is required. Again I submit to him and to the House that he can easily obtain whatever money is required. The amount of the Vote should not stop him, because failure either to cut the lower branches or to thin or weed puts in jeopardy the benefits from the money he has already spent upon the acquisition of the land, and the planting of the young timber. In that connection I would stress that the Minister, the Forestry Department and the Government need never be afraid to come to this House for whatever money is required.

The extension of afforestation is admitted to be one of the greatest needs in this country. There are many existing industries that could befostered and new ones established if we had sufficient timber, including young timber. Therefore, one of the principal reasons why afforestation must commend itself to the House and to the country is that it provides rural employment. It is one of the operations that cannot be done in the city; it is done upon the green fields of the Irish countryside. Consequently, it is a step in the right direction towards retaining our rural population. Every effort and every activity by the Department in that connection should be fostered and approved by every member of the House.

On the question of land acquisition, although land is becoming dear again, I hold that that should not stop the Forestry Department from proceeding with the acquisition of land that is suitable for afforestation. Of course, some Deputies like myself, who want land divided amongst uneconomic holders and others, do not like to see good land planted. Unfortunately, the Forestry Department, in order to make sure that they would have some profit, must take some good land. I do suggest, however, that they could do with land of a lesser quality than that which they are utilising.

Having been told some 20 years ago that afforestation could not take place on certain lands, on certain heights and in certain areas, I will never forget having seen where an Indian prince established certain plantations in the West of Ireland, in a place where, we were told, no one would go. To-day is it not something of which any of us could be proud? If that could be done by an individual there is no reason in the world why the State could not do the same. There are large tracts of land which, undoubtedly, at one time were covered with plantations and woodlands and which to-day are bare because of invasions and other occurrences when our timber was cut down and taken away. Of course, the last destruction of our woodlands was in 1914-1918, during which time people got rich quick upon the destruction of many fine forests and woodlands. The Department could, however, with profit extend their activities to this land which is easily obtained.

I know that there are arguments thatland is used as sheep runs and that farmers have sheep rights, and so on. If the land is very valuable for sheep grazing, it is more costly to acquire but I think it is worth it. Plantations will not only improve the scenic appearance of the country but will improve the temperature and give the employment that we so urgently require.

It is a pity that there are people so careless about plantations as to light fires or carelessly throw cigarettes or matches and cause damage to this very valuable property. There should be very prominent warning notices everywhere near forests. Where people infringe the law in this matter it is one of the cases in which I would have no hesitation in visiting upon them the most rigorous punishment permissible under the law.

I am glad to be able to say that in every forest I visited, good paths have been constructed but the clearing of the roads is not as good as it should be. Rome was not built in a day and we cannot expect everything to be done in a minute. If the Minister and the Forestry Division made a determined effort to proceed on a more rapid scale with afforestation they would get not only the support of Deputies but the thanks of the nation.

The satisfactory feature of this Estimate is that there is a proposal for an increased expenditure on afforestation of over £200,000. That is welcome news to every section of the community. It is welcome news to those who believe in the development of our country's resources and their utilisation to the fullest extent and to those who wish to see the maximum number of our people usefully employed. We hear a great deal about unemployment, emigration and other social evils. The only way to tackle them is by a constructive effort to increase the volume of useful employment.

The Minister has indicated that in the coming year there will be a further substantial increase in the number of men employed. I think he gave the figure of 4,000 for the coming year as against 3,700 last year and last yearthere was a substantial increase on the year before. It appears that every year we are progressively stepping up the number of workers employed in afforestation. That is satisfactory. I hope the progress will continue.

In the Minister's statement there is every indication that the volume of employment will progressively increase. As he stated, every additional year's planting of 12,000 or 15,000 acres adds considerably to the volume of employment in keeping the plantations in order. The Minister gave a figure in connection with one estate where 4,000 acres meant employment for 70 workers. That would be about one worker to every 57 acres, which is a fairly substantial amount of employment.

There is a nursery.

Of course, that is very different. In the case of planting as against cultivation, the volume of employment would be much greater. There will always be a very substantial number of men required for the purpose of maintaining plantations in proper order and we can look forward at a later stage to employment in harvesting and in the use of the timber for various industrial purposes. All this is very desirable. Everyone will join in the hope that it will be possible to step up the acreage planted annually.

Anyone who has experience or knowledge of the conditions knows that it is not such an easy matter to acquire land. The land has to be purchased. In some cases land which is at present utilised for grazing and other purposes has to be acquired and acquisition is a long and difficult process, particularly where there is a number of people involved. Each individual owner must have his rights acquired. That makes for considerable delay.

The officers of the Minister's Department are doing all they can to acquire land as speedily as possible, as far as my knowledge goes. I have experience of their perseverance, energy and activity in accquiring land wherever it is available.

Having regard to the volume of information given by the Minister inintroducing the Estimate, it may seem a little ungenerous or perhaps discourteous to ask for further information but there is one simple figure which I should like to get from him and which would be of use in establishing public opinion in favour of afforestation. It is the simple economics of afforestation.

I think it would be a good thing if the Minister could tell the House and tell the country the approximate value of an acre of mature timber, the length of time that it takes to produce that acre of timber, and the cost of production including all the expenditure involved from the acquisition of the land to the date on which the timber can be felled. Of course I recognise that there is an income from some of the plantations in the thinnings, but adding that to the value of the mature timber I would like to know what is the total value of an acre of timber and what approximately it costs to produce. I realise that that would not be a very precise figure but it would give a rough estimate so that the community and the taxpayers could see what value they are getting for the expenditure involved. The Department of Forestry is costing quite a considerable amount of money but people generally look upon it as an investment and we would like to be assured of the value of the investment. Nobody, I think, really expects very big profit out of the transaction, because afforestation has a value apart altogether from its mere cash or commercial value. It is certainly a social benefit to the nation to have so many men employed productively, and it is also a benefit, I suppose, to the nation by improving its scenic appearance. I think it is also recognised that the plantation of our forests does benefit considerably the climatic conditions and agricultural conditions generally in the areas.

The Minister probably knows that in South Wicklow, long before the Department got under way, we had such work done in a small way on the Coolattin estate, where the land on some of the small hills was planted and the remainder of the land was utilised for agricultural purposes. Thus you have planting, afforestation and agriculture, which is very pleasing tolook upon and it is what everyone desires. The Forestry Department has sometimes been encroaching upon agricultural land. I know that it is a difficult question, because if the Department acquired a certain area of land and there are pockets of agricultural land dovetailed in amongst the land that is only suitable for plantation it is difficult to separate the agricultural land from what is being planted, but at the same time I think that every effort should be made to do so. It is better to keep land that is useful for agriculture separate from what is being planted and to confine timber solely to land that is unsuitable for other purposes. I know that that is a difficult thing to achieve in all cases, yet I think every effort should be made to do so.

It is gratifying to note that there has been a substantial increase in mechanisation in afforestation. In this, as in all other matters, mechanisation is not the enemy of the human labour. It rather tends to increase the output of the workers employed and to assist them in getting more value out of their work, so I think that wherever mechanisation can be employed everybody will agree that it is desirable.

It is necessary and desirable that plans should be carefully laid for the utilisation to the fullest extent of the State forests and that industries for the purpose of utilising this timber should be established. To get the full value from our afforestation programme it is necessary that the timber should be used in the most efficient way, and if the State is involved in a great deal of expenditure in producing the timber they ought not to sell it merely as raw material to some other industry but ought to develop it to the fullest extent and by utilising it in properly established industries as near as possible to the plantations get full value out of it.

I know that efforts are being made now to provide housing accommodation for workers convenient to the areas being planted. That is all to the good. I think it is right that the men should have their residences as convenient to their work as possible and that they should not have to travel unnecessarilylong distances. It is right also that there should be in the rural areas that are being taken over for afforestation a rural population associated with and dependent upon the forests for their living, and in that way you would always have an assurance of employment for those workers and an assurance of an ample labour supply for the Forestry Department.

Farmers have been complaining in the areas adjoining plantations of damage by rabbits and foxes and other vermin which accumulate in the plantations. I know that the Department are endeavouring to deal with that, but it is a matter in regard to which very drastic action should be taken. It would be altogether wrong to allow the forests established to become the sheltering grounds for vermin of every kind that would damage the farmers' crops in the adjoining areas, so that we would expect the Forestry Department to take ruthless action to exterminate all types of vermin which, while they might not injure the plantations to any great extent, could do very serious damage to the farmers' land adjoining the plantations.

