Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Dec 1956

Vol. 160 No. 15

Private Members' Business. - Afforestation Programme: Transfer of Responsibility—Motion (resumed).

The following motion was proposed by Deputy MacBride on 5th December, 1956:—

"That, in view of the importance of afforestation to the national economy and of the necessity for securing a rapid expansion of the afforestation programme, Dáil Eireann requests the Government to examine the advisability of transferring the responsibility for the carrying out of the National Afforestation Programme to any one of the following: (1) a separate Ministry, (2) a separate State sponsored corporation analogous to Bord na Móna or the E.S.B., (3) a specially constituted Forestry Commission, (4) Bord na Móna; and Dáil Eireann requests the Government to report the result of such examination as soon as it is completed to both Houses of the Oireachtas."

Debate was resumed on the following amendment proposed by Deputy Moylan on that date:—

"To delete all the words after ‘That' and substitute: ‘a Select Committee of Dáil Eireann, consisting of 15 members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, of whom five shall be a quorum, be appointed with power to send for persons, papers and records, to inquire into, consider and report upon the whole question of afforestation in relation to the national economy; to indicate, having regard to any social consequences, the objectives to be aimed at and the organisation and administration best calculated to attain these objectives; and to furnish their report to Dáil Eireann within six months from the date of their appointment.'"

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

When the debate was adjourned on the last occasion, I was submitting to the House that there was no case for either the motion or the amendment. Indeed, I expected a good and useful debate on this, but that debate has not materialised so far. There is now only a little over an hour and a half left.

I am very concerned about one aspect of this debate and that is the suggestion that forestry should be handed over to Bord na Móna. I am very interested in this principally because I am a farmer. I do not think that Bord na Móna is the body best suited to do the work that is at present done by the Forestry Branch. The best body to carry out afforestation is the present forestry staff. They have nothing of which to be ashamed. On the contrary, they have everything of which to be proud. They have done a very excellent job of work. Deputy MacBride gives certain reasons why Bord na Móna should be in charge of forestry but, despite the reasons he advanced, that is the last thing I would like to see happen.

I do not want to level charges against anybody but I think I should bring to the attention of the House the fact that the only advantage Bord na Móna has as compared with the present Forestry Division is their method of acquiring land. Deputy O'Hara on 14th March last asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce:—

"If he will state in respect of each county (a) the area of bog in the possession of Bord na Móna, (b) the average price per acre paid to the former owners, (c) the estimated average tonnage of saved turf which one acre is capable of producing and (d) the price per ton paid for saved turf last year."

The Minister replied that the average price paid per acre was £1 irrespective of county or location. That is the cash side of it.

What disturbs me still more is the powers Bord na Móna have under Section 30 of the Turf Development Act, 1946. That section reads:—

"At any time before conveyance of ascertainment of price or compensation, the Board may, subject to the subsequent provisions of this section and for the purpose of exercising or performing any of his functions, do all or any of the following things:—

(a) enter on and take possession of any land;

(b) exercise any right which the Board is authorised by this Act to acquire;

(c) terminate, restrict or otherwise interfere with any easement or other property or right which the Board is authorised by this Act to terminate, to restrict or otherwise interfere with;"

Later on in sub-section (3) the Act stipulates that:—

"The Board shall not—

(a) enter on or take possession of any land under this section without giving to the occupier of such land at least one month's, or, in the case of an occupied dwelling-house, three months' previous notice in writing of its intention to do so,"

Mr. MacBride

Is not all that relevant to the acquisition of bog for turf development? It has no reference to afforestation.

Mr. Blowick

If forestry were handed over, Bord na Móna would still have that power.

Mr. MacBride

That is not so. They would only have the powers given them under the Forestry Acts.

Mr. Blowick

I could not accept that.

Mr. MacBride

These powers can only be exercised in relation to the acquisition of land for turf development.

Mr. Blowick

The Act does not say that. Section 29 says they can enter on and take possession of any land.

Mr. MacBride

The powers and functions are defined.

