I should like to point out that the motion put down by Deputy Derrig is being debated with the Bill.
Forestry Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
I take it that gives the debate a somewhat wider scope than it would ordinarily have.
The debate embraces that motion as well as the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
A Deputy may make only one speech and he must include in his remarks his attitude to the motion as well as to the Bill.
That is the position.
That is what I say. The scope of one's remarks on the Bill will necessarily be widened because the motion is also included.
A Deputy may discuss the terms of the Private Members' motion—what the motion seeks to do—and also discuss the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill which is wider in scope.
I do not feel under any disability with regard to the rules of debate. My disability the other night was from the almost uninterrupted flow of interruptions.
That is a different matter.
It is a reflection on the Chair.
The Deputy will be protected from interruptions as far as the Chair can help it. The House is also expected to help.
I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Chair gave me its utmost assistance.
I suppose you required it.
I certainly did because I think the Minister for Lands excelled himself that night.
Deputy Bartley on the motion and the Second Reading of the Bill.
It was said of the four signatories of the motion that we put our names to it after we had been told the Bill was to be introduced. I think I can say for the four of us, and certainly for myself, that we were not aware the Bill was forthcoming when we gave notice of the motion which is now on the Order Paper in our names. The first reference I saw to the Bill was in the Official Report on 8th June.
The 29th March.
All I can say is that I was not aware of it until I put my name to the motion. However, it is not necessary to labour that point. What I had in mind particularly, when I put my name to the motion, was the fact that to secure this increased acreage which everybody wants, apparently there has been a fundamental change in outlook on this question of forestry.
Gibing references were made to the record of the Fianna Fáil Government in respect of this matter. I want to say that the policy of the Forestry Division during the term of office of the Fianna Fáil Government from 1932 until the end of the war, was the production of timber. That is what I was told by the experts of the Forestry Division every time I went to them with offers of land to be considered with a view to their acquisition for planting.
Apparently that attitude has been modified. The emphasis now is on trees and, as a matter of fact, the emphasis has been pin-pointed by the activities of an association which calls itself "Trees for Ireland." It is on that aspect of the question and this new orientation of policy that I want to speak very largely on behalf of the areas which are common in my own constituency. I want to make a case for the cut-away bog. I have in mind the enormous damage that has been done by the recutting of lag portacha where turbary has become scarce and where the bog has been scrawed down to the very stone. Now, if the Land Commission has power to prevent that being done, I think they feel unequal to the task of enforcing these powers. It is a blot on the landscape to see these cut-away bogs being skinned down to the bare rock. Now that we have Bord na Móna for the development of peat fuel, that we have the E.S.B. interested in peat as a fuel to be used in the generation of electricity, that we have a very useful organisation like the Special Improvement Schemes Office and that land reclamation is also taking place, I want to make the case for the congested districts that the Forestry Department, or whatever co-ordinating agency is to be used in relation to these various Departments, should concentrate their attention, in the first place, on this type of land. The experts of the Forestry Division have now decided that this land ought to grow trees but they have always tried to impress on the minds of Deputies, and others making representations, that in their conception of forestry there is a very marked and important difference between the two terms— there is a tree as a tree and a tree as a timber tree.
I remember on one occasion asking them if they could indicate to me some rule of thumb method whereby this distinction could be made ordinarily recognisable. I was told that, taking it by and large, where the girth of a tree compared favourably with the girth of a man's body, it could be put properly into the category of a timber tree.
I am not going to delay the House by making a long speech this evening. There is a number of things which I would like to speak about, but I think this matter is of such major importance to the congested districts that I should like to confine my remarks entirely to it. The planting of virgin bog or of commonages should, in my opinion, be avoided in those districts. One reason is that the turbary in those districts, because it is so shallow, is cut away more rapidly than the turbary of the bogs in the central plain and as time goes on the turbary is further removed from the populated villages. The second reason is that the type of commonage in which the Forestry Department is interested in the West of Ireland is looked upon by its owners as being very valuable for the purpose of stock grazing.
I do think that the land about which there would be no question, the land to the taking over of which there would be no objection, ought to be concentrated on. If we are looking to afforestation in the congested districts as a very important means of employing labour then the amount of work which this type of tree planting would give should make it very attractive to the various Departments of State which have to deal with those areas. There would be a good deal of labour required for the making of fences and a good deal of the preparatory work, from the nature of the ground, will have to be done by hand labour. It does not seem to me that such an enormous amount of extra money would be necessary having regard to the sums already spent by the offices to which I have referred.
The question of scenic beauty immediately arises but that is not the most important aspect of it. The shelter which would be given would be of very great importance and would probably range next in the value of such work from the employment point of view.
I would like to ask the Minister very seriously to consider the method by which he proposes to acquire lands held in commonage. The Minister waxed very eloquent against those Deputies who seemed to think that compulsory acquisition was a matter to be treated lightly where forestry was the purpose. He waxed equally eloquent and seemed to be much more agitated when Deputies seemed to take the opposite line. I know that in the remarks that I have made I have left myself open to the Minister gibing at me as being against forestry. I want to say that tree planting in any part of these waste areas is a very vexed question and that when it comes to looking for timber I think the Forestry Department can get plenty of it in other areas. I also think that if the Land Commission and the Forestry Department together decide that they want land now used by smallholders the owners of that land should be offered alternative holdings elsewhere if their livelihood is going to be seriously interfered with.
It is not enough to say that they will get employment while the work of planting is going on. That work will cease when the trees have been planted and the amount of permanent employment given will only be a small part of the total employment given while the work is in progress. I would prefer to see the Land Commission going to the owners of these commonages and asking them if they would wish to have the commonage partitioned. The Minister has stated that in certain circumstances where a commonage holder is, by force of circumstances, not able to stock up to the limit of his stock band, his neighbour is in fact stealing his share. In effect that is so. It often has happened that the reason why a particular holder is not able to stock up to the limit of his band is because of some domestic trouble or other. It has also often happened that these people have got over their trouble and have been able to utilise their land to the fullest extent.
I make the point that the people who were so handicapped when an offer of this sort is made to them by the Forestry Department are not in the fullest sense of the word free agents in the sale of their interests in the commonage. The Minister made some remark about my being on the side of those who want to steal the neighbour's share but the boot is on the other foot because it was the Minister who was on that line and not I. I was supporting the man who is not able to utilise his full share and suggesting that he should be put in the position of being a free agent and I have suggested a method by which he could be made a free agent.
The very method the Deputy suggests is the one in the Bill.
No. The Minister has to take the whole commonage and the objectors will make representations and may be excluded——
No, the Land Commission can give them back their shares again. The fact that the Minister, under this Bill, says he wants the whole commonage, may, if you like, be taken as a gesture but it does not mean that the Land Commission willy-nilly is going to get the whole commonage because the Land Commission as a separate body has to adjudicate between me and the tenants and will see if three or four tenants want a share that their claim will be considered and that the land will be given to them.
I can understand quite well that anybody who does not want to sell his interest is not compelled to do so. That takes me to the objectors. I have been referring to the man who is willing to sell very largely for the reason that he is too poor to stock up his share to his full right, but now we come to the objectors. Say we have two objectors, two people who have the most stock and for that reason do not want to sell as they have been making more money in raising sheep than they would by selling their interests in this commonage to any public authority. What I would like to say in regard to them on the matter of compulsion is that if you take over the land and put the obligation on the objectors to come back again by direct positive action, you put on them the onus of making a direct positive approach to the Forestry Department or to the Land Commission in order to get their share back by this method of representations which is the term used in the Bill.