There is another evil which does arise in regard to plantations and it is one which might not have been foreseen. I have had experience of it in Wicklow and I think other Deputies have experience of it also, and that is that after some years when the plantations become more mature the wire netting protecting them deteriorates and the fence to a great extent deteriorates, and while that does not cause any damage to the plantation it does result in loss to the farmers on lands adjoining inasmuch as their sheep, for example, can stray into the forests and get completely lost. This is a problem which has arisen now in Wicklow and which I suppose arises also in other counties, having regard to the very large areas now under plantation. If sheep stray into forests it is almost impossible to find them. In that way there is considerable loss. Not only for the sake of protecting their own property but for the sake of protecting adjoining farmers against loss, the Forestry Department should take adequate measures to ensure that thefences on their plantations are kept in proper repair.

While the Minister referred to the failure of private landowners to plant in accordance with felling agreements, he did not refer at all to the other aspect, State assistance to private owners to encourage them to plant. It seems that the scheme of grants to private landowners for the planting of timber on their own lands appears to be ineffective or not to be availed of to any extent. I have often thought that it would be a very good thing if farmers could be encouraged, even where they have not felled any timber on their own land, to put patches of waste land under timber. There is, of course, a scheme under the county committees of agriculture under which this work is carried out on a small scale by the provision of assistance for shelter belts, but there would be somewhat larger areas on a number of farms which could also be planted.

Farmers are a little slow to avail of grants for that purpose. I have a feeling that the grants in themselves of £10 per acre do not offer sufficient inducement. I am not suggesting that the grants should be increased, but I think some scheme should be devised on a long-term credit basis, under which a farmer could plant one, two, three or four acres of waste land and the cost would be recovered when the timber comes to maturity. Some scheme of that kind could be worked out. As has been pointed out, the main expense in the planting of a comparatively small area is not so much the cost of the timber or the preparing and developing of the ground, as the cost of effectively fencing the portion of land. That would be fairly considerable. That is one of the reasons why farmers are not too anxious to avail of these grants. If there were adequate credit provided to cover this, it would be a better proposition. Something should be done about it. Quite a large area of land could be put under plantations in this way. As everyone knows, particularly in hilly country, there are considerable patches of land on every farm—one, two or three acres —which are practically waste as far as agriculture is concerned and whichcould be very usefully utilised for the growing of timber.

The whole matter boils down to two questions. First, there is the initial expense and then there is the very long period before a return can be secured. For that reason, some form of State credit would be more beneficial than anything else, to ensure that those small plantations would be carried out. Such a scheme would give considerable employment and would help to beautify the country. I recommend it to the Government and I hope that something will be done in this respect.

On the whole, this is a satisfactory kind of Estimate, inasmuch as we have at least one Department which is adding something to the value of the nation's assets. It is not like many other Departments which apparently are only on the consuming side of our assets and resources. It would be a great advantage, not only to the Forestry Department, but to the nation generally, in estimating the value of afforestation, if we could have, as I suggest, a precise statement of accounts in regard to plantation, if we could have the cost of production of each acre of timber and its value when the timber is produced. That would enable the Dáil, in the first place, and the community generally, to appraise accurately the value of afforestation. If the community are satisfied that this is valuable work for the nation, the Minister and his Department will get useful help from local public opinion in the acquisition of land and in the protection of the plantations when established.

It shows a great lack of public spirit when people are careless, as is well known, in regard to fires in plantation areas. If there were a strong public opinion in every locality in the nation which looked upon the State forests as a very valuable asset, the public, generally, would be prepared to protect and defend them in every possible way and people would be very slow to run the risk of damaging those forests. The Minister pointed out that a considerable amount of expenditure was involved in the past year, as well as in the Estimate for the present year, in replanting areas which were destroyed by fire. That is one kind ofwaste that ought to be cut down to the minimum. Accidents will happen in spite of every effort, but I think everybody in the community should be concerned to protect our forests from damage by fire, and that every precaution would be taken by the community if there was a live and wide-awake public opinion in regard to this matter. That is why I say there should be a little bit of publicity to bring home to our people the value of our State forests, their potentialities for the purpose of establishing industries in the future in the areas where they exist, and their value also as a source of employment to our people. If that was clearly understood by everybody, particularly in forest areas, it would make for a strong local public opinion which would deter people from deliberately, or through carelessness, damaging those forests.

I think I would be safe in saying that the Estimate for forestry gives general satisfaction to all sides of the House. The Forestry Department could be said to be a popular Department amongst all the people. The only thing we have any doubt about is whether they are going fast enough with the planting which every one of us would like to see them doing. There are difficulties about that and I suppose in the long run it would be better that they should do the job well when they acquire land and look after it afterwards in the matter of thinning, cleaning, etc. The amount of employment given in districts where State forests are situated is a great social and economic advantage to the countryside. In a very short time after a forestry section is set up an additional amount of employment is provided in the area, even in districts where the land gave little or no employment previously. A big lot of unskilled labour is employed straight away or within a few years.

That is the best way of utilising a lot of our land which is of a poor, hilly nature and it probably gives a better return to the nation over a period of years than it would if it were utilised in any other way. A lot of it at the moment carries a number of mountainy sheep which are kept mainly for thegrowing of wool. In some districts it probably could be better utilised for the growing of trees rather than the production of wool. There are such tracts of land in all parts of the country and every encouragement should be given by the Forestry Department to the people who own that land to sell it for forestry purposes. The people who live in the locality would be probably better off if the Forestry Department had the land in their hands in order to utilise it for the planting of trees.

As to the matter of employment, we sometimes hear complaints of men being laid off at certain times of the year. I often wonder whether sufficient money is being made available for certain foresters' sections. We do know that particular foresters could utilise more money to advantage in their districts in the matter of thinning and cleaning. But they are cut rather tight. It is usual at this time of the year for a good number of men to be laid off because it is said that work is scarce. My own opinion is that work is not scarce but that the forester has only a certain amount of money to carry him over the whole season. It would be an advantage from the employment point of view if more money were made available and these foresters were allowed to do the thinning and cleaning to the extent that they believe is required on any particular plantation. That would help very considerably in providing employment over the whole year for men who often only work occasionally in particular sections.

I know that there is a certain objection by landholders to selling these hillsides to the Forestry Department and the Forestry Department, if they have not the goodwill of the owners, are slow about acquiring these lands. Generally speaking, however, the Forestry Department will get every help from this House in connection with the afforestation programme and I am sure that if the farmers are willing to hand over their lands to the Forestry Department the acreage planted each year will increase.

Deputy Cogan, and I think Deputy MacEoin, inquired what was the value to the nation of a mature plantation.It is very hard to estimate that. My own rough calculation would be, taking one acre with another, and assuming that after 70 years the trees would reach maturity, that a plantation would be worth from £1,000 to £2,000 per acre. I doubt if it would cost more than £200 or £300 per acre to bring it to that stage. I may be all wrong, but I have the idea that an acre of matured timber, taking one acre with another, would be worth from £1,000 to £2,000 and that the cost would not be more than £200 or £300. If you take the long-term view of it and look at it over a lifetime or two lifetimes, it certainly would be definitely a good investment for the nation to have the largest possible area planted.

With regard to planting by private persons, the Minister mentioned the amount of felling which was done in the recent emergency and that a number of woods which were felled have not yet been replanted. That is fairly common throughout the country. There is an aspect of that to which I should like to call the attention of the Minister. It sometimes happens that when farms change hands an obligation to replant is transferred to the new owner. Very often, however, a new owner may buy these lands without the knowledge that they carry that obligation. I suggest that where land carries an obligation for replanting it should be noted on the folio. There should not be any great difficulty about that and it would enable the new owner to know of the obligation to replant. There should be no difficulty in getting something noted on the folio. The Department of Lands should be able to do that through the Land Registry without any great difficulty.

I believe that more might be done by the Department with regard to the encouragement of planting by private persons. It would help considerably the development of this country. Very little in that direction is being done at the moment and there was a suggestion a couple of years ago that a forester should be added to the staff of the local committee of agriculture or the county council and that some two or three county councils have a foresteron their staff as they had a considerable area of timber in their hands. The whole energy of the Department of Forestry should not be devoted to State plantations and it should be portion of the official policy to help private persons and encourage them to do some planting. I think some scheme could be worked out by providing that a forester be added to the local committee of agriculture to give advice and carry out a drive to get planting done in small areas by private persons and farmers owning the land planting a few acres. In that way, if all the farmers were doing a little they could plant four times the amount each year that the Forestry Department plants, and that would be great acquisition for the country in a short term of years.

I want to suggest to the Minister that he should consider the proposal put up to him a short time ago by Wexford County Council to have a trained forester attached to the staff of the local authority or the committee of agriculture so as to help and give advice to any person owning land who desired to have it planted.

I would like to congratulate the Minister and his Department on the great progress being made in the acquisition and planting of land.