Mr. Blowick

Section 29 says:—

"The Board, for the purpose of exercising or performing any of its functions, may do all or any of the following things."

If forestry were handed over one of the things they could do would be to acquire land permanently or temporarily and either by a greement or compulsorily. They "may do all or any of the following things" and one of the things they can do is to take possession of land. I do not like to say that Deputy MacBride is not aware of the Turf Development Act but I think he did not advert to the very sweeping powers given under that Act, powers which would be exercised by a State body against an ordinary small farmer.

I know that in my own county Bord na Móna have walked in and plastered a notice on a gate-post stating that within one month from a certain date the property would become the property of Bord na Móna. Perhaps there is good reason for that in the case of Bord na Móna. They take over bog and we know that there are vast stretches of virgin bog all over the country of which the owners make little use. Indeed, some of these bogs were a death trap for the owners' stock more than anything else. Provided a reasonable price was paid the activities of Bord na Móna may have been of benefit because, when they take over these bogs they usually fence them.

No matter how poor agricultural land it, it would be a very serious thing to take it over for the State. I pointed out on a previous motion that the Land Commission does not acquire land for itself or for the State. It acquires land to relieve congestion and to benefit other people. As Minister for Lands, I am only too well aware of the attacks that are made upon me, the Commissioners and the Land Commission inspectors for doing even that. To give such a sweeping power of acquisition of land for forestry purposes would only lead to serious trouble. Indeed, I doubt if any proposed measure along those lines would pass through this House. While many outside have not perhaps a very high opinion of this House, the majority of Deputies and all Governments can always be relied upon to come down on the side of right; that is, the side of law, and on the side of humanity where the State is dealing with human beings. This would be a very dangerous power to give.

I do not hold myself out to be an authorty on this matter but I cannot let the occasion pass without bringing to the notice of Deputies the vast powers Bord na Móna have for taking over land. It is the poorest of our farmers who own the land most suitable for forestry. I pointed out on a previous occasion that, if we are to run our country properly, arable land should be devoted entirely to producing food for human consumption. Semi-arable land should be improved and those who own it should get every encouragement from the Government to get from it the maximum production possible. The bulk of the waste land should, if those who own it will sell it voluntarily, be utilised in growing timber. I am a firm believer in that. Perhaps time will prove me wrong. I believe that a vast area of mountain land and cutaway bog would, if the people would sell it to us voluntarily, be better employed in growing timber. We will have to squeeze a good deal of cash out of the taxpayers' pockets to grow timber on some of that land, but if we fail to do it in our time, it will be put on the long finger.

If the steps which we are now taking to grow forests had been taken 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, we would not now be paying out £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 a year for our timber requirements. We are spending a sizable sum in establishing forestry, but I would not subscribe to the proposition that we should use the methods or the powers which Bord na Móna have. These two bodies are in a far different position. Forestry is a long-term business. The tree we plant this winter will not be cut down for 50 years to come and it is only the State which could possibly afford to wait that length of time for a return on its money. The E.S.B., if it puts up a plant, if it puts up a turf-burning station or an oil-burning station, can get current from that station in a matter of weeks or months. The same is true of Bord na Móna, but forestry is a different proposition. Forestry means establishing something now the returns from which will not come in for a long time to come. It will be 15 to 20 years before the first thinnings come out of the forests that we are planting now and that is a long time to wait.

Mr. MacBride

How is the British Forestry Commission keeping up to its target of 900,000 acres a year?

Mr. Blowick

They are not. With our smaller population, with the smaller amount of land available to us and with our smaller financial resources, we have made much better strides towards fulfilment of our programme. In three or four years' time, we will see it fulfilled.

Mr. MacBride

Nonsense.

Mr. Blowick

A few weeks ago, the forestry people in Britain had to admit that they had to cut back last year on what they did the year before and that they would have to cut back this year on what they did last year. We have not got the same vast acres of land that they have, in Scotland particularly, where in Berwickshire, an English nobleman, handed over 100,000 acres for forestry in one bloc. There are no such suitable estates in this country. We have now reached the stage where we are thankful to get 50 or 100 acres from the small farmers. There is no reasonable comparison between this country and England, either as regards our forestry needs or the availability of land.