In my opinion a great many people will not fully appreciate the rights they have under the Bill when they see the Land Commission coming along to take over land and find that they are told:—"If you want to get some land back again, get form so-and-so and get a solicitor to fill it up and it will be duly considered." I would rather see, in fairness to those who are too poor to stock and utilise their share and also in fairness to the objectors who are in the opposite position—the Minister may laugh, but I am telling the Minister——
I am not laughing at what the Deputy is saying.
I am talking to the Minister out of my experience of this matter and also from information conveyed to me by commonage holders. holders.
I did not laugh at what the Deputy said; it was at a different matter altogether.
A natural smile.
If there is to be any crossfire let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance leave it between the Minister for Lands and myself.
Let there be no crossfire.
I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary the Minister does not want his assistance.
God help him if he did.
I am making a practical suggestion. It may not be as practical as it sounds or as it seems to me, but in any event I have offered criticism and now I am offering what I think is a solution to the problem to which I have been referring. I would go to the commonage holders and say to them; "Do you wish to have this commonage partitioned?" That power already exists; the Minister has told me that. Then let these commonage holders say "yes." Suppose the commonage be divided, and when you have done that and when you are able to point out by metes and bounds where the interest of each commonage holder is, you can say to them: "Now, are you prepared to sell?" You will have made them free agents, the objectors as well as the unfortunate poor ones among them who are unable to utilise their shares.
I do not think there is any purpose in my talking any longer on this. What I have been saying up to now—I do not want to magnify it—is not an enormous objection, but I do think, seeing that the Minister himself is so pernickety on this question of compulsion, that I am offering him a method by which he can save himself from criticism on this score of compelling people to sell. I certainly think that the lands which have been—and in my opinion still are—looked upon as unsuitable by the Forestry Department but which they are now, apparently because of political pressure, compelled to include in the forestry programme should be taken over. These lands will grow trees but will not produce timber. Apparently that fundamental change in policy has taken place, and I want to see constituencies like my own cashing in on it because it would be a very suitable development in those areas.
I know it is going to be very costly to develop that type of land, cut-away bog, and that the fencing of it is very expensive but we have been talking a lot about people emigrating from these places and leaving the country and we have been trying to find employment for them with Bord na Móna and on other schemes. We have public works schemes also. If we can add to these the planting of trees, even if these trees are not timber trees, I still think the matter could be looked upon as one which is, say, 50 per cent. economic. The very desirable objective of preventing any more cut-away bog being scraped down to the rock would be obvious; shelter would be given and the scenery would be improved.
Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil a thuilleadh le rá agam ar an mBille nó ar an dtairiscint. Nílim chun aon leithscéal a dhéanamh mar gheall ar m'ainm a chur leis an dtairiscint seo. Tá an oiread céanna suime againne ar an dtaobh so den Teach i gcúrsaí foraioseachta agus atá ag aon dream eile sa Teach. Leis na blianta bhíomar ag cuidiú leis an gcuspóir a cuíreadh roimh an Roinn Foraioseachta chun adhmad a sholáthar sa tír seo agus allmhuirithe adhmaid ó tíortha coigcríocha a laghdú nó a stop agus obair a sholáthar do mhuintir na hÉireann.
Nílimid ag iarraidh cnámh-spairne phoilitíochta a dhéanamh as an gceist seo. Táimid ag cur suim dáiríre inti agus tá súil agam go mbeidh rath ar an obair, is cuma cé hé an tAire a bhéas ann, duine ón dtaobh seo den Teach nó duine ón dtaobh eile den Teach. Guidhimid rath air.
Candidly, I am a bit perplexed as to how far we can go in this discussion of policy in relation to afforestation. From what I have heard Deputy Bartley say just now, I take it that suggestions will be accepted by the Minister and the House for the improvement of afforestation generally. Indeed, I was tempted into the debate by Deputy Bartley's use of the phrase "practical suggestions," and I rise now to make a suggestion which, in my opinion, is the most practical of all.
While the Minister in this Bill is looking for certain rights in relation to the acquisition of land from the point of view of administration, the important thing is to get on with the programme of afforestation generally. I believe that in the administration of the Forestry Division, as in many other State Departments, there is too much emphasis on the Government angle of things and I believe that much more could be done with voluntary help and by voluntary effort. Within the last two years on two big mountain ranges within four or five miles of the town of Fermoy, in which I reside, there has been considerable progress. By means of voluntary effort or, at least, voluntary initiation vast areas of these two ranges have been planted. In regard to the mountain known in the Forestry Division as Corrin the work of planting there was initiated by a few individuals from the town of Fermoy who decided it would be a good idea if this range were planted. Now I do not say that it was these individuals who did the actual planting—that was done by the Forestry Division—but they helped to a considerable extent in getting over difficulties of title and so forth because of their ambition, having initiated the work, to get on with it.
Within the last six months, and this is on record in the Department of Lands, in the parish of Araglen, between Fermoy and Mitchelstown, the local branch of Muintir na Tíre have interested themselves in planting an extensive range. They have given, and are still giving, the Department every assistance in finding title and getting on with the job there. In my opinion they are doing that much more expeditiously than it would be done by the Forestry Division itself, particularly in relation to offers coming from private individuals. The Minister should consider the question of encouraging people like Muintir na Tíre and other rural organisations to interest themselves in this very important work. No matter what we may say, no matter what Bills we may pass to help the Minister and his Department to acquire land, the emphasis, I think, must be on the desire of the people to get the job done. It would be a good thing for the Minister and for every public representative on both sides of this House, and a good thing generally, to use every opportunity to encourage organisations such as Muintir na Tíre and Macra na Feirme and give them some appreciation of the importance of the contribution they can make where land is available and suitable for planting purposes.
I think, too, that much useful work could be done through the county committees of agriculture. The forester employed by the Cork County Committee of Agriculture is doing very useful work. I think, however, that even amongst the members of that committee, of which I am one, there is not enough importance placed on this side of what we may describe as agriculture. I think it would be well for the Minister to ask the advice of the agricultural officers in the county committees or, at least, to ask them to encourage planting. The county forester should attend the meetings of the agricultural committee.
Whatever we may say and whatever legislation this Minister or any other Minister may introduce, it is my considered opinion that the really important thing is to get the people interested by letting them know the advantages of afforestation. That done, I believe that a lot of the legislation here for the acquisition of land, the proving of title and all the rest of it, will be simplified and the difficulties which are now encountered will be more easily overcome.
There is a difficulty, and an annoying difficulty, as I know, with regard to payment for land acquired for afforestation. While it may not be very desirable for the Department of Lands to enter into competition and offer more for land than private purchasers might offer, I think that if the people generally knew that the Department of Lands, acquiring land for forestry purposes, were prepared to pay just a little bit more than somebody else a lot of this angling and tangling—that is the only way to describe it—would disappear. At the moment when an offer is made for lands, which it is the intention of the Forestry Division to acquire, it takes anything from three to four years before agreement is reached and the vendor is paid. I know the snags that exist from the point of view of the Department, but, at the same time, I believe that if there was a little more generosity and liberality shown by the Department it would become generally known that the Department was not angling or tangling, as we now know them to do. For that reason, I suggest to the Minister that it would be a good thing, from the point of view of the interests of the country as a whole and from the point of view of the acquisition of land, if he would show his good will in a practical way to those who are offering land for sale. If he does that, those who have land for sale will offer it more readily to the Department of Lands. Deputy Bartley talked about "practical suggestions". It was that which drew me into this debate. I think the suggestion I have made is a very practical one and I hope and trust the Minister will seriously consider it.