We can readily admit that the Minister made a very clear and full statement and dealt with all phases of afforestation. That is only right because after all the Forestry Branch of the Department of Lands is by far the most important section. I think, too, that so far as this side of the House and this Party is concerned that Deputy MacEoin made a full reply which covered all the matters in which we would be interested. There is no need, therefore, to delay the House or the Minister very much longer or prevent the Minister from replying. It is satisfactory to note in the Minister's statement that more money has been voted for the carrying out of afforestation and that also every provision is being made for the acquisition of more land, but evidently so far as planting is concerned the number of acres as laid down last year still remains the same at 12,500 acres. The maximumwhich his predecessor hoped to reach was twice that, but the Minister in his statement last year and this year endeavoured to show that that was impossible. I do not know how far that is correct but I expect the experts of the Department should know best. Still, of course, it is absolutely essential that every effort should be made to increase the number of acres planted from the figure of 12,500 year after year until at least we should reach a maximum of 15,000 or 16,000, or if possible 25,000 acres.

It is readily understood that during all the years of foreign occupation in this country, the country was denuded of its trees and whatever was left was cleared out entirely during the 1914-18 war. In fact, this country has the reputation of having the lowest percentage of its acreage under forestry of any country in Europe, and it has been said, I think, by a forestry expert that a country denuded of its trees is a country leading to decay. There must be something in it, because all the progressive countries of Europe—and I suppose of the world—have a very high percentage of their acreage under forestry. England itself, I believe, has, or had, 18 per cent.; France something like 20 per cent. and Norway and Sweden 25 per cent. It was a rather peculiar situation that about a half century ago now the English Government then in control sent over a forestry expert from Sweden to see what could be done about carrying out afforestation along the western seaboard of this country and, of course, his report was an adverse one which we could expect because, after all, an expert from Sweden, I suppose, would not be likely to give a good, satisfactory report on this country in competition with his own. Perhaps the English Government itself did not wish it should be favourable. I think it has been estimated that in this country something like 1,250,000—perhaps 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 acres—of plantable land exist and at the rate we are going it will take a very long number of years before we have it all planted. But, however, Rome was not built in a day, and by continuing as we are, and improving as far as possible,planting all the plantable land—and then, of course, we shall have always the old forests being cut down according as the timber will mature and the land being replanted—so that in that way, not only will we eventually, perhaps, have the right percentage of our land under forestry, but we should also be able to give employment—permanent employment if possible—to thousands of our people.

It is easy to understand that when the land is acquired for planting, that the fencing, draining, clearing out of scrub and so forth, the planting itself, the maintenance afterwards, the thinning out, and so on, are bound to give a great deal of employment—and very suitable employment, too—for our young men in rural areas. I think it was Deputy MacEoin who said that it was very useful that that type of employment would be in rural areas, and would have nothing to do with the city. As the trees mature you will have the cutting down, the haulage, the cutting of the timber in the timber yards and so on; and its distribution through the country, so that not only will we be making ourselves safe against any emergency by having our own timber in sufficient supplies, but we will also be giving permanent and suitable employment to many thousands of our people. It is therefore one of the most important sections of the Department of Lands.

Deputy MacEoin referred to the effect on climate and, of course, planting our hillsides to a certain extent affects what I might call land erosion. Trees beautify the country and provide shelter. Deputy Allen mentioned the rearing of sheep as against the production of timber. I should not like to get into a discussion with a mountain farmer in connection with that matter. I am sure most mountain farmers would state that it is more profitable to produce sheep, wool and meat than to produce timber but it is a very debatable question. After all, if we planted all our mountains that are plantable, it would change the economy of the country entirely. I do not suppose that any mountain farmer would object to planting a certain proportion of his land. An economic unit for a plantationis supposed to be something like 300 acres but I think the Department should be prepared to accept a good deal less. They would probably find that where one farmer was willing to offer 50 acres, another farmer in the same neighbourhood would offer another 50 or 100 acres and eventually by getting other farmers to offer some of their land and by merging all the land offered, it would be possible to have a plantation of 200 or 300 acres or perhaps up to 500 acres.

In regard to the question of pests in forests, I am sure the Department is quite aware of the destruction caused by rabbits, hares, squirrels and deer. Of course, it is to prevent such destruction that certain areas are wired in but I do not suppose that the Department is always successful in ejecting the pests before they wire in any particular area. In any event, I do not suppose that it would be possible to prevent deer from entering plantations or forests because they can jump to any height. It is necessary, however, to make provision to curb these pests as far as possible especially in the case of young forests.

Deputy MacEoin referred also to provision of houses for forestry workers. Seeing that at present much of the work is part-time, it would not be easy to calculate the number of houses required but certainly, where men have to travel long distances to work, some provision should be made by which these men could have a hot mid-day meal. In that connection it might be better if we were to follow in the footsteps of Bord na Móna year by year. Some provision should be made for the housing of employees or at least some steps should be taken to provide them with a hot mid-day meal.

We had hopes at one time that an institute of forestry would be established at Muckross House in Killarney —that beautiful building which is idle and empty at present. Anybody who has any knowledge of the woodland scenery of Killarney and of the area of land around the place suitable for planting, would readily agree that it would be an ideal situation for such an institute if the Department of Forestry should decide at any time toset up such an institute. Maybe it has set it up elsewhere.

I would also suggest to the Minister, now that the Department has taken over that very important portion of land at Lickeen, Glencar, that next October or in the near future some effort should be made to get it ready for planting. Many farmers in that area have offered land for further plantations. It is a poor mountainous area and it is necessary to give employment to as many people as possible in the district. On the question of forestry generally, we are all in agreement as to the necessity for extending afforestation and we are only too anxious to help the Minister and the Department in every way possible. In conclusion I should like to say that in connection with any representations we have made to the officials of the Department in regard to offers of land. the acquisition of land or other matters we have always been received with the greatest courtesy.

I had not the advantage of hearing the Minister's opening statement but there are a few points I should like to mention in connection with this very important Estimate. My approach to this matter is somewhat different from that of Deputy Palmer in that I deplore the fact, as I have done previously, that forestry is just a mere section of the Department of Lands. I consider that there is no justification for that and, no matter what Minister or Government may be in power, I feel that we are undoubtedly unfortunately failing in our duty in regard to forestry. Deputy Palmer mentioned the fact that a lot of timber was felled in this country during the 1914-18 War. It might be interesting to ascertain what acreage in this country was under timber prior to 1914 or what acreage was under timber at the very start of this century as compared with the acreage under timber at the present time. I think we should be prepared to approach this Estimate from the national point of view irrespective of Party politics as it deals with a question for which whether we like it or not, we have all a certain responsibility. I am not satisfied that we should approach thisproblem purely from the point of view of the minimum acreage that should be utilised for the growing of timber. It seems to me that we have come to the stage of considering everything merely from the return that may be made available in hard cash to the State, that we consider nothing other than the material benefits that may accrue over a number of years from the planting of timber. If that were so always I presume that the acreage under timber at the start of the century would have been vastly different from what it was.

I do not think that we should be prepared to seek the views of experts from other countries regarding the minimum acreage that we should utilise for forestry. Why should we go to other countries to seek such advice when such experts, able as they may be in their own business, are bound to approach this question from a different point of view from that which we hold, and when they fail to realise that we have not the same quantity of land available in this country as in countries in which they gained their experience? Take, for instance, the United States. We have too small an acreage under timber if we compare it against other countries. It is perfectly true that the percentage of land under timber in this country is relatively small and is undoubtedly a disgrace to us when we consider the percentage under timber even in an industrialised country like Britain. What excuses are we prepared to make?

Deputy Allen mentioned one aspect of this very important question. I refer to the problem of getting private individuals to realise the advantages of afforestation. During the recent emergency, some people were permitted to cut down trees or fell timber on the understanding that they would replant the acreage concerned. Unfortunately, that obligation has not been met in certain instances. I am sure that every member of the House is aware that many of the owners concerned have no intention of replanting at any stage. It is about time that such people were brought to heel and made face their responsibilities. If they gained certain advantages by cuttingdown the trees then surely they should be prepared to accept their responsibilities and replant the land. Even at this late stage—because it is late—the Minister in charge of the Forestry Division should make it quite clear to the people concerned that they will not be allowed to evade their responsibilities and that the lands must be replanted immediately.

I fear that, in many instances, where saplings were planted, it was done more or less as a joke. I know of places where replanting was carried out and where the saplings are now four or five years old. These saplings are of little or no value from the point of view of commercial timber—and they will be of no value—because they were planted next to the trunks of formed timber. No chance was given to these young saplings in their first few years of growth. Briars and weeds were allowed to grow around them. Surely we all realise that an orderly system of plantation is essential for the successful growth of saplings. We are closing our eyes to the neglect of some of these owners who so far have evaded their responsibilities in this connection. Much of that timber—or of what we hoped would be timber in a few years' time—will, I fear, be fit for nothing other than firewood. I believe that, unfortunately, we have come to the stage where our concern with afforestation is purely from the point of view of commercial timber but, if that is so, then we must be prepared for a position in which in 30 or 40 years' time, a percentage of the trees which will then be coming into maturity will not be fit for any commercial purpose.