A few figures in regard to the amount of work being carried out will not be out of place. The whole House seems to be well satisfied with the progress of our programme, with the exception of one or two Deputies. I do not want to paint a glorious picture or yet a gloomy one, but the figures I propose to give will convince most Deputies that a smashing great job of work is being, and has been done, in the last few years.

In regard to the acquisition of land, in the year 1947-48, 7,497 acres were acquired; in 1949-50, the acreage was 9,152; in 1950-51, it was 21,601; in 1951-52, 19,107; in 1952-53, 19,418; in 1953-54, 20,444; in 1954-55, 17,497; in 1955-56, it was almost 20,000 acres and in the first six months of this year we have acquired over 10,000 acres.

With regard to the acreage planted —1947-48, it was 6,000 acres; in 1948-49, 7,736; in 1949-50, 7,392; in 1950-51, 9,000 acres approximately; in 1951-52, it was 14,992; in 1952-53, 12,488; in 1953-54, 12,449; in 1954-55, 13,500; in 1955-56, 15,000, and for the present year, 17,500 acres. Next year, we hope to reach 20,000 acres; the following year, 22,500 acres; and the year after, 25,000 acres.

The Forestry Vote has grown in the same proportion. In 1946-47, it was £344,260; in 1950-51, it was £699,865; in 1954-55, it was £1,436,050; in 1955-56, it was £1,731,954 and this year, it is £2,066,004.

Employment has kept pace with these other figures. In 1949-50, the number employed was 1,966; in 1951-52, it was 3,338; in 1954-55, it was 4,049; and last year it was 4,258. This year, when planting is in full swing in January and February, the number of men employed will be about 5,300 and next year there will be almost 6,000 men employed. I think that is a good rate of progress.

Mr. MacBride

There could and should be 20,000 men employed.

Mr. Blowick

If a start had been made in 1908, when Avondale was given to the State, goodness knows what our target would be to-day. There would be a much more pleasant picture to-day because the huge sums of money which we have to pay over to foreign countries for our timber requirements would now be kept at home. However, it is not much good to us to talk now of what was and was not done in the past. I could say, it is a pity that the generation of 100 or 150 years ago did not get our freedom for us instead of the generation of 1916-21. However, we must take the country as we find it to-day and take our financial resources as we find them and try to put our house in order now.

There have been vast changes in practically every sphere of life during the past 40 years. It is a pity that forestry was not tackled with the same enthusiasm in those days as the steam-rolling of roads, the building of schools and many other matters: The answer to it is that Governments could not do everything in one day. What is true of individuals applies equally to Governments.

Deputy MacBride quoted Mr. Roy Cameron on several occasions in the course of his remarks. Personally, I do not think those quotations helped the case he is making for his motion. Mr. Cameron was here for only a few days. He arrived in Dublin on the 25th July, 1950, and after spending a few days in Dublin meeting the Minister for Lands, various other Ministers and the Taoiseach, he went on his tour from which he returned on 5th August. Altogether he was here nine days going through some of the forests. I must say that the technical advice he gave us was very good. We owe him a debt of gratitude for it. He touched on some aspects of the problem but some of his views brought a smile to my face. In paragraph 76, of his report he said that the Forestry Division in Ireland was not free from the frustrations of departmental procedure.

Mr. MacBride

Hear, hear!

Mr. Blowick

The report also stated that the implementation of a programme for which funds were required was subject to vexatious delays, while the propriety of the expenditure was being considered by the Department of Finance.

Mr. MacBride

Hear, hear!

Mr. Blowick

Deputy MacBride mentioned Bord na Móna as one of the four prongs to his motion. It struck me that perhaps these vexatious delays are not all a dead loss. The reason why Mr. Cameron referred to these delays was that at that time the forestry technicians were looking for £136,000 with which to buy tractors and heavy machinery. The Department of Finance naturally had to look into such an application and I remember at the time that there was a delay of a few weeks while the Department of Finance inquired what the machinery was required for. Perhaps I lost my temper as did the forestry technicians at that time.