The Bill before the House is designed to give greater powers to the Forestry Division in the acquisition of land or, at least, to make it easier for the Department of Lands to acquire land for reafforestation. The majority of Deputies who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the Bill as it affects their own constituencies. If I were to do that, then, as far as Wicklow is concerned, I would have to say that there is no need whatever for this Bill. Almost one-fifth of the total area of my county is under State forests. That shows that the people there are proving very cooperative as far as the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands is concerned. I understand there is very little difficulty in acquiring land in Wicklow, and I have no doubt that from time to time a number of estates in the county will be placed at the disposal of the Department for afforestation purposes.
I should like to deal with a few points on the question of the acquisition of land. It has been brought to my notice that at present a couple of holdings are being offered to the Department in my constituency, holdings that are mostly mountainous. At the foot of the mountain, there is a small uneconomic holding, but on many such farms there is a small acreage which would be described locally as arable land. It might not be so described in County Kildare or, for that matter, in other parts of County Wicklow, but to those people who have lived at the foot of the mountain, the few acres of arable land are a great asset. When such farms are offered to his Department for reafforestation purposes, the Minister should get the Land Commission to acquire the acreage at the foot of the mountain that is arable and divide that amongst the other farmers in the area. In the case of farms where there are 100 or 200 acres of land being offered for sale, there might be ten or 12 acres which could be considered arable. That acreage would be a great asset to some of the farmers in the area, and I believe the Land Commission should consider taking it over and dividing it.
There is a lot in Deputy Barry's suggestion about co-ordination. The farmers of Wicklow have certainly cooperated with the Department by offering land to them and helping them to solve their difficulties. It is to the people's advantage also and that is appreciated in the county. We have something like 40,000 acres of State afforestation and that, in itself, is responsible for keeping almost 1,000 men in County Wicklow in constant employment.
A great deal has been said in this debate for and against this annual target of the Department. I do not know whether the Department will ever achieve the 25,000 acres annual plantation, but a great deal could be done by the Department in trying to make the farmers of the country tree-minded. If they encouraged the farmers to plant small portions of their own holdings, eventually there would be a tremendous acreage of land under forests. Nearly every farmer of 40 acres or over has half an acre, or one or two acres, of land that is not of much value to him, except for planting purposes. The Department and the Government should encourage the farmers by increasing the State grant of £10 by at least 100 per cent.
A number of Deputies have suggested that each county council should be allowed to appoint a forester, either directly from the county council or through the committee of agriculture, who would, in turn, give his services to the farmers and pass on his knowledge of tree planting and the rearing and care of trees to the farmers. In that way, we would be doing a good day's work.
Each local authority can do that at the moment. There is nothing I know of to stop them. They have full freedom to appoint a forester, if they so wish.
I did not know that. If that is the case, I believe we will go a long way towards meeting the wishes of Deputies who seem to be unanimous in saying that we have not gone far enough in relation to reafforestation. I do not know whether the Department can ever hope to achieve a target of 25,000 acres, even if and when this Bill is passed. In any event, we can achieve a great deal by encouraging our farmers to plant that portion of their land which is at present unsuitable for any other agricultural purpose.
I propose to be very brief in my contribution to this debate, because I have no intention of repeating what I have said before in connection with forestry generally and the advantages that would accrue to the country from the pursuing of an energetic programme of reafforestation. One of the main reasons why I intend to say a few words on this Bill is that I will be on record, at any rate, for some future occasions and I will not have it thrown at me that, when a Bill was going through this House in connection with forestry, poor and all as those measures may have been in my opinion, I made no contribution whatever to improving the Bill, in so far as lay in my power. I want to have on record what my views are on this present Bill.
The Minister himself, in the last fortnight, spoke here on a motion in connection with forestry. He said in the course of his remarks that if I said something that could be construed as praising him or any other Minister, he would fall over backwards in a faint. I can assure the Minister that he can postpone the faint on this occasion. It is not in any personal sense that I am going to attack him or criticise him, but in relation to this Bill. I regret very much I cannot offer any great praise to the Minister. I am sure he expects that viewpoint and that it does not come as a shock to him.
Many of us in this House have in the last few years been told that new legislation was being considered and that, when that new legislation came before the House, we would have a chance of seeing our desires in connection with forestry achieved; in other words, the planting programme which was adopted by the Dáil, namely, a minimum planting of 25,000 acres per annum, would be got under way as a result of this legislation. The White Paper issued with the Bill is much longer than the Bill itself. It seeks to explain the Bill, but, in my humble opinion, it is more involved and complex than the Bill. Possibly there was a reason for that. Possibly the idea was to give the impression to Deputies that there were some great points being covered in this Bill that would prove of immense benefit in the acquisition of land. The Minister has laboured hard and long and succeeded in producing a mouse. I am sorry about all the pain he has endured in the production of this miserable Bill.
A serious position is disclosed. The speech of the Minister introducing the Bill should be studied carefully by all Deputies and by those outside the House who are really keen on afforestation. I do not know whether or not the normal procedure in Departments is for the advisers to prepare a speech for a Minister. I presume that is normal procedure, but I do think there is a duty imposed on a Minister to study carefully the speech provided for him, whether he is Minister for Lands, or Minister for Agriculture, or Minister for Industry and Commerce or for any other Department.
This Bill will be remembered for all times and the Minister's speech must be taken as an indication of the Forestry Division's mentality with regard to afforestation. In spite of the fact that the Minister in his speech has skilfully tried to cloak the opposition to a large-scale development programme, running right through the speech is a warning note that it would be inadvisable, according to the experts, and so forth, to embark on a scheme of 25,000 acres planting per annum.
Where is that in the speech?
I said it is running through the speech. It is a thread all through the speech.
Would the Deputy quote it?
The difficulty about quoting that is that the Ceann Comhairle would not allow me to quote the entire speech and, in order to bring it home forcibly, it would be practically essential to quote the entire speech of the Minister. The speech is skilfully prepared, but to anyone who makes a real study of it, it is quite apparent that there is no real enthusiasm for or no real intention of putting into operation a large-scale programme. My personal opinion is that if I were to meet the Minister outside the House, I would find him as keen as anybody else, as an individual, to embark on such a programme. There is danger involved for any Minister in accepting a speech prepared for him without realising that he will be held responsible for that speech for all time.
The Bill will ease a couple of problems. It will speed up the acquisition of land where there is at present a hold-up, but the Bill will not do anything in a big way to bring land into a pool for use at a later stage for planting.
The Minister may recollect that, in 1950, he introduced a Land Bill. Prior to the introduction of that Bill, he expressed himself as being very anxious to ensure that more land would come into the land division pool for the relief of congestion, and that the 1950 Land Bill, as it was described, would bring in more land. That Bill was passed. My remarks in connection with it are there for anybody to see. I said that I believed that one of the difficulties involved was the question of finance, that, although we all welcomed the Bill, I felt it would not bring in the land. I have been proved right 100 per cent. That Bill has been in operation since 1951 and has done absolutely nothing to relieve congestion. The very same thing can be said when this Bill is passed, as far as land for forestry purposes is concerned.
We hear of all the difficulties involved in the acquisition of land. The circle has been completed from rabbits and netting wire to legal difficulties. I repeat that the real difficulty is finance, that the money is not being made available for the purchase of land. There is land on offer to the Forestry Division at the present time in many parts of the country in connection with which there is no legal difficulty of a serious nature. Yet there is no attempt made to acquire the land for forestry purposes. We do not utilise the land that can be purchased without legal difficulties. Why do we concentrate now on land in connection with which legal difficulties are involved? Why not accept the land in connection with which legal difficulties do not exist and which is suitable for afforestation?