Undoubtedly, the people in the rural areas are not prepared, as individuals, to avail of the many opportunities afforded them for the planting of timber. Deputy Allen mentioned the desirability of having a forester attached to each local authority area. As far as I am aware, that is so in County Donegal and certainly it is so in Cork. Not alone have we a forester attached to the local authority but we also have a plantation and a nursery there. However, much as is being done by the forester and the Cork County Council in the way of providingthe advantages that are there for landowners, unfortunately—whether it be through lack of publicity or because of that over-conservative attitude which it seems almost impossible to break down—the people are not availing of the opportunities that are being afforded in County Cork.

Another problem in the same context is that vested interests are opposed to the setting-up of plantation nurseries and the appointment of new foresters attached to local authorities. It may be that some of these people are afraid that, ultimately, it will lead to a position which they themselves may not be able to face. The members of this House, irrespective of Party, must admit that forestry in this country, and the methods which have been applied for the past 30 or 40 years, are not showing satisfactory results. It is all right to say that we have 12,000 acres: 12,000 acres each year will eventually give us some fair area under timber, but what is that amount compared with what we should have?

During the last war this country was faced with a very serious problem due to lack of timber. I have a small knowledge of the building industry and I have heard people saying that Irish timber was fit for nothing but the fire. Prior to the war, timber could be imported into this country at a cheap rate but, from 1940 onwards, we were in a vastly different position. While we all hope that, in our lifetime, there will not be a recurrence of world war, yet, should such an unfortunate event occur, where would this country be as regards timber? Timber is one of those important products that cannot be done without for building purposes as well as for many other purposes. Timber is a vital necessity for this country—and yet we are not facing our responsibilities in regard to replanting and afforestation. Because of that, and because of the vital importance of timber in industry generally, I believe that it is unfair that a Minister for Lands should, at the same time, be in charge of forestry. Of the two things —land and afforestation—I believe that, in the years to come, taking it as a whole, forestry will become a bigger problem than the question of lands.We cannot divide land for ever, but we can keep planting trees for ever because, so often as timber is felled, so often will timber be replanted.

One of the problem directly related to this important Estimate is that of the minimum acreage of timber. I do not agree that land comprising as much as 40, 50 or 60 acres should be allowed to lie undeveloped and used for nothing, not even for sheep rearing. It is no argument to say that because the acreage is small it should not be utilised.

One of the problem in regard to afforestation in this country is the fact that the forestry section is located in Dublin City. We have heard a great deal of talk about the decentralisation of industry and the decentralisation of certain Government Departments. I consider that the forestry division should be moved to a rural area. I do not for a moment suggest that the officials are not looking after the problem but I feel that the sooner the section is located in a rural area the sooner they will find the problems which directly concern them.

It may be said that, because of financial difficulty, the plantation of 50 or 60 acres would not pay. Would it not be possible for a Minister in charge of this very important section to arrange some system whereby there would be much greater co-operation between the various committees of agriculture? I fail to understand why it is that even in South Cork—my own direct concern—and in other parts of West Cork which I travel, there are to be seen 40, 50, and 60 acres of land with the roots of old trees cut some years ago, briars and bushes of every description showing. Why is it, I ask myself, that these so-called small acreages were planted originally and why is it that the country's economy then was so different from what it is now? I believe that the sense of economy at that time was much more in keeping with the policy of afforestation than is ours at present.

I was interested in a particular area before the present Minister took office, an area which was under timber many years ago. When I raised the matter with the Minister concerned, the replyI got—a reply which he believed to be correct and accurate—was that the soil in that locality was not fit for growing trees, although, strangely enough, the whole area at one time was under timber. We know that, in that long gone by period, there were not available the advantages of soil testing and the various types of timber for planting that are supposed to be available to us at present. We have advantages which were unknown to the people in those days, but we are not utilising the advantages which are ours for the taking.

As I have said, I am approaching this Estimate totally devoid of any desire to criticise one Minister or another—there is very little difference in the Estimate presented each year— but the difficulty I see is that, first, we are apparently forgetting the very important effect on our climate which would undoubtedly flow from the utilisation of these small acreages and, secondly, the very important effect on another problem which is noticeable in many parts of rural Ireland from time to time, unemployment. In many areas, workers have only two choices— employment with a farmer or employment with a local authority on the roads. Yet, just inside these roadways in many of these areas, there as tracts of land which, if we are prepared to tackle the problem as we should tackle it, would provide opportunities to put these men working.

Are we afraid to do so? Are we satisfied with the statements of experts who tell us that we should go into hundreds of acres as a minimum? Are we satisfied that that is the policy which will be of advantage to the country? We have in this country, small as it is, people as well endowed with brains as are to be found in any country, and if we had less dependence on experts from other countries and more dependence on our own initiative and ability to get over problems which confront us, we would be doing a better day's work for the country than we are doing. The land in many of these areas is undoubtedly waste land. It will not be utilised under the land rehabilitation scheme and it is not being used at present even for sheep raising. It is, in its own way, a wilderness, andapparently we are satisfied, no matter what Government or Minister is in power, to let these pockets of land become worse year after year. Even from the point of view of valuation, the improved value of these holdings, if they were under timber rather than covered with the stumps of old trees, furze and briars, would be of advantage to the country.

There is not much use in going into detail on this Estimate. I believe that every member who has spoken is interested in the subject, as I believe the Minister and his officials, as well as the former Minister, are also, but we are up against a stone wall because we are following an outmoded, outdated pattern in regard to afforestation, and the sooner we are prepared to admit our own failures, the more quickly will we get on to the road of preparing a policy which will show in the years to come the advantages of a bold Irish viewpoint. If we face that problem, if we do not leave to others coming after us the work we should be doing ourselves, we will be doing a good day's work for the country, and, as Deputy MacEoin mentioned, for the people of the rural areas. When we speak of unemployment we realise that in cities and large towns the problem is undoubtedly an industrial one, but in rural areas, where very often men have no opportunity other than that presented by farm work or road work, there is an alternative. Are we going to take advantage of it?

I went into more detail last year, but there is no good in doing so now in relation to policy, when it seems that that policy is not so geared as to bring within its ambit even criticisms of a constructive nature designed to help that policy. That is why I believe that people in rural Ireland are not satisfied that this Minister and Government, any more than the Governments of the past 30 years, are prepared to tackle this big problem. Let us realise that the time has gone when we can blame a foreign Government for all our ills. We have had 30 years to remedy some of these ills and yet the percentage of land going under timber year after year is nothing compared with what it should be. While I appreciate what the Minister is endeavouring to do under thisEstimate the fact is that forestry is looked upon as a sort of foster child of the Department of Lands and, secondly, we appear to be wedded to a policy in relation to afforestation detrimental to the interests of the people here.

Like Deputy Desmond I believe that dealing with afforestation in a detailed manner here is simply a waste of time. Over the past 30 years Deputies have put forward before the various Governments the reasons why we should embark on a vast afforestation programme. In spite of the advice given to different Governments by both sides of this House we find to-day that very little advance has been made in an effort to tackle this problem over the last 30 years.

Deputy Desmond pointed out that there is no use talking now about the massacre of our trees under a British régime during the past century. That excuse can no longer hold water since we have had 30 years in which to make some attempt towards developing a policy of our own in relation to afforestation. If the various Governments had implemented a policy aimed at giving us 25,000 acres of planted land per year we would have to-day 1,750,000 acres of land under trees. That would be a worth-while achievement.

I was not here when the Minister made his opening statement, but I am sure that, like his predecessor, and his predecessor before him, he gave the usual pat on the back to his Department and another pat on the back to himself because of the great work that is being done for this poor relation of the Department of Lands. Without wishing to be personal, instead of a pat on the back I would like to administer a good thump not alone to the present Minister but to his predecessors over the last 30 years.

What is wrong that we cannot get a proper approach to this problem? Everyone is agreed that afforestation is a tremendous asset. The Minister may be quite anxious to go ahead more rapidly. I can see the Minister, like his predecessor, going into a Cabinet meeting, having purchased all the necessary land, obtained the wirefor fencing and the labour and putting up an estimate there to the Minister for Finance for the purpose of embarking on a programme of afforestation. I think we all know the answer: the Minister would be thrown out on his ear.