Some time ago, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, replying to a parliamentary question, said that Bord na Móna had purchased £55,000 worth of machinery and that before it ever left the crates, it was sold later as scrap for £5,000. If Bord na Móna can spend £50,000 of the taxpayers' money——

Mr. MacBride

Is the Minister entitled in this debate to attack the administration of Bord na Móna for which another Minister is responsible?

Mr. Blowick

I am not attacking the administration of Bord na Móna. Deputy MacBride has asked in his motion that Bord na Móna would be responsible for the administration of forestry. Speaking to that motion, he quoted from the report of Mr. Cameron in regard to these vexatious delays in the obtaining of funds for the purchase of machinery. Sometimes such delays rile the best of us, but, in the expenditure of public money, it is very easy for Ministers, with the best intentions in the world, to squander money taken from the pockets of the people. I myself have seen shocking waste, which I brought to the notice of the authorities responsible. There must be supervision. Human nature being what it is, there should be some form of supervision over the best of us. There is nobody free from the need for supervision, even in the management of our individual businesses. Even then, we are not free from supervision because the hardest taskmaster of all is circumstances.

I am not criticising or running down the administration of Bord na Móna. I was pointing to the reply the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave to a parliamentary question in the House.

Mr. Aiken

It is the same Department of Industry and Commerce who directed C.I.E. to sell the machines for the chassis factory in Inchicore.

Mr. Blowick

I did not get the Deputy's point. Deputy MacBride made a statement on 5th December last, reported at column 1970 of the Official Report for that day. He said:—

"When a young man decides to enter for the Civil Service, he sits for an examination for writing assistant or something like that, and then it is a matter of the toss of a coin whether he will be assigned to the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Lands. That does not seem to me to be the ideal method of recruiting the business executives of a vast undertaking such as forestry."

First of all, that system of recruitment does not apply to forestry. Young men attached to the Forestry Division are chosen, first of all, for their knowledge of forestry, agriculture and soils. They are given three years intensive training in Shelton Abbey in County Wicklow. During those three years, if we find there is something lacking, we do not keep them on.

Mr. MacBride

I said that foresters and the technical staff of the Division were perfect, that I had no complaint against them.

Mr. Blowick

Personally, I do not see that there is anything wrong with the manner in which we appoint our young men. After all, we are all born into the world pretty much the same. There is no such thing as preconditioning a baby to be a good doctor, to be a good school teacher, to be a good forester or anything else. We must simply take youngsters as we find them and then fit them into the different conditions of life which suit them—into business, into professions or even into the Dáil. Deputies should not speak on that line about anybody because none of us here got any preconditioning. All of us came in here pretty raw. Perhaps we had certain views outside, but when we found out how the machinery of State works, we got a different slant on the whole thing. I think the young men and women entering the Civil Service have given excellent service to the State, as good as any soldier in the field of battle. The unfortunate part is that they work in jobs through which their work is not known or brandished throughout the country.

Deputy Moylan said that social forestry had as much an attraction to him as social silage. I do not know how much Deputy Moylan knows about silage, whether social or otherwise, but, while he looks down his nose at social forestry, I should like to point out that it serves a useful part in the peculiar conditions we have in this country. There is a vast area of land in this country that will not grow commercial timber in the first rotation. There is land which will not give a first-class crop in the first rotation, but when the land is conditioned by the growing of social timber, it will give a very good crop, perhaps in 25 years' time. I am in favour of planting a very large acreage of that type of timber.

Mr. McQuillan

How much of it is being planted each year?

Mr. Blowick

Roughly 10 per cent. of our planting will be social.

Mr. McQuillan

Is it at the moment?

Mr. Blowick

Yes. That is only the case for the last two or three years. I know, without being a forestry expert myself, there are mountainsides that will not give first-class commercial timber on the first crop but I do believe if it is sown with timber now, in 20 years' time when the trees reach what foresters think is their full growth, the second rotation will give a first-class crop.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister but could we have any idea as to when he will have concluded?