I will give the Minister one example. In 1953 when his predecessor, Deputy Derrig, was Minister for Lands, I gave him particulars of an area in West Roscommon, which can be described only as a slum area, Kiltullagh electoral division. The Minister at that time was good enough to send a forestry official to inspect the land. I received a letter from the then Minister stating that the Forestry Division report was that the land was suitable for afforestation purposes. What has been done since 1953? No attempt was made to purchase the land until I kept on the telephone month after month to the Minister's Department and until I got sick of asking what would be done in the area. Then they decided to make an offer to one individual in the locality. In the past two months, this individual has received from the Forestry Division a purchase agreement. A man beside him offered land at the same time. In neither case is there any difficulty with regard to title; it is not necessary to make any search as to the rightful owner. Both men are anxious that the Forestry Division should purchase the land and that a scheme of forestry should be got under way. Why is it not done? This Bill is not necessary to deal with that problem. In spite of the fact that the land is available, it is not being planted for the very simple reason that the financial accommodation will not be made available to this or any other Minister responsible for afforestation. The opinion of forestry experts on this particular locality was that it was ideally suited for afforestation. The position there at the present moment is that there are approximately 200 men looking for work and the only work provided for them is the steam-rolling of a mile of road by the county council. Employment is given on a rotation basis: a man starts work on a Tuesday and he is put off the following Monday in order to allow his nextdoor neighbour to get another week's work.
The Deputy is now discussing administration which is not relevant.
On the Second Stage I always understood we were entitled to suggest what should be in a Bill and what is missing.
The Bill deals with the question of the acquisition of land and the Deputy is now discussing employment.
Steam-rolling a road.
I am criticising the Department for bringing in a measure like this to hoodwink the public. The inference is that unless this Bill is passed there will be real difficulty in the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes. I was trying to draw a picture for the Minister of a locality that is eminently suitable for afforestation and in which no attempt has been made to start a forestry centre. There is too much bluff going on on this question of afforestation. We have this business of the know-alls and the have-alls in this House who maintain that nobody is entitled to talk about afforestation unless they have 100 acres or upwards of land. I have listened to the present Minister suggesting in this House that he would oppose strongly any use of compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for afforestation. There was also the suggestion that Deputies like myself were out to destroy the smallholders in the West of Ireland.
I am sounding a word of warning to the Minister that he will regret the day he made such suggestions. I am just as anxious to improve conditions in the West of Ireland, in Mayo and Roscommon, as is the Minister or anyone in the Department. The Minister is doing no good to the people by trying to raise their fears by suggesting that Deputy MacBride and myself are out to acquire their lands and remove them from this country. These people are living in poverty and misery and they have done so for generations. There is no future for them but the emigrant ship, and when I suggest that the Minister's job is to acquire large farms in the Midlands, divide them and remove to them the people from the West of Ireland, my suggestion then is that the vacated lands in the West should be planted. I am not doing any injustice to these people and I will not take such a suggestion from the Minister, who knows rural Ireland as well as I do.
He is going on a very dangerous trend when he says I am being unjust to the small man. The injustice has been perpetrated over generations and it is up to the Minister and the Department to see that there is amelioration. I hope it is the last time that I will hear from the Minister an attack on me, that I want to ruin the smallholders in the West of Ireland.
Do not do it.
When I brought in a Private Members' Bill to get rid of the aliens the Minister for Lands went into the division lobby and voted against me. He will not get away with this type of thing.
The Deputy has been caught on the wrong foot and he wants now to shift to the other one.
I am standing on my two feet. The Minister is dancing a jig, a political jig. In so far as the Bill before the House will help to solve difficult cases and knotty problems connected with acquisition I welcome it. I think every Deputy in this House would welcome any legislation that would help to solve such problems.
This is a puny effort, but we cannot oppose it just because it is puny. The tragic thing about it is that it will take a number of years before people will realise how ineffective the Bill will be when it is enacted, and by that time we will have had more emigration, more unemployment and people fast leaving areas where land for afforestation is available. Possibly some other Minister, in years to come, will say:—"We find that after trying to work this Bill we will have to use other measures in order to bring the afforestation programmes into full operation."
I am out to put on record that I do not believe this measure is going to help us in getting 25,000 acres a year planted. The Minister himself has more or less gone back on his public statements in which he said that he believed 25,000 acres as a minimum should be planted annually. He has definitely gone back on that. I was a member of a Party at one stage which suggested 100,000 acres should be planted and the Minister, as a member of a Party at the same time, did not go quite as high as Clann na Poblachta but maintained that 60,000 at any rate should be planted each year. I would conclude by reminding the Minister that I have just as much interest in afforestation as he has. I feel I would not be in this House now if it were not for afforestation; it was the interest I took in afforestation that brought me in here in the first instance and I am feeling more depressed now on the subject after six years than I was when I came in here.
The last Deputy who spoke talked about the bluff that has been uttered in this House. I agree there is a lot of bluff from most of the western Deputies, As far as I see it, each of the western Deputies in the House hates the others and if there was more Christian charity among them there would be much more progress. This Bill was brought in with the best intentions. The Minister thinks that through it he will be able to make better progress with afforestation. I am satisfied that better progress will be made by reason of this Bill but I think the Minister will have great difficulty in getting land from the mountainy people. It will take him all his time to get these people to give up the land they use for mountain grazing without compulsion. I am satisfied that a great lot of the economy of the country, the West and the Midlands alike, is linked up with that mountain grazing.
We, from the eastern Midlands, buy our sheep and cattle from the men who own such stretches of grazing and there is a very good trading agreement between us. If this system continues as it is, I am satisfied it will be hard to take land from these people. Thirty years of native Government has achieved quite a considerable lot of progress in afforestation. The present Minister and previous Ministers have contributed to this. Now we hear that we are going to plant the whole of the West of Ireland. I have driven through the West and it is almost a barren rock. I am satisfied that you will get patches here and there, but you will never be able to plant big forests in it. You can hardly see a whin bush in any of it. Any bush you see there, is stunted, leaning over to the East waiting for the wind to blow it down. Do not think that we can plant trees in that area and go against nature. You just cannot do it.
I am satisfied that the Forestry Department can do much more in the eastern and midland counties. In the East there is just as much wilderness as in the West. There are too many whin bushes and waste bits and ditches that have never been cleaned out. There is not a farmer with 40 acres of land who should not have two or three acres of forestry on it and that should be put in by his own hands. If they did that, they would be laying a foundation for the future of themselves and their children. If a man put down an acre of commercial timber on his holding when he was married he would have, before he has a son or daughter of 30 years of age, £1,000 in that timber as a dowry for them.
There are thousands of acres of waste land in the eastern part of the country which are never used by man or beast. What we want is an inducement to our farmers from the Minister so that they would begin to plant trees for themselves. That would provide shelter and would beautify the country. This country could be the most beautiful in Europe if it were properly planted and managed, but there is no proper planting or managing. The Minister could get much more done by private enterprise if he would set a big drive on foot, but there is no drive. There is no drive by the committees of agriculture or by the Department of Agriculture. Two acres of timber on each 40 acre farm would give an enormous acreage all over the country.
There is a great deal of whining and crying about the West of Ireland. It is said that the people are running away from it as if from a plague. They are doing no such thing. They are running out of it because they can get better money in England. I saw houses in my area where there was £30 a week going in and the sons threw down their picks and shovels and went away to England. It is not poverty that is driving them out, but this insane running after wealth. There is no use in our getting up and saying that the present or past Governments have put the people out of the country. They have done no such thing. The Governments of the past 30 years have done everything they could to provide work for the people, but this is an impoverished country and there is no use in denying it. When we were a few years in control of our own affairs we had £50,000,000 or £70,000,000 dead weight debt placed on us from fighting each other.
I do not think that arises on a debate on forestry.