We must remember that an afforestation programme has no great attraction in itself for a political Party or a Government. There is no kudos to be gained from embarking on a large-scale afforestation programme for the return from such a programme will not come for at least 20 to 25 years and no political Party will plan its programme on a basis of 25 years ahead. We can see that outlook to-day in every Department of State. Look at Bord na Móna. That body is closing down in the country production section because it has failed to make a profit in the last four or five years. It is closing down despite the fact that first-class employment was provided through its activities.

What can we expect then in relation to afforestation where there will be no commercial return for at least 15 years? That is one of the real reasons why a large-scale afforestation programme has never been embarked on. The fruits of such a programme will not be reaped for many years. Such a programme takes great courage and perseverance, backed by finance, on the part of any administration. I know that I am wasting my time talking to this administration just as I wasted my time talking to the last administration. It has been suggested that there is difficulty in obtaining land and the moment the Forestry Branch comes up against difficulty in obtaining land they sit back and utilise that as an excuse for doing nothing. There are others who blame the small farmer with a bit of mountain grazing because he is not more co-operative in offering his land to the Forestry Branch at £4 or £5 per acre. That bit of land to the small farmer, be he in West Cork or in the West of Ireland, is more precious than is the 300 or 500 acre ranch to the farmer in Meath. Possibly the small farmer in the West of Ireland has squeezed out an existence and reared seven or eight children on that miserable holding. Itis all he has but it represents his wealth and he is entitled to first-class compensation, not on the basis of what the land is worth commercially but on the basis of what it represents to him as a livelihood. We must appreciate the terrible wrench it is to the small farmer to part with even an acre or half an acre of his miserable holding.

I do not approve of this idea of getting cheap land for afforestation. I do not approve of offering only the bare minimum to the small farmer in the West of Ireland, telling him that he will have a good return later on. The point is that when that man parts with his bit of land for afforestation he gives up all his rights and the land becomes the property of the Forestry Branch. The only thing that may happen after that is that the small farmer may get six months' work in the year for the planting or the drainage of that land. He may be lucky enough to get work for his sons for a few years on maintenance.

We will have to change our tactics with regard to the acquisition of land. I do not think that the excuse that it is so difficult to obtain land should be accepted much longer in this House by Deputies. Deputy Desmond mentioned that the Forestry Section was only a junior section in the whole Department of Lands. He is right. Everywhere we have the Land Commission functioning there is a dead hand over everything. When they are allowed to put their paws on forestry, the dead hand will be there too. If you are to go ahead with forestry there should be a separate Minister and Department set up completely free from the tentacles of the Land Commission. They should be free to pursue their own policy in connection with acquisition, if necessary. There should be no need for reference back to another headquarters to see whether they can go ahead or not.

In the immediate future, perhaps, the Minister might do something about this. Wherever there are rural areas suitable for planting purposes, I think it would be possible to get local committees who would co-operate with the Forestry Branch in making land available. I have come across difficultiesmyself in recent months where many local people with progressive ideas and views were anxious to have afforestation work but the trouble about it was that they knew very little about afforestation themselves. Consequently, when it came to explaining to various landowners the benefits that would accrue in the locality if they were willing to give land to the Forestry Department, those progressive-minded individuals were at a loss to explain the advantages and so forth. I should like if the Minister would in the near future have some attractive pamphlet printed setting forth the advantages of afforestation throughout the country. These pamphlets or any type of literature that his Department would advise him on would be given to local committees and would be of immense advantage in making the people more conscious of the value of afforestation.

I know that up to the present this type of literature is not available because I myself tried on a number of occasions to get literature from the Department. I could not get any printed directly by the Department. Pamphlets were given to me that were issued by Trees Associated and so forth but I could get nothing which was made available directly by the Department that would attract people towards the afforestation programme. That is one of the points that I want the Minister to look up.

The other point concerns the West of Ireland generally. From the figures issued recently for planting work over the last number of years it is quite evident that the areas in the West of Ireland are not getting their fair share. Add up the acreage in each county and the number of forestry centres established in the West and it will be seen that the West is being neglected.

That is not so. If the Deputy were here to listen to my opening statement, he would know that half the planting is in the western half of the country.

The Minister should consult the forestry book printed by his own Department. The information in it does not correspond with what the Minister says. I did not hear the Minister'sstatement and if he suggests that I am wrong he will have to contradict what is printed by his Department.

I said in my opening statement that if you drew a line down through the centre of the country about half the planting took place west of that line.

That is a different thing altogether. I am not talking about drawing a line down through the centre of the country.

I cannot repeat my statement. The Deputy did not think it worth his while to come in and listen to it.

Seeing that we have been listening to these statements for years without any improvement being effected, you could hardly expect me to come in and listen to a repetition of what went on in the years before. I will come in here when I feel like it. It is no pleasure to listen to the Minister at any time. The West of Ireland has been neglected and I challenge the Minister to contradict me on that. I refer to the five counties of Connaught.

We all know that the holdings in Connaught are very small and that the land is poor. There are tremendous areas of cut away bog and big mountainy areas all of which are ideally suitable for afforestation. Other Deputies have mentioned the new face that could be put on the countryside through afforestation. Again, I think the whole thing comes back to a question of money. A man said to me recently that money and men could do anything. As far as afforestation is concerned we have the men and we have the land. What we want is the money and there could be a first-class programme undertaken. Deputy Desmond mentioned a point that should be of interest. He said that afforestation would provide employment in the rural areas but there is another aspect. Every member of the Labour Party or of a trade union has responsibility with regard to the furthering of the afforestation programme. One of the duties of any trade union is to see that industrial work is made available for those livingin towns and elsewhere. If we had embarked 30 years ago on an afforestation programme, the industrial sidelines would be there to-day. I am only just touching on this matter but there is no limit to the number of commodites that are made to-day out of timber.

We import articles that are made from timber elsewhere and the manufacture of these commodities gives first-class employment in the countries from which we import these goods. All these goods could be made here. Factories produce innumerable articles that are made from timber. Consequently, I do not think there is any greater means at the disposal of the Government for solving the unemployment problem and providing wealth for the country than a big afforestation programme. Neither the present setup nor any other Government that may replace them will be able to do anything about the matter until steps are taken on a financial line. One of the difficulties facing any Government here that is keen on developing and expanding our resources is the cost of money. When it is as high as it is to-day and when a Government have to wait 20 or 25 years before getting a return from it, naturally enough they are going to shy away from embarking on such a programme. Our duty is to try, by expressing our views in this House, and persuade different Governments that it is their duty to go ahead with these programmes.

I often wonder why, in the last 30 years, this question has not been brought more forcibly home to the Governments we have had. Again, I think it all goes back to the question of public opinion, and that one of the things that is clearly absent both in our towns and throughout the country is a lack of appreciation of the value of forestry. I think that if the general public fully realised the benefits that would accrue, both in the rural areas and in the towns, as a result of a big afforestation programme, they would force their various Parties, whatever their political views might be, to adopt an attractive afforestation programme. If one of the major political Parties was forced by the public to adopt a big afforestation programme, it would mean that, in a short time,the other Opposition Parties would have to come up to scratch, because, as far as the political Parties are concerned on matters like this it would then become a question of competition between them as to which could offer the most attractive programme.

That, I believe, is what we have to get into the public mind, a feeling as to the value of afforestation. If we can do that, then I think there is a hope for those who have spoken in this House on this question of afforestation for many years past that some day they will see their dream realised in so far as that, at least, 20 per cent. of our land which is suitable for afforestation will be clothed in timber.

I am glad to learn that the Minister's statement was an extensive and useful survey of afforestation: that, even if it was not encouraging, at least it was useful in so far as it was detailed. I regret to see from the Estimate that this year it is not proposed to carry on a vigorous programme of afforestation. Instead, it seems to be one of marking time. The reason why I am making a comment on that aspect of the Minister's statement is that when the inter-Party Government were in office, increased the afforestation programme and made a better attempt to carry out a bigger programme during their years, we had considerable criticism from the members on the Fianna Fáil Benches because our programme was not a larger and more expansive one. We find in the Minister's statement to-day that his programme is one of more or less marking time on the programme of recent years.

I note that there are only 119 forests in the country at the moment, in spite of the fact that we have such a large acreage of barren land which is particularly suitable for forestry. When we examine the long-term value of afforestation, we must take into consideration the fact that the cost of production, that is in relation to the value of the materials produced from timber, is relatively low. Therefore, afforestation is a good long-term investment, and no Government should be afraid to invest money in it.

I was interested to hear Deputy McQuillan speak of the difficultieswhich confront some people with a small acreage of land when it is proposed to take land from them in order to establish forests. I have very much sympathy with the view expressed by him. In that connection, I should like to mention some cases that have come to my knowledge where, when a small acreage of land on a mountainside suitable for forestry was offered to the Forestry Department, it was declined by it on the grounds that the parcels offered were considered to be too small. I consider that every acre of land which is offered for forestry, and that can be obtained at a reasonable price, should be accepted and planted. Obviously, when it is offered by the owners it is not, in many cases, considered to be arable land and, therefore, should be considered suitable for afforestation.