Mr. Blowick

I am practically there.

Mr. McQuillan

I would love to listen to him but there are other speakers.

Mr. Blowick

I am fully cognisant of that but there is a very broad motion and a very broad amendment before us and, if I might say so, there is not enough time spent on talking about forestry here. I like to speak on it myself and I like to hear other Deputies' views and the views of people outside the House. We cannot have too much talk on forestry. As Deputy MacBride has said in his opening remarks it is a pity there was not a great deal more talk about forestry in years gone by. Now that the iron is hot, now that forestry has been put on its feet, I would like to keep it that way. I would not like to let the iron cool or let the enthusiasm that has been aroused cool in this regard. Now that forestry has been established in places were it never was before, it has given the people within a radius of 20 miles around it a new slant on it and has set them thinking that there is something in forestry. That is a very welcome step in the right direction. While I was never one to cry over spilt milk I like to take things as I find them and set them right to the best of my ability.

Deputy Moylan asks in his amendment that a Select Committee of Dáil Eireann, consisting of 15 members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection should be set up to consider and report upon the whole question of forestry in relation to the national economy. With all due respect to Deputy Moylan I think the Government is the proper body to do that. I am the type of person who will examine any project or proposal that is put up to me but while I will certainly ask the Government to consider the first three suggestions in the motion I would be only misleading the mover of the motion if I told him I could recommend the last suggestion, No. 4, to the Government. I want to give warning in time that I will oppose that whether I am in or out of the Government.

We must admit that forestry has grown beyond all expectations. Deputy MacBride says it is a vast undertaking. At the same time in another part of his speech he conveyed the impression that there is something lacking in it. It has become a vast undertaking but it is not a vast commercial undertaking at the moment. It is a fairly big technical undertaking. However, I can easily foresee the day when the produce of our present forests will reach stupendous dimensions. Now is the time to prepare for the day when a tremendous cubic footage of timber will be coming out of our forests and while it is not the case at the moment in a few short years a pretty sizable tonnage of timber of all kinds will be coming out of our forests. There will be first, second and third thinnings. There will be mature timber from some of the older woodlands. Also the earlier plantings will be falling mature soon. While the earlier plantings will only amount to perhaps 500, 1,000 or a couple of thousand acres, nevertheless they have to be dealt with. The proper course to take would be to set up some means of disposal of that huge amount of produce, to prepare the way now for it, and then in time to hand over the field work, that is planting, the maintenance and all the care, and so on, of the timber that must be undertaken to the body which in its earlier years is charged with the disposal including the processing of the forest produce.

Those are the lines upon which my mind has been running for a considerable time past. I believe that is the proper business approach to the question. The amount of thinnings and timber we are selling at the moment is easily disposed of in the form of pit props, small lots to farmers for fencing, for farm tools, etc., and a certain amount, say 25,000 to 30,000 tons to factories who are processing it into wallboard, newsprint and the like. However, we must face up to the disposal of the huge amount of timber that is coming out. I would say to the House not to be surprised if a concrete proposal emerges along those lines within the next 12 months but certainly within the next two years to prepare for a situation which is only six to eight years ahead, because this is the time to prepare for it. As I say, I shall have this motion examined.

Mr. J. Flynn

Would it be possible for the Minister to direct the policy of the Forestry Department towards concentrating planting in areas where the greatest emigration is taking place?

Mr. Blowick

That is the very thing we are trying to do.

Mr. J. Flynn

I am not saying now that it should be done to the detriment of other districts, but seeing that the matter of stemming the tide of emigration in those areas is so urgent, the Department should initiate schemes in those areas.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy can rest assured that the flight from the land where the land is poor has been one of the greatest goads that has been influencing me in trying to push forestry in those areas. I would point out, however, that in those areas it is not easy to get the farmers to sell us their land. That is the big difficulty. There might be a proposal put forward which I would not consider for a moment, that is, taking their land by force. I would never consent to that. We are trying to push forestry into the type of areas the Deputy mentioned. These areas will not give a first-class crop on the first rotation. The trees planted for the first time in these hills and valleys which Deputy Flynn has in mind will not give us a first-class crop, and if we do not fall back on Deputy Moylan's much despised social planting nothing will ever be done. I am falling back on the social programme in those areas. While the first crop will not give a first-class return, the second rotation, which will come when most of us will be dead and gone, will give a first-class crop of timber. I think that in pushing forestry into those areas we have done a good day's work.