I am not going to say much about it, Sir. Then we were in the middle of a world war and very little could be done. Those things should be spoken openly and plainly in this House. We should not be whining at one another all the time. At all stages in this country's history for the last 30 years, everything that could be done for the betterment of the people was done by the successive Governments. The different Governments set out to give every man in this country a home for himself and do away with the little hovels.
The housing question does not arise.
But the building of houses costs money and if we had not done that we would have plenty of money to-day for forestry purposes. I am quite satisfied, coming from the eastern seaboard, that there are bees in the bonnets of the western Deputies. They are afraid that a whole lot of their people would be sent over to settle in the East and that a whole lot of their votes would be lost. They are busy trying to see that the people who would not vote for them in any case would be sent out of their area. Do not think that we will be able to give these people much more employment in forestry. There is a forestry belt of about 300 acres beside me which is well laid down and well supervised but all the employment given on it is only for about a score of men.
Western Deputies want to see the displacement of about 10,000 people overnight. Where are you going to put them if you do displace them? There is a reasonable amount of land yet to be divided but it is not a very large amount and it is gradually getting smaller. You cannot disrupt the economy of the country overnight for the sake of a few trees. You can drive out the owners of these lands but you are also disrupting your own economy. Some Deputies seem to think that you can plant 10,000 acres of trees and that you would have wealth overnight from them. It would be 40 years before you could cut one commercial tree out of all that timber so that all that money must be left there during all those years.
It is all very fine to talk big and to lambast the Minister and his Department but it is far better to tell the truth, to be honest and decent about it and to cut out all the bitterness that has made this House so rotten to-day. Where our cut-away bogs are concerned, we should work hand in hand with Bord na Móna. We should begin our afforestation programme on the cut-away bogs. From Dublin to Galway on both sides of the railway line there are thousands of acres of land that could be planted where there is not even a bush being grown at the moment. It seems to me that some State Department should investigate that land and all the derelict areas lying alongside the railway. The railway is practically closed down and the canal there is useless. Alongside both of them there are tens of thousands of acres without anything planted on them. That is good land and I am quite satisfied that, if we get after it, we can acquire it without much difficulty.
There are hundreds and thousands of acres lying idle and these should be taken over. We could then cut out this nonsense of bringing in Bills year after year to squeeze people as tight as we can. We cannot compel them but we can keep squeezing them until eventually they give in. These mountainy people are sturdy, hardy men who have done much for the economy of this country. I think it is unfair to push them around to suit the whim of a few boys whining about the forestry drive. I think the forestry drive is reasonably good for a small impoverished country, and since 1948 progress has been stepped up. Whether it is a 12,000, 15,000 or a 25,000 acre target we have, it will satisfy me, and if we do no more than 12,000 acres a year we are doing good work. As it is, going across the Wicklow Hills, we can see with pride where lovely trees have been raised up under native Governments. It makes no difference whether the Government comes in or goes out afforestation goes on year after year and good work is being done.
I am sick of all the whining from the West that we hear. We had Deputy Moran lambasting the Minister and implying that compulsion was in every inch of the Bill. Deputy Bartley took the same line, that the Minister was the rottenest type who ever lived. Then we had Deputy McQuillan, who, according to himself, was the only man responsible for putting trees in the country. He said he believed in getting on the phone and that the telephone brought results. What actually brings results is the Department and the machine working smoothly to plan and ensuring that whatever work is done is well done.
If we plant the West of Ireland, trees will not grow up overnight. We must realise that many of these acres we plant in the West of Ireland will never produce trees. They will reach a height of perhaps eight or ten feet and will be just stunted and warped like skeletons. I would ask the Government to concentrate on private enterprise and ask each farmer with an acre to spare—in my own county there are hundreds of thousands of acres to spare—to plant trees on it. The farmer should realise that the £1,000 that he has to put into the Ulster Bank or to send across to England—where he thinks it is safely invested—would be better if put to work in his own soil and would bring in a return which would enable these farmers to give dowries to their daughters when they come to marry and provide for the sons so that one of the young men would be able to take over and marry into the old homestead.
Those are things I want to see done by private enterprise. We need a new crusade of self-sacrifice in the interests of this grand little country. If we do not have that and if we do not avoid bringing in Bill after Bill and lambasting each other here as if we were a lot of Mau-Maus, we should be ashamed of ourselves and of what goes on here. I would like to see the Bill debated on its merits with this bitterness and hatred cut out. I know that the speeches I heard this year and last year I shall hear again next year, word for word, as I have heard them for the past ten or 15 years. But what results have they got? Very little.
We have the same schemes and the same programmes but we all whine and cry at Budget time when perhaps taxation is increased. We have here a certain amount of money and we are spending that money as best we can. We cannot waste hundreds of millions on schemes that will never bring results. By all means we should get all the land we can on which to plant trees and plant as quickly as we can, but we should take no nonsense from those with bees in their bonnets, those who are afraid their colleagues will be sent to the East.
We have too much rotten politics in Irish life west of the Shannon. I have never met the like of it elsewhere. Deputies in the Midlands and the East can meet each other and talk to each other, but in the West there is hatred and bitterness that no one can contemplate——
It does not arise on this Bill.
I believe more could be done by committees of agriculture. The county committees of agriculture have a scheme for shelter belts but beyond a few lines in the papers now and then to say that £10 is given to a farmer to put up a shelter belt it does not get out to the people. That scheme should be put across and I am quite sure there are farmers who would do the work even without the £10. They should not need £10 to plant timber on their own land because that is just good business. At the same time they would make their farms beautiful and get a return in money while making the country a better place to live in.
This Bill may do good but, short of compulsion, you cannot get a great deal of land from the people of the West. I do not blame them. It is essential for their economy that they should produce cattle and sheep to be finished off in the Midlands before being sold on the world markets. By all means, the cut-away bogs and land lying idle should be planted but do not let us destroy the hardy people of the western area.
I should like to compliment Deputy Giles on admitting that there are thousands of acres going to waste in the eastern counties. I hope that the Minister will take a note of it. The Deputy's approach was definitely different from the approach made here the other night by his colleague, Deputy Tully. I should also like to tell Deputy Giles that there is no whining or crying from the West.
Is there ever anything else?
The people of the West are hardworking people——
Are not half of them living on the State?
There is no question of compulsion. I would like the Minister to take note of that statement that thousands of acres are going to waste——
Not thousands of acres——
Deputy Giles is out of order.
If it is going to waste, I hope it will be put into production, and if the people of the West of Ireland are not allowed into it I hope it will be planted.
Deputy Giles' approach to emigration is very interesting and I hope the people of Meath will not read the speech he made to-night and compare it with the speeches he made during the election. They will think he is an entirely different man because I am afraid they will find the speeches completely different. That is all I have to say on that.
I intervened in the debate because I want to get some information. I have in my pocket a letter I got a few days ago—since this Bill was introduced— from a man in North Leitrim. This man gave land—bog and cut-away bog —to the Land Commission about six years ago. Since then nothing has been done about it. The Land Commision acquired it or told him they were to acquire it. This man has not a good title—he has not the money. If he had money he could go to a lawyer and he could immediately get a squatter's title to this land, but, because he has not the money and because there is no lawyer magnanimous enough to take on his case, he has to sit there. He is still waiting for the Land Commission to do something. I want to know from the Minister if this Bill will cover that kind of case.
No. I take it the case the Deputy has in mind is one in which the Land Commission has acquired the land.
The Land Commission have acquired it.
This Bill deals purely with forestry.
That is what I am coming to. Part of this land will be for forestry. I know cases in Sligo where the Land Commission have acquired land and handed most of it over to forestry. Will this Bill not cover that?