We learned from our geography books the value of forestry to a country. We know how our climate would be improved if we had a relatively large number of forests. Unfortunately, our land, both good and bad land, is completely bare, with the exception of a few areas. One can look across a whole countryside and not see a tree. That fact is remarkable, particularly in areas which would be most suitable for forestry, such as the West of Ireland.

I feel myself that we must adopt a new attitude towards the question of forestry. I say that because if we continue with such a programme as we had outlined here to-day, or such a one as has been reported on here for the last year or two, we are not going to solve the question of providing a proper scheme of afforestation for the country. We can appreciate the real value of forests when we realise that millions of pounds are spent by this country on the thousands of tons of newsprint which we have to import from other countries. There has been a remarkable increase in the cost of this newsprint in recent years. Many reasons are advanced as an explanation for that. One relates to currency, but, whatever the reason, the cost of paper in the form of the newsprint that we require, and of the other classes of paper that it is necessary for us to import, has advanced considerably.

We are in a position to produce our full requirements of paper pulp from our forests if we go properly about it. If we do that, we will then be in a position to save the millions of pounds which we are spending at the moment on the thousands of tons of paper that we have to import. The proprietors of our daily papers find it necessary to look to foreign countries to get the newsprint they require. When we consider the amount of paper of all kinds that is used here we can see that it would be a very good investment for us to expand our forests as rapidly as possible.

In 1948 we embarked on a vigorous building programme. Something like 30,000 houses or more, perhaps, have been completed since then. We were in a situation in which we had not sufficient timber and we had to import a very great part of the timber for the building of our own houses. We also, of course, had to import cement because we were not producing our full requirements at home, but we have reached a stage when we are in a position to produce our full requirements of timber and with such a large portion of land which is not suitable for cultivation we could, in fact, produce more timber than we require and manufacture here various materials from wood pulp in these factories.

Other countries are producing more timber and wood pulp than they require. We are taking advantage of that situation and importing some of that surplus from them in the form of newsprint and in the form of timber for building and timber in connection with our other programmes, such as electrification and telephone poles for Posts and Telegraphs. It is an unfortunate fact that it is necessary for us in our nation building efforts to go outside this country in order to obtain those basic materials. We could also have here cardboard making and box making. Owing to the absence of wood pulp the only kind of cardboard making and box making open to us is in connection with that compressed material made from wheaten and oaten straw.

Being a member of Dublin County Council I was surprised when I found that it was necessary for them to purchase trees in order to plant them along the various roads. I feel that the Forestry Department ought to provide the trees free or at least as near as possible to the cost of production for these local authorities who need to plant them. Dublin County Council planted at least 10,000 trees during last spring, and they intend next year to plant a similar number. In that way Dublin County Council, at least, is contributing in some measure to the growing of trees on waste spaces. It is very desirable that, when these waste spaces cannot be used in any other way, they should be used for the growing of ornamental trees or trees that are useful. This type of capital investment would be a very valuable part of our economy. I know it is a long-term programme, but when we have to wait a long time for the fruits of our labours in relation to forestry we ought to make sure that there will be an abundance of fruits when the time comes. We may have to wait 30 or 40 years for the results of our work to materialise, but when there is only a small or a relatively small acreage being planted each year, in 40 or 50 years' time it will not be a case of replanting the trees we will be cutting down but we will still be planting the unproductive and barren land that is available at the present time for the growing of timber. We should take advantage of it now so that in 40 years' time instead of having extra land on which to grow this timber we will be able to grow trees to replace those which we will be cutting down.

The extension of forestry will bring to this country very great advantages, and it is unfortunate that we have to wait for so long for them. If this Government does not act on the detailed survey which we had to-day, it will be the basis for a future Government to act on in pursuing a very vigorous programme of afforestation, realising that this is one thing which we should not approach slowly because if we do we will not be taking time by the forelock which we would be doing if we proceeded now with an extensive programme.

I am not going to comment on the details; I merely want to comment in a general way on this subject because I consider that until we make up our minds to depart from the programme which can only be described as uniform progress, we are only acknowledging the value of forestry and not doing anything about it.

I am pleased that since the Minister assumed office some two years ago, he has not retarded the progress brought about by his predecessor, Deputy Blowick. Whatever may be said about the Party I represent, namely, Clann na Talmhan, I may say that on our entry into this House in 1943 we focused the attention of the members on the need for a Forestry Department. Admittedly although we focused the attention of the House on this question, the progress was nil with the exception of that which we brought about in the years 1949 and 1950 arising out of the change of Government and the taking over of the Department of Lands by Deputy Blowick.

On the occasion of my maiden speech in the House in 1943, I referred to the need for a Forestry Department. I was abruptly interrupted on that occasion by the Taoiseach who reminded me that there was a Department; he was later contradicted by Deputy Dillon who told him that there was a section within the Department of Lands which dealt with the fostering and care of forestry. That is the position to-day and forestry is the Cinderella of the Department of Lands. As Deputy McQuillan has said it is treated as a foster child and it is not getting the attention it would get if there was a separate Department. In advocating the establishment of a Department I realise that it would mean extra cost. Therefore, while I would like to see it I would be pleased for the time being if a parliamentary secretary were appointed who would deal with that particular section of the Department and who would give his whole time to the care and development of forestry.

During the course of his contribution this evening, Deputy McQuillan was corrected by the Minister, who said that the West of Ireland was notneglected as regards forestry development. I think the Minister said that more than half the forestry units were situated in the West of Ireland. The Minister will appreciate that when Deputy McQuillan or any other Deputy coming from the West of Ireland speaks about it, he is referring to the five counties of Connaught. Looking up the report as furnished, I note that there are only 21 units within the five counties of Connaught.

What report?

The Forestry Report for 1949-50.

This is 1953.

This is the latest available report. I find that out of 132 units there are only 21 units. Assuming that some progress has been made in regard to which information is not available to me at the moment, I ask the Minister to tell me how many units over and above the 21 exist in the five counties I mentioned, or in the four counties which are mentioned here, Sligo, Leitrim, Mayo and Roscommon. These are the four counties dealt with in this programme. Or, are there 21 others? Can you give me offhand how many units there are in these four counties?

I cannot give you that information offhand.

The West of Ireland is neglected. There is considerable scope there for activity, development and acquisition. The Minister would agree with me that if there is anything capable of giving employment in the West of Ireland it is afforestation. Until we adopt a more progressive outlook in relation to the development of that industry, we will not make very much headway.

I have heard the Minister for Agriculture and other speakers telling us that the tourist industry would take second place to agriculture. The importance of agriculture is not questioned. We know that it is the industry. I suggest that forestry, if properly developed and cared for, should come next to it in importance. No interest was taken in it over the yearsuntil we came into the House and in speech after speech tried to bring home to the then Minister the importance of the acquisition and preparation of land and the planting of waste land. The Minister was bred, born and reared in County Mayo. He is not that long out of it to have forgotten that there are large tracts of land that could be developed. Coming from Westport, he knows all about Louisburgh, Mulranny and Belmullet. He knows them better than I do because I am as near to Dublin as I am to that part of the country.

Is the Deputy addressing the Chair?

Yes, I am. At least, I hope I am. I felt bound to remind the Minister that now that he is a Minister of State he should pay an odd trip to his native county and not wait until a by-election is in the offing.

That has nothing to do with the Estimate. The Deputy should address his remarks to the Estimate before the House.

Right you are, Sir. I am speaking about the acquisition of land and I am reminding the Minister that in County Mayo there are large tracts of land and I am asking the Minister to visit that county other than when there is a by-election in the offing.

What has this to do with the Estimate?

I have already pointed out to the Deputy that his remarks are irrelevant. Would the Deputy mind addressing his remarks to the Estimate?

I am making the remark.

The Deputy has already made the remark and it is irrelevant. He should now discuss the Estimate.

Am I entitled to suggest that we should acquire more land for forestry under this heading? I think I am in order in bringing home to the Ministerthe importance of developing forestry. I feel I am in order in bringing home to the Minister that there are in Mayo acres of land that could be acquired and in reminding the Minister that he is not that long out of the county to have forgotten that that is so. I think I am relevant in advocating the acquisition of that land. I am prepared to resume my seat but I am convinced, judging by the Department of Lands and the Minister and his predecessors over the past 30 years, that they have no interest at all in the development of forestry. That is why I am trying to impress upon him to-night the importance of forestry.