In Clare, Donegal, Mayo and Galway where forestry was put in very backward areas for the first time it was even sneered at by some people. To-day those people who sneered at it, three, four or five years ago, are the loudest in shouting about the benefits forestry can bring to those areas. It is one way to help those areas as they did not seem to have any great store of mineral wealth, like places in Wales which have cores of iron ore and other valuable minerals. I sincerely hope the day will come when minerals will be found there but until that day comes I think a Government would be lacking in its duty and would be guilty of gross contempt if it did not do the only thing possible and that is to push forestry in those areas.

Mr. Aiken

It seems to me that the motion moved by Deputy MacBride is going to be ineffective whether it is passed by the House and accepted by the Government or passed by the House and rejected by the Government. All that it asks is that the Government should examine certain administrative machinery and the control of policy; it asks that this should be done over some unspecified time and that, at the end of that time, the Government should report to the Dáil. Everybody will admit that it is time that we should have a fresh look at forestry to see what we are going to do in the future with the scientific knowledge that is now at our disposal and with what I might call the experiments of the pilot plots that have been planted here within the last 30 to 40 years, and in those parts of England, Scotland and Wales that have the climate and general conditions similar to our own. But if we are to take full advantage of what science and experience have opened up to us for forestry I think we will have to do something more about it than merely to get an unwilling Government to look at vague propositions over an unspecified time.

Mr. Blowick

The Government is more willing to do something about forestry than the Deputy's Government was.

Mr. Aiken

If we are to do it, I think we should do it along the lines suggested in the amendment. We are getting to the position where all Parties in the House are fairly well agreed that we should get as many trees grown as possible in the shortest possible time. How that is to be done should be discussed by this committee that we suggest, representative of all Parties in the House, and see whether we can get common agreement upon a policy to do that. In 1923 and 1924 the Cumann na nGaedheal Government set out as their programme 3,500 acres a year. They never reached that in their ten years of office.

Mr. Blowick

That is not correct.

Mr. Aiken

3,500 acres a year was announced as the programme that would give us all that was needed and up to 1932 they had never reached anything like it. In the 1930's we trebled the amount of the annual plantation of land. In recent years when we got over the effects of the war, and materials again became available, an increase took place in forestry.

Mr. Blowick

Would the Deputy mind if I pointed out——

Mr. Aiken

The Minister has already spoken and we listened to him for about an hour.

Mr. Blowick

In 1927-28, 3,444 acres were planted——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must not interrupt.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Aiken

There was much more land taken over in 1947-48 for forestry than there was in 1948-49. By direct purchase 6,500 acres were purchased by the Forestry Division in 1947-48 and for the two following years direct purchases were 2,800 and 4,200 acres.

Mr. Blowick

I want to put it on the record of this House that Deputy Aiken's statement is not correct.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Unless the Deputy gives way the Minister cannot speak.

Mr. Aiken

I will not give way.

Mr. Blowick

The Cumann na nGaedheal programme——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Two members of the House may not speak at the same time. Deputy Aiken is in possession.

Mr. Blowick

He should keep to the truth.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister has already spoken for an hour.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy is all wrong.

Mr. Aiken

We suggest this problem should be considered by a body that is not dominated by the Minister and that the proposals are not put up by a Minister such as this. We want to see forestry going ahead and the Minister is trying to make it a plaything of politics.

Mr. Blowick

It was the Deputy did that by quoting wrong figures.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister spoke of what should have been done 30 or 40 years ago.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy has quoted wrong figures.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has already spoken and he should allow the Deputy to make his speech.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, but I wish the Deputy would keep to the truth.