It will not.
I cannot understand it. I think the Minister for Lands and Forestry and the Minister for Bogs should come together and have an understanding and there should be one Bill to deal with the whole matter.
One cannot get over it that easily.
Does the Minister not think it would be a good thing if they would come together? This land has some bog on it; the remainder will be only suitable for forestry. It will be no good for anything else. In ten or 12 years, when the bog has been cut away, the whole of it will be suitable for forestry.
This man has not got title to the land.
No.
Then what he is trying to do is to get cash for what does not belong to him.
But he has been in possession for 40 years.
That does not say that he is the owner.
I thought the Bill would deal with that.
This Bill will deal with cases where the land is needed for forestry.
But this is for forestry.
This man's grouse is with the Land Commission.
I thought it was the one Department.
It is the one Department, but there are two separate bodies. You could have two separate Ministries.
Would it not be better if the two got together on the one Bill?
If the Deputy will give me particulars of that case, I will look into it and let him know what the position is.
I will do that, but I can tell the Minister now that the difficulty is that the man is just sitting there. He is not going to bring it into court to establish a squatter's title. The Land Commission has taken the land but will not pay for it until he establishes title. They will not take it over on the title he has. I thought this Bill, dealing with defective titles, would deal with a case like that.
This Bill will deal with such cases for forestry purposes. Where the Minister for Lands buys land for forestry purposes, this Bill will avoid the kind of thing to which the Deputy refers. Therefore, in future, land will not be taken and the man left out of his money.
This case has been pending for six years. Will this Bill not deal with that?
This Bill only deals with forestry. The case the Deputy mentions is one entirely between that man and the Land Commission.
If the land is taken over and half is useful for division and the other half for forestry, what will happen then?
The Land Commission will probably give it to us for forestry, but the man will still not get paid unless he clears his title.
This occurs in the majority of cases in the West where one part of an estate is useful for division and the other part is no good except for forestry.
That is why I brought in this Bill.
Then the Bill should cover that position.
No. It will not cover the private dealings of the Land Commission with individual owners. This Bill has nothing to do with that.
So these people will be just as far back as ever.
That type of man will unless he goes to a solicitor and gets his title cleared.
This man asked me if this Bill would deal with that and now I will only be able to tell him that he is still in the same position.
If he had not sold to the Land Commission and was now going to sell to us for forestry, this Bill would be a godsend to him.
I do not see why the Minister should not take powers of amending to deal with a case like that.
I will discuss this privately with the Deputy. I may be able to give him a better understanding of the whole position.
I will give the Minister particulars. There is another point in relation to the White Paper on which I am not clear. Paragraph (b) states:—
"Provision whereby a commonage (other than common grazing or similar rights)."
Does that mean that where people have a grazing right only this Bill does not apply?
Section 5 deals with the grazing right, and with the person, or persons, who has or have a grazing right over a commonage in which he or they do not own the fee simple of the common. Sections 4 and 5 deal with two different types. In one case the section deals with the group that actually owns the common and has it in common; the other section deals with those who only have grazing rights and in which an outside party holds the ownership of the ground underneath.
The Bill deals with that situation.
It does.
Most of the commonages in the West are of that description.
Most of the commonages in the West are fee simple.
A good many that I know of have only grazing rights where the landlord cut away the turf and the neighbouring farmers got grazing rights. These are the places in which I am interested.
We are quite prepared to deal with them under this Bill.
There is another matter that concerns me. I will give a case in point. I know a commonage at the end of six men's holdings. Their holdings, as is usual in the West, consist of long strips of land; this commonage runs at the end of the six. Five of these are anxious to have that commonage planted, but one will not agree.
Is he getting the profit of the whole commonage?
Probably. We will take it that one, two, four, five and six are agreed, but No. 3 will not agree. What will the Minister do in that case? He says he will give him an equal right, but where will he give him that right?
The Land Commission will decide that. The Land Commission will apportion a part to him which will give him exactly the same liberty as if he had abandoned the common prior to that and all the other tenants were using their land.
In this particular case, each man has put down a kind of claim to what is exactly opposite his own holding. If No. 3 refuses to give up his share he will insist on getting what is opposite his own holding.
Oh, no. The other tenants surely have rights as well as the tenant who does not want to sell.
They are prepared to give the land to the Land Commission for forestry.
The Land Commission will consider the position in detail and probably deal fairly and squarely with all concerned.
I can see one man holding up the whole lot in this case.
He will not do so if I can help it.
The Minister will have to turn around and pale the rest of it into plots and that will immediately knock it out.
No, we will not.
Will the Minister shift him then to another man's holding?
We will give him a plot, but it will be away from forestry development.
Then it will be away from his own holding.
One cannot spoonfeed people like him.
I think I have all the powers I want here.
Not if one man can hold up the whole thing, and claim a share in a commonage like that. I want to be very plain about this. We hear a lot about compulsion but there is no question of compelling the other four or five affected and who are agreeable to giving this commonage for the good of the country.
Hear, hear!
I see no reason why this man should not be compensated. This planting will be of general benefit to the other five people concerned. It seems to me there is more than one kind of compulsion. That is my opinion. I come up against this problem not only in relation to forestry but also in relation to culs-de-sac where one man at the end will block all the others. I think it is time some steps were taken to deal with that situation. I think the Minister would have the support of the House if he took such powers. I wish to join with those who raised the matter of the grant for private planting. I think an acre is the smallest unit for which a grant will be given by the Land Commission. I think the £10 grant should be increased. If it was increased, more people would plant trees on their land. If the people who have waste land got a grant of £20 many of them would be inclined to plant it themselves. It would save the Department a lot and would be a great benefit to the country. In regard to this Bill, the Minister believes he is taking a lot of power but when he goes to work it he will find to the contrary.
If I do, I will be here again with an amending Bill, but I do not think it will be necessary.
I am afraid you will.
Even though this measure has been debated at great length, I should not like the discussion to conclude without adding some remarks. Coming from a constituency which is deeply interested in afforestation, it is only natural that I should mention a few matters that I have in mind. It seems rather peculiar to me that a non-contentious measure, such as this Bill undoubtedly is, should give rise to a great deal of controversy and heat. During the debate we had certain Deputies on the one hand telling the Minister that he was not going fast enough to work, and on the other, saying that if they themselves happened to be in his position, every farmer in the country would be growing trees inside a couple of years. It is all very fine for some of these people to be putting forward their theories here but, if they were asked to put some of these theories into practice, afforestation would not be one step further ahead than it is to-day.
Side by side with that type of argument, we have other Deputies accusing the Minister of adopting Cromwellian practices, claiming that he seeks to compel people to sell their land for forestry purposes. I cannot get any such impression from the memorandum which states:—
"The Bill is designed to facilitate the acquisition of land for forestry purposes."
I know the Minister well enough to know that he has not in mind the taking of land by compulsory methods. Neither the State nor public authorities like to take lands by compulsory methods. There is nothing in this Bill, despite what legal people such as Deputy Moran claim to be able to read into it, that ordinary folk as we are cannot understand. Despite their claim that this Bill tends towards compulsory acquisition of land, I cannot see any such intention there.
It is a measure that is long overdue and I have no hesitation in offering my congratulations to the Minister for Lands on introducing it here. I know very well that the purpose he has in mind is to push forward, as forcibly and as vigorously as he can, the afforestation programme of his Department. A good deal of the criticism was spiteful criticism and could be said not to be in any way constructive. Possibly a few members of this House may have some personal dislike for the Minister and may avail of the opportunity of expressing it in this discussion. However, I feel sure that any reasonably-minded members in this House, whether they be on this side or in the Opposition, will agree that the present Minister during the four or five years that he has been in charge of the Forestry Department is doing the utmost to advance that Department. As one who has approached him again and again on forestry matters, I can say I never got anything but complete satisfaction from the Minister. Were it not for the type of criticism levelled at him in the course of this discussion, I would not deem it necessary to make these comments at all or waste the time of the House in making them.