In Mayo particularly there are acres of land. The Minister is aware, as a result of his travels, that from Ballaghadereen to Charlestown there are acres of land which the tenants are prepared to give. You do not have to bring them into the acquisition court. There are 300 acres that they are prepared to hand over. I mentioned that last year. It will be found in the records of the House. I wonder did the officials do anything about it? Nothing has been done to see if it could be acquired, developed or planted with a view to providing employment and creating prosperity for the future generation.

Am I to take Deputy Kennedy's remarks as indicating the policy of the Party opposite? When on this side of the House, during the administration of the inter-Party Government, he tried to convey that it is only the best arable land that can be and ought to be used for forestry. If that is the view of the Government and that Party, we can well understand that the West of Ireland will be neglected because the farmers in the West, having only a very small proportion of arable land, are not prepared to part with it. They are prepared to part with a large tract of mountainy land and land that is not fit for grazing or cultivation. That land can be acquired by a little effort on the part of the Minister's officials or acquisition inspectors.

As in the case of the building up of a mercantile marine and shipping accommodation, the war, apart fromanything that was said by us on this side of the House, helped to bring home to the Government of the day the necessity for having in this country the raw material represented by forests. Prior to the war we did not hear anything about the building up of a merchant fleet. It was only when we realised that we would be helpless that efforts were made. Gradually, shipping accommodation has been provided and a mercantile marine has been built up. During the war years timber was scarce and hard to procure. If at the very beginning of the establishment of this State forestry had been developed the trees would have reached maturity and would have been ready for felling during the war. The timber could have been sent to the saw mills and prepared for all sorts of building purposes. Timber can be used for a variety of purposes apart from building and furniture making. With the development of science, a number of factories could be established to use the raw material of that industry. As Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Desmond said, we cannot blame the British Government or any other Government. We have here a State that is 30 years old. We find that there are only a few thousand acres yet planted and there is not one of these, I may say, that we have fully utilised. It is only for the past ten or 15 years that any effort was made and it is only within the last few years that a little "jizz" was put into the development of that particular industry.

When we get up and speak like this we may develop a certain amount of heat, but we are entitled to develop a certain amount of heat, and we are entitled to try to bring home to the Minister that he cannot just carry on in a carefree manner, "come day, go day, God send Sunday". We expect that hard work and energy and effort will be put into it and that thousands, not hundreds, of acres will be developed year in and year out. I am sure that if the speed which was initiated and started by the inter-Party Government and by Deputy Blowick as head of the Department ofLands is continued and increased, in years to come we will have a substantial acreage under forestry.

I think the report sets out here that there is something like 1,120,000 acres of land in the country which would be suitable for afforestation if acquired. I am prepared to agree that it is not easy perhaps to acquire certain lands. You may have certain problems, certain difficulties with the owner, but there is land that can be acquired very simply and easily if the importance of it is brought home to the owner, and the benefit which would accrue if he would only hand it over. Although it sets out in this the amount of 1,120,000 acres I am convinced that there is much more, that there is up to 3,000,000 acres suitable for afforestation in this country; but even accepting what the report says here, 1,120,000 acres, if we had even all that planted it would be well, but we are far from it, and at the rate we are going on there will not be many of us alive by the time they have planted 1,120,000 acres. We will be very old men at the rate they are moving. So with that view in mind, and recognising that fact, we feel that the Minister ought to get a move on because we hold him responsible for directing his officers and directing the policy and seeing that the job is done and taking an interest in it, moving around and getting his inspectors to have it brought home to the people by more lectures. I think it would be well that the wireless would be used. We have a talk on agriculture fairly often on the wireless and we should have a talk on forestry once in a while, I do not say as often as on agriculture but once in a while.

Many sections of the community will remember the losses we sustained during the war when we had not the essential raw material and thousands of men had to leave employment who were craftsmen of the best type, and many of them had to go out of the country, and we had not the ships to bring in timber from Norway or Sweden or any of those countries where timber was available. We learned in the war the necessity of ships and the necessity for forestry. We would never have learned it butfor the position we were put into by the war conditions.

I have no wish to detain the House longer. I did not know that this Estimate was on and I did not come in here prepared for it. I have come up from the country after a trip of 140 miles and I thought I could not let it pass without making these points, which I hope may have some good effect. I hope by the end of the year we will be able to see something more than has been done during the past year.

It seems that most of the Deputies from the West of Ireland have a bee in their bonnet as far as forestry is concerned. I think they are right, because there is hardly a part of Ireland where it could be expanded so rapidly and readily. But as far as my constituency is concerned, I am satisfied that the Forestry Department have hardly entered into my county at all. I do not know why it is, and certainly I could be very critical, but I am not going to be too critical, because I see that the Land Commission have a policy on a very big scale in the area of dividing land up and putting people on it and we cannot have trees and people on the land at the one time. First things first. I am satisfied that there are a fair number of areas in County Meath that could be planted and so be of enormous benefit both from the point of view of employment and scenic beauty and also from the point of view of climate. I do not see why the Land Commission have not entered long ago on this cutaway bogland, and I could be critical of the Forestry Department for the manner in which they allowed the vast enormous estates in the Midlands to be cut away over the last 40 years—in fact from 1912 to, I think, 1953—and letting them be cut away wholesale. I do not see that the Land Commission or the Forestry Department have enforced the rules saying that these people should plant three trees for every one they cut. Why should they not do it? Many of these vast estates were among the most beautiful landscapes you could see but vast quantities were cut away and a jungle was allowed to grow up so that nowthere is nothing but briar and scrub-wood, and no effort was made by the Department to see this scrub-wood cleared away and replaced by good forests. I will be critical in that case because I believe that if a man takes on obligations he should fulfil them. I am certainly satisfied that in such areas of the country the people may slide over the replanting. Some of the officials of the Forestry Department came down to inspect it, and saw it perhaps once or twice, then went away and never saw it again. If they came down ten years later they would find some little trees there or perhaps even a wilderness.

There should be some care taken by the Forestry Department, especially where man got enormous sums of money in the sale of timber from the lands in my county—got huge fortunes out of the timber over the course of a few years and got away with that swag. I think there was an obligation on them to replant as the nation demanded, and it is in that sense that I am more or less critical of the Department that they did not keep their eye on the business as they should have to see that we were not being denuded of the timber the nation needs. All over the Midlands it is more or less like a vast prairie, and we know that in the early stages some 100 years ago these lands were planted maybe by foreigners and became almost a semi-heaven planted by these rich gentry. We had in our lifetime some of the most beautiful scenery to be seen, this country in these vast domains. These are things that do not continue for ever, and I am glad to see these vast domains are slowly but surely being broken up and people coming back and being planted where years ago their ancestors were driven to hell or to Connaught. I am satisfied that there are many of them there still and after all the huge sums they got from the sale of timber of different types on these vast estates it is only right that we should see that they fulfil their obligations, especially when we realise that some small farmers who were perhaps cutting a few trees were very carefully watched by the Forestry Department to see that they fulfilled their obligations. TheDepartment were down right on top of them, but I do not see that they were doing anything in the case of these vast landholders to ensure that they would fulfil their obligations. I do not see why they should be so severe with the unfortunate small farmer with a few scraggly trees of that type along the road, and when they see to it that he replants there should be care with the big estates.

I am certainly satisfied also that the Land Commission are to blame. I do not live very far away from lands which were taken over by the Land Commission 20 years ago and they cut all the valuable timber or allowed it to be cut and allowed those large areas of land to be left there as a wilderness. There are now more or less stretches of prairie land, with whin bushes of all types, briars, furze and all that dirt in the country allowed to grow, and the fences were not looked after. If they only gave these cutaway lands to some small farmers all this waste could be cleared away and turned into plantation land or into forestry again. They were allowed to remain in that way. Perhaps at some future date the Land Commission will have to take over and replant them, but over the last 15 or 20 years they were allowed to grow as wild as they are. It will cost thousands of pounds to get this land cut away again and into shape for replanting. It is a national waste and a loss of money, and there should be an investigation into it. I do not believe the people will stand for it.

The Deputy is indulging in a lot of statements, but he has not mentioned the name of any one of these estates.

I will mention them to the Minister himself. I can give them to him in writing. I am not blaming the Forestry Department but the Land Commission for not handing over the lands some ten or 20 years ago to the Department of Forestry to cut away and replant them.

If the Deputy makes accusations he ought to give me an opportunity of replying to them.

I will give it to theMinister. There is Coole, Garradice, Kilcock, County Meath, where there is anything from 50 to 100 acres which is a disgrace to the nation and to the Land Commission, which should have been cut away and replanted long ago. If only the Land Commission would do no more than sell it to the local authorities and cottage tenants who are crying out for firewood, if they would let people cut it away and take it for firewood, it would do an enormous amount of good. Unfortunately, the wretch who would cut a bough off a tree finds himself in court, as the Land Commission is following him helter-skelter. These are things I see with my own two eyes and I am not afraid to mention names. I hope that from now on immediate action will be taken, that these belts of forestry land which have been left there as a jungle by the Land Commission will be taken over and replanted with the utmost speed, in the interests of the nation and in the interests of good economy.