Mr. Aiken

It is quite obvious what the Minister would do if this resolution were passed. He would accept it just as the motion about referring back the Post Office Estimates was accepted in 1949 and they said they would reconsider it. We know the consideration they gave it when they came in the next morning. I want to say to the Minister that we should have an inquiry into this matter so that all Parties in the House, and the people of the country, will be satisfied that we are on the right road to getting the trees grown which this country requires for its economy in the future.

Mr. Blowick

We are going to examine it.

Mr. Aiken

Of course you are going to examine it. All I want the Minister and those in this House who want to see this thing examined thoroughly to do is to vote for this amendment to get it examined. We know the playacting the Minister and his colleagues indulge in. A Minister said to-day— and I agree with him—that if we are going to have State forests, whether in charge of a State Department, the present one, or under a special Ministry or by a State company, the principal difficulty that that authority will be up against is the getting of land for afforestation.

I suggest that if we place more emphasis on the encouragement of individual farmers or groups of farmers to plant their own land we will get much further and get there much faster. In 1933, I happened to be Acting-Minister for Lands and I put a proposition to the Government at that time which they accepted and agreed to. It was that we should give every farmer who was prepared to plant an acre of land a grant of £10. Translated into present day values that £10 is worth £25 and, in my belief, there are at least 200,000 out of the 300,000 odd farmers who, on the average—if they were given that £25 to-day per acre, with the knowledge that has been gained and if they were given the advantage of getting the right sort of timber—would plant very much faster than any organisation directly under a Minister or by a State company.

If you take the amount of money we are paying for forestry at the present time, you will see that it costs us to run the State forests, and plant the 14,000 or 15,000 acres we are planting, £6 per year for every acre over the average of 250,000 acres or so.

Mr. MacBride

How much?

Mr. Aiken

About £1,500,000 on about 250,000 acres—roughly, about £5, or £6 at the maximum, with an annual planting rate of about 15,000 acres. If we were to give the farmers £25 per acre and if we got sufficient voluntary organisations to help and encourage them to plant, that £1,500,000 would plant 60,000 acres a year. If our target were 1,000,000 acres we would reach the 1,000,000 acres in about 16 or 17 years. I do not know how many years it would take, planting at the rate of 15,000 acres per year—over 60, at any rate.

There is a history behind the difficulty of getting land. Our people had such a long struggle to get possession and ownership of the land that they hate to part with it for any purpose or at any price. The suggestion I make is that we should give to-day's value for the £10 grant which was given in the middle thirties when money was hard to come by, both by Governments and everybody else. If we did that, we would get a great number of farmers to plant a portion of their land and if the average was only five acres for two-thirds of the farmers of the country it would give us 1,000,000 acres.

There are organisations in this country that have as their object the encouragement of tree planting. In my conversations with many members of one organisation I said to them that if, instead of criticising this Government or any other Government, they applied themselves to the problem of, first of all, encouraging people to sell land to the Forestry Department or whatever forestry organisation is there and, secondly, encouraging people to take advantage of the grant that should be there at present values, we would get ahead very much faster. That is my belief.

If you look at what are probably the two most afforested areas in Europe, Sweden and France, you will find that a very large percentage of the forests in those countries is individually owned and not State-owned.

Mr. Blowick

They were not planted by the farmers.

Mr. Aiken

They are individually-owned.

Mr. Blowick

I agree, but they were not planted by the farmers. They were virgin forests in most places.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister should not talk about something he knows nothing about.

Mr. Blowick

I thought the Deputy was talking about planting land. I did not want to interrupt him.

Mr. Aiken

The vast majority of the woods are individually-owned by the farmers in these countries. In south Sweden, where most of the exportable timber comes from, you have 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. of each farm under forest and the other 75 per cent or 50 per cent. is arable land so that you have winter and summer employment in those areas. If we could develop in that direction, we could have winter employment on the land—in the forests, planting, thinning, felling and delivering—and employment in the summer on the agricultural land.