No member here who spoke on this measure, even those who are most critical of it, said it was a bad Bill. They all agree it was a necessary measure. It is very peculiar that, even though they agree it is a step forward in our afforestation programme, they should be so critical. One big advantage I see in this measure—and I think it will be most helpful to West Cork— is that it will overcome the big difficulty which has confronted Ministers in this country for a number of years in acquiring land, that is this question of title. This Bill deals only with title. We all, who are dealing with public business, realise that the majority of the titles in some parts of this country—and I could apply that to my own constituency of West Cork —are defective and that the present method of taking over land is a slow and difficult process due to these defective titles. I am hopeful that under this measure a good deal of the work that had to be done in the past in dealing with these titles will now be eliminated and that land that has been offered to the Department freely by the occupiers and by the owners, even though they may not be registered legally as owners, will now be taken over speedily by the Minister and that we will have no further hold up of that nature when this Bill passes through both Houses of Parliament.
Speaking from a local angle, I can see many benefits accuring to West Cork from this measure. We have, as the Minister knows, large acreages of land in the Dunmanway-Inchigeela districts ready and available for forestry but due to defective titles the Minister was unable to deal with this for some years past. I am hopeful that now the Minister will be able to proceed without any more undue delay and also that we will have this scheme under way in the very near future. The same remarks apply to Schull and in Goleen. There is no question, so far as West Cork is concerned, of taking land by compulsion. We have plenty of suitable land to offer to the Minister and he can rest assured that he will never have any need for compelling any person in West Cork to give him land. I feel sure that that is what the Minister would like, that he does not want compulsion in any shape or form.
In western districts and in Southern Ireland we have commonages that are suitable for afforestation. Deputy Gilbride, in his remarks a while ago, was rather perturbed about the acquisition of some of these commonages in his area. I think that is specifically dealt with in this Bill and in a very fair and reasonable way. I am quoting from page 4 of the explanatory memorandum and I think this would get over the point Deputy Gilbride was raising:—
"Where land is subject to common grazing rights and one (or more) of the holders of these rights is unwilling to lose his right, his case can be met by substituting for the existing easement a new easement by way of a sole right to graze a limited area of the land proportionate to his previous share in the grazing rights over the whole of the land."
I assume from that statement that if ten people own a commonage, say, of 1,000 acres and that nine of those people are willing to hand over their rights to the Department of Lands, and if the tenth person is unwilling, what the Minister has in mind is that he will give him a proportionate area, an exclusive right, to 100 acres of land.
That is exactly right.
The other 900 acres will be available to the Department of Lands. Such objector would welcome the exclusive right to 100 acres of land in preference to one-tenth right to 1,000 acres. From that point of view alone the Bill will be very helpful.
In West Cork and, probably, in other parts of the country, commonages sometimes cause conflict amongst neighbours. There may be disagreement as to grazing rights. One party may claim that another party has more cattle and sheep on the commonage than he is entitled to. I know that a number of these commonages will now be handed over. The people who do not wish to hand over their rights will be given exclusive right to a proportionate share of the land. Nothing could be fairer than that. I cannot understand why some Deputies should have complained about communist tactics or compulsory methods.
The question of interference with private ownership is a big question. It is only done, I feel sure, where the State believes that such a step is warranted. Any Deputy who has any fear of compulsory acquisition arising from this measure should forget it. I feel sure that the Minister and future Ministers will always see to it that there will be no interference with the private ownership of land except in remote cases where it is for the common benefit of the community as a whole.
The difficulty of acquiring suitable land in some districts was mentioned. Price-fixing is very old, dating back some years. When the Minister fixed an average price of not more than £10 an acre for land offered to his Department prices were not like what they are now. The price of land has increased since that provision was made. That is only natural, having regard to the sharp increase in the price of cattle and sheep that graze a good deal of the land which is offered to the Department for forestry purposes. The Minister should consider carefully the advisability of increasing the price which the Department is at present empowered to offer for this land. There should be more flexibility with regard to the price. It is very embarrassing to the Department that their hands should be tied in the matter of the price.
Assuming that three farmers offer 200 acres of land to the Department for forestry purposes and that there is a small area of land dividing these three parcels and that the owners of that small area were reluctant to part with it having regard to the fixed price, it involves the Department in expense in fencing the three separate enclosures whereas, if there were more flexibility regarding price, the entire area of land could be acquired for the same amount of money as would be used in acquiring the three parcels separately and fencing them. That position has arisen and is likely to arise in a number of districts. I do not know whether or not at this stage the Minister could give more power to the Department in regard to the question of price, but I would ask him to give the matter careful consideration. Greater flexibility would be of great advantage to the officials of the Department in negotiating acquisition.
In addition to beautifying the country, afforestation gives a good deal of productive employment. I do not like the attitude of Deputy Giles in sneering at Irishmen for emigrating and not being inclined to work. In that respect he indicted, in the main, his own constituents when he told us about the wild land in that constituency.
They have a forestry office there.
I think Deputy Giles meant to convey that the land is neglected wilfully and that the people are not too mindful of cultivating it or bringing it into reasonable production. That may be the case in Meath where there are big holdings and where there is a big proportion of very good land.
And no forests, although they have a forestry office.
I feel sure that Deputy Giles knows what he is talking about and, possibly, the people who emigrate from Meath may be doing so in order to see distant lands, but I can assure the House that that is not the position in West Cork or in other parts. I know of no one leaving West Cork to seek his livelihood in a foreign land save those who are compelled through the force of economic circumstances. The people would be only too anxious to stay in their native land if there were any opportunity of earning a reasonable livelihood.
Unfortunately, we lack industrial development. I am hopeful that, through the afforestation programme, a reasonable amount of productive employment will be given. There is no use in talking about employment other than productive employment. Productive employment is the only type that I believe in.
I do not wish to delay the House. My principal objects in speaking were to offer my congratulations to the Minister for introducing this measure from which, I hope, will develop freer acquisition of land and, secondly, to suggest reconsideration of the question of price. I would like to emphasise that matter.
Naturally, I join with other Deputies in fostering private enterprise so far as farmers or others are concerned. Any help, advice or technical assistance that they need should be provided so that they could have plantations on their holdings which would be of immense benefit in providing shelter and so on. I conclude by wishing the Minister Godspeed in his drive for afforestation and with the hope that as a result of this measure he will be able to move somewhat faster than he is at the moment.
One might reasonably say this has been a really remarkable debate. It has afforded opportunities to Deputies on all sides of the House —and I say "all sides" advisedly because, in a matter dealing with afforestation or any kindred activity, one must look upon it from a national and not a political viewpoint. It has given Deputies on all sides of the House the opportunity for varied expressions of sentiment, and varied suggestions. It has given them an opportunity to deal with particular parts of their own constituencies which they probably would have liked to mention. It has given other Deputies an opportunity of claiming that they were the first in this great afforestation drive. It has given Deputies opportunities probably to be more bitter than they intended to be; it has given them opportunities of saying things they never intended. It has even given opportunities to Deputies to rise away above the highest treetops into the flights of almost spiritual melodrama.
This is a measure, taken in conjunction with the motion, to deal with the speeding up of afforestation and in spite of the various sentiments expressed and the various suggestions made, overriding it all, it must be conceded at once, there is a sincerity that can only have its origin in the full appreciation, either conscious or subconscious, on the part of every Deputy that this is a national question and one that deserves treatment from either a special Ministry of its own, a commission or a board. I have a completely open mind on these matters but I do think it is a project that requires special treatment and preferably treatment outside the realm of politics.