The Forestry Department, as far as I know it, has done and is doing good work. I do not expect the Department to replant the country overnight. There is only a certain amount of money at its disposal and as we as a nation have not got what one would call real control of our money, we cannot direct it as we would like. If we could, we would certainly make more progress. During the by-election in Wicklow I travelled through most of that county and was happy to see the work done by the Forestry Department, of which the nation can be proud. I saw the care and attention given and the amount of labour and work put into these lovely forestry belts of which the country can be proud. I hope the Department will be able to get more money to speed up its work. There is no use in being critical because they are not replanting the whole country overnight. They are doing good work with the money at their disposal.

The private individual could do far more. In the areas from where I come, the Midlands, there are too many old banks, ditches and dykes which should be cleared away under the land reclamation scheme, the Dillon scheme. Each farmer should put up a smallforestry belt, or two or three of them, whether his farm is economic or uneconomic. That would tend to give the Department a good shove on also. There could be an enormous amount of private enterprise in the replanting of the country. There is hardly a farmer's holding which could not have a lovely forestry belt without taking away one acre of arable land. Every one of us has anything from one to four acres of land which is of very little use. Every one of us badly needs forestry belts for stock and for farm buildings. If this question were taken up properly by the nation, perhaps, as some said, by broadcasts, or by the local agricultural committees, we should be able to make a change in the face of the country in a very short time. There is not a farmer but could without a bit of trouble, without a shilling from any Department, put down 500 trees, either larch or fir, at little expense. I have done it myself, not because I was a wealthy man but because I believe in making my places happy looking and nice and as attractive as I can. What the like of me can do every other farmer in the Midlands should be able to do. If there were more private enterprise in the replanting drive, we would get somewhere The Department can do a fair amount, but the private individual can do an enormous amount.

Then there are those old trees along the country roads, some up to 100 and 150 years of age, an ugly type, old elm and ash. They should be taken out, as well as the high hedges, so that the people could see across the countryside where every mile or half mile there would be new shelter belts springing up around the happy homes of contented farmers, men working with a will. These things are important, and we must get going on them. All I see at present is everyone trying to get something from the Land Commission or the Department of Agriculture for nothing. Everyone says there must be a grant. If there is any farmer who could not spend £5 now and again in buying a few trees, fruit trees or forestry trees, and planting them himself for his needs with his own money, he is not worth a damn. There is too much of this turning tothe State for everything. That is what is piling up taxation and what has the State with such a heavy debt loaded on us. Lots of work could be done in planting land, and it would mean more work for the unemployed.

There are too many men getting away with it at present. I know men who got from £5,000 to £8,000 off their property for timber over the last 30 years, but if you walk through many of those big estates you see no shelter belts springing up. They are not there. How did these people get away with it? Every one of them should be marched into court, the same as the poor devil who cut six or 12 trees. Where did they put those belts? They were asked to plant three trees for every one cut down. Where did they plant them? As far as I can see, they were not planted. Many who did make a little attempt made only a poor attempt. I ask the Department to see that where regulations are made they are applied to everyone.

Good national work has been done by the Department and if it is kept up over the next 20 years we will be making good ground in the replanting and we will be making up for the enormous amount of timber cut during the two world wars. The West of Ireland is a problem and those who come from the West can be and should be critical. It is from the West that we have the drain of our able manhood. Forestry development is one way of giving good employment, starting new industries in country areas and assisting in the decentralisation of industry. If a fair amount of timber were planted in the next 30 or 40 years, there would be a vast amount of different types of industry all over the country and we would be in a happy position, keeping our people at home in the country areas. However, there are other days to come yet and more money to be spent. I believe the Forestry Department is learning lessons day after day. It is hard work, concentrated work and work that you cannot rush into. The clearance of old demesnes and scrub land is difficult and costly work, and slow work; the bringing up of young trees there into a forestry belt is slow tedious work. I passed through someState forests and have seen where the work is well done and where the planting has been well carried out and the thinning properly done. They are well fenced and vermin which cause so much destruction are kept under control. The money has been well spent and we are getting a fairly good return.

I can assure Deputy Giles that the matter of replanting is not being lost sight of by any means. The matter is not quite simple because we have to go through the records of all the persons upon whom there are replanting obligations. I warned them in my opening statement that we would have to take proceedings against them unless they took steps to fulfil their obligation. If they have difficulties in doing so and they get in touch with the officers of the Department, we will try to meet them. I agree that private holders of land can do a great deal. If they take advantage of the schemes under the Department of Agriculture, from the point of view of shelter as well as from the point of view that at some time in the next 20 or 30 years the fuel situation will probably be quite different from what it is now, it will be a benefit to farmers to have timber for the various purposes for which they require it on their land. All these reasons would indicate the benefit to farmers who take advantage of the existing schemes.

I do not think that we can expect the forestry branch to do the work which is there in looking after these 160 forests that we have, the thinning and extraction and so on, and to carry out an extensive propaganda campaign in favour of forestry. To the extent that this annual debate brings the matter before the public, a certain amount is achieved. But the real difficulty is that landowners are interested in agriculture more than in forestry. It is only land that is absolutely useless for agricultural purposes that we are likely to get and that is all we are entitled to ask for. We must depend on other agencies as well as forestry for whatever we get in the way of publicity to get a better public opinion in regard to afforestation. But it is not true to say that it is merelythe Cinderella of the Department of Lands.

I am sure that if it were allied to Agriculture, it would be said that forestry was in danger of strangulation or decease at the hands of that Department where, obviously, there is a certain antagonism with regard to the use of land. The Land Commission fulfil a useful purpose with regard to forestry in that out of the large amount of land that they acquire they are able to give a substantial amount, which they do not require for land settlement purposes, to forestry. They save the forestry branch a lot of trouble because they have the technicians and the machinery for acquiring large areas of land. When we acquire land primarily for forestry we have to carry out long and laborious negotiations with small farmers. According to Deputy McQuillan, these men have their hearts so much in the land that nothing less than paying a sovereign for every square foot of land would get it.

Deputies must know very well that we cannot afford to compete with other users of land. We have to make up our minds that we can only get what is left over from agriculture and other activities and we are prepared to pay a good price for that. If we can get a mountainy holding, if we can get land that is suitable for nursery purposes or for a better class of timber we are prepared to pay a reasonable price, but we are not able, and I do not think anybody in the House would expect us, to compete with those who can use land for agricultural purposes. We simply have to forget it.

I do not agree with Deputy Cafferky that we are neglecting the West of Ireland. We have a large number of centres there. But, for the first 20 or 30 years of forestry operations, there were very few centres in the West. I have heard it said several times in the House that very little has been done in the last 30 years. People talk as if all the timber in this country had been felled in the first world war. Probably most of the timber was felled 150 or 200 years ago when Irish oak was put into British ships, Westminster Hall and so on. The country has been denuded oftimber, not for 30 years, but for hundreds of years.

In the last 30 years a great deal has been accomplished in other directions. Perhaps more could and should have been done in regard to forestry, but I am glad to say that most Deputies recognise that you cannot do everything at one time. If we are concentrating on agricultural development, electricity, and other things at the present moment and devoting our best energies to them, we perhaps cannot get quite the progress we would like with regard to forestry. Considering that this is a 40-years programme at the very least—nobody expects the timber to be matured in less than 40 years —I think we are doing very well.

We are doing what we can to give employment. In 1951-52, I calculate that we spent about £666,000 on giving employment. Last year we spent £733,000 on labour, and during the coming year we will spend over £900,000. Over three-quarters of the Vote goes in the provision of employment. We have £1,200,000 altogether. That may increase; I presume it will increase, and I hope it will. But, when you consider the other demands and that there are nearly £40,000,000 required during the present year for capital development, I do not thinkthat our £1,250,000 for afforestation is bad. I hope that the figure will improve.

Our chief trouble is, as in the Land Commission, that the areas which are offered to us are getting smaller, and it takes a much larger number of transactions as the years go by to bring in the same amount of land. It is only very rarely, perhaps once in a year, that we would get 500 acres together. Deputies seem completely to forget the realities of the situation. They ask, why can we not take these small holding of 50 or 60 acres? Simply because it does not pay us to fence them in. They must be within a reasonable distance, within a few miles of an existing centre and, even so, except we get a rectangular block of land of some hundreds of acres, Deputies will recognise that it would not pay us to plant these places.

Will the Minister move to report progress?

I would rather have the Vote put now.

It does not matter very much.

Vote put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 8th.
Barr
Roinn