When one looks around and sees the great progress that has been made by semi-State bodies such as the E.S.B., Bord na Móna and other kindred activities, one must be forced to the conclusion that anything connected with the national wealth and national production must of necessity be better looked after and catered for by such an organisation. There is no doubt that afforestation and the growth of trees from the point of view of business and industrial development is an asset to be sought after. In addition altogether to the beauty that it lends to our countryside, it has possible effects on the climatic conditions prevailing in an area. Be that as it may, I must turn to this Bill and deal with the question which it really sets out to deal with— the question of difficult title and the acquisition of commonages. There is enshrined in the Constitution of this country the right to private property and that right should not be lightly interfered with.
I do not say that the acquisition of land for afforestation purposes or for the relief of congestion would be lightly undertaken because it is my experience, in the courts of the lay commissioners, that every possible angle is looked into before a man's land is taken and every possible opportunity is given to him before his lands are acquired for any of the purposes set out in the Land Acts for which such acquisition is sought. What is difficult title? The answer simply is that difficult title is no title. I want to say fairly and squarely to the Minister that in my opinion—and I am expressing a personal opinion—his Department are treading on extremely dangerous ground when they decide, as they will when this Bill becomes law, to give compensation to a man who has only six years' occupancy.
In this morning's post there was the draft Bill for the new Statute of Limitations and I went promptly to the relevant section to find out what was the limitation period in the proposed new Bill against action for the recovery of land. I find there the old 12 years' provision which dates back to 1833 and which has been maintained in the 1874 and subsequent statutes. The 12 years' provision deals with land and the six years' with simple contracts. I do not know what will happen when such compensation is paid to a man who occupied land for a period of six years if the rightful owner can come along in the intervening six years and make a claim, not for compensation for the land itself, but for the possession of the land which has been acquired for forestry purposes.
This commonage question will raise a number of complications I fear, and it may mean that injustice will be done to the common holders. A common is not made up of the same kind of land from mearing to mearing. There is the high part of it and the low part, the part which grows good grass and the part that yields bad grass, the part that has water and the part that has shelter. In allocating portions of that commonage, how is anybody going to allocate as compensation a sufficient quantum of good grazing, rough-grazing for the winter, water and shelter? There are problems to which I think the Minister and his legal advisers could well address themselves between this and Committee Stage. While I say all these things, I appreciate to the fullest the sentiment behind this Bill was to develop afforestation to the very fullest extent. I would advise that the Department would proceed with the greatest possible caution. From my own personal and professional viewpoint I would say this is going to be a gold mine for practitioners.
Hear, hear!
It is for that reason that I wished to criticise the Bill at this stage. Perhaps I lack experience in this question, but I think the answer to this commonage question is the shelter belt of forest at the back of the holdings with adequate and suitable rights of way through for the people from their holdings. It is in that way that the qualities of commonage, to which I have already referred, will be left untouched.
I would like to know from the Minister what has happened to all the offers of lands made to his Department for forestry purposes. In my own constituency I must have offered to the Land Commission for forestry purposes upwards of 10,000 acres. I would like to know whether these lands, and all the other lands that must have been offered by Deputies from other constituencies, have been surveyed and suitably examined and if they have been rejected, before it was decided to come into this House to seek a measure such as we are debating to-day.
I think that much more could be done as regards social planting and the encouragement of private owners to plant. Again, I think that the planting of shelter belts should play a big part in the afforestation programme.
I want to refer to the third paragraph of the explanatory memorandum in dealing with the present rights enjoyed in commonage. The simple explanation of what tenancy in common means is that a man has a right, not alone to one-tenth of the land, but he also has the right to travel all over that land. If you put him into a limited area of that land, are you going to give him the right amount of land to enable him to continue to eke out his livelihood as he has done up to the present? I would be extremely jealous, whether or not I was a member of the House, of any kind of measure going through this House that would tend to interfere in any way with the fundamental rights of private property and the fundamental right of every citizen to earn his livelihood by a proved economy.
On page 4 of the Minister's statement he deals with what he calls a slowing up and quotes some reasons for it. He states:—
"We are now planting at a rate sufficient to meet our commercial timber needs in 45 to 50 years' time and there is nothing more we can do on that front except to ensure that the Forestry Division is given a proper opportunity to maintain and develop the plantations in the proper way. I want to say on that score that when I first took office as Minister for Lands, I did not fully appreciate the extent to which a rapid increase in fresh planting could detract attention from the requirements of the existing plantations. That fact did not become apparent until 1951 and the Minister who took over from me in that year would have had my full support when he announced to this House in introducing the Forestry Estimate for 1952-53—Volume 132, columns 1966-1968, debate of 1st July, 1952—that it would be necessary to reduce the planting rate for that year to 12,500 acres in order to make sure that arrears of work in the existing plantations received attention. We cannot quarrel with him for that as every Deputy must realise that the care of existing plantations must take precedence over fresh planting."
I am not going to take the Minister to task on that statement but I am going to take to task the administrative outlook that is responsible for the presentation of that statement to this House by the Minister. Does that statement mean that the Forestry Department were not prepared to employ more people as they went along and to leave behind them an ample quota of labour to deal with the plantations in all stages of their various activities? That is the part of the Minister's speech on which, I think, an explanation is due to this House and for which I personally do not blame the Minister but rather the administrative outlook responsible for that part of the speech.
I cannot, in conclusion, when dealing with measures of this kind, avoid referring not alone to the atmosphere of the House but to the whole atmosphere of the Minister's speech itself. This atmosphere is not characteristic solely of legislation dealing with forestry but is common to legislation dealing with every aspect of life. There is, running through it, what I feel is a pitiful anticipation of failure. It is for that reason that I conclude this speech by urging upon the Minister that before he puts any of the provisions of this Bill into operation, he will see that every offer of land is investigated. I would advise him to take counsel with his own legal advisers and the legal advisers of the Government for the purpose of finding some sort of autonomous or semiautonomous body to deal with this particular branch of what must be, either in this or any other country, a source of great national wealth.
Speaking as one who was brought up and reared amongst woodland I am anxious to see that the target which the Minister has set out to achieve is achieved. I have every confidence in the Minister and I am sure that he will achieve that target if there is less of the obstructionist tactics that we have seen here in this House. I welcome this Bill because there is no indication of compulsion in it and I know that the Minister will be prepared to give a reasonable and equitable price for any land that he acquires.
Tipperary, the county which I represent, has plenty of land suitable for forestry, but there is a great need to speed up the machinery for taking over the land. The machinery was very slow up to 1948 when the present Minister came into office and speeded it up somewhat. In the district where I live, there was a State sawmill working in a small way in 1948. To-day it is one of the finest in Ireland. In the three years of inter-Party Government, very much was done for forestry in my area. I was very impressed by what the Minister has said about forestry, coming as he does from a western district and being a farmer. I was amazed at how much he knew about it. I cannot agree that Bord na Móna or the E.S.B. would do a better job nor can I agree with the proposal to hand any of the work over to them. Young men have been trained in the work for the past three or four years. They are qualified for the job and I am quite sure that they will do the job and do it well. They will qualify for the job and I am quite sure they will do the job well, by speeding up the acquisition of land suitable for forestry. I think there should be more encouragement for farmers to plant shelter belts. Trees are becoming costly and county committees should get more financial aid and encouragement for planting these isolated shelter belts. I would again appeal to the Minister to give fair and reasonable prices for land acquired for forestry purposes.
Debate adjourned.