It is my belief that if the farmers got reasonable encouragement to plant their own land by giving them this grant of £25, they would do it at the present day because they have seen markets for alternative products which they can produce whiz up and down in a very rapid fashion. They have seen eggs slump. They have seen cattle slump and they have seen the price of turkeys go down with a bang but they know and everybody knows that, having regard to the age in which we live, the products of the forests in the form of timber or wood pulp are growing in consumption every year and are likely to continue to grow still further.

It would be a good investment were these farmers to put their efforts into planting the trees, if their immediate expenses for trees, wire, and so on were met by this grant. I think it would be less expensive on the State. If the Minister or his Government happened to be broke, he could always do with the State forests what he did with the chassis factory and the turf machinery. He could sell the forests and get the money to pay the grants.

Mr. O'Leary

You sold the land project machinery.

Mr. Aiken

If we get the committee going here in the House, I believe we would get agreement on all sides of the House that no matter what we do in the line of State forests, whether they are to be continued under the Department of Lands, started afresh under a special Ministry or started under a State company, we would also get agreement that in our circumstancs, side by side with the campaign for the development of the State forests, we should have an all-out campaign to develop tree planting by means of the State grant which was £10 as far back as 1933 when the £ was worth two and a half times what it is worth to-day.

From the farmer's point of view, if his immediate expenses can be covered forestry is a good investment. One of the things I would like this committee to do when it is set up, as I hope it will be, is to go much further into the technicalities of forestry than we possibly could do here in this House, dealing with—I say it without any offence—a non-technical Minister, a Minister who says what he is advised to say and not what he knows in regard to the very highly technical question of forestry. A committee of this House could examine the officials of the Forestry Department closely on technical matters; and I may tell you that if I were a member of that committee I would like to pursue what I have often discussed with some of them, that is, why they do not go out for a shorter rotation for pulp wood.

There are both soft woods and hard woods that will give a very much shorter rotation than a lot of the varieties of timber they are growing to-day and modern technique has evolved systems of dealing with hard woods for pulp as well as with all classes of soft wood. If we could reduce the rotation of the felling of timber by half, by planting it on reasonably good land, we would reduce the cost of running a pulp mill, because it would be supplied from a very much smaller area than it could be supplied to-day with our forests scattered over great distances.

I hope that we will set up this committee so that these questions can be pursued, where an answer can be demanded by the committee. They would have power, under our amendment here, to send for persons, papers and records, and to inquire not only into the questions that Deputy MacBride has in his motion, as to the administrative control of forestry, but into the whole question of afforestation and the objects to be aimed at and any organ or administrative machinery that they deem it wise to inquire into.

We have a big advantage over Sweden and France in the growing of timber, in that the rate of growth here is very much faster. There is no country in Europe—and no country I know of outside New Zealand—which would give us the same rate of growth of timber for pulping. If we get after it with the knowledge that has been gained by the technicians in the Forestry Department over these years, if we select the trees suitable to the land that any farmer has and if we can encourage them to plant some part of their reasonably good land that may be rough for other purposes, we will evolve a system of life upon the farms that will give us much more stability than depending on single items, whether it be cattle, eggs or white turkeys.

There is a vast goodwill which can be harnessed behind an organisation to grow timber. It is difficult to harness it behind a State machine. The State machine is not so constructed that it can hook up with a voluntary organisation too well. I am perfectly certain that the gentlemen, the officials in the State Forestry Department, have done their best over the years and are as good as any other set of civil servants one could get; but when things go wrong it is the system of organisation which may be at fault and not the individuals running it. The officials in any machine must run it according to the rules. In my belief, we could make rapid progress, if advantage were taken of the knowledge and experience they have gained, and if we would listen to the reiterated reply, when Governments and Minister are asked: "Why do you not plant more trees?" Invariably there is the reply: "It is the difficulty of getting land." That is true, it is the difficulty of getting the land. In my belief the only way to act is to recognise that fact, and if we accept it, we must give the farmer a reasonable grant for planting his own land and the timber will be grown. Then the individual farmer and the community as a whole will get the timber much cheaper than if we were to continue with the present organisation.

Now, I am quite prepared to admit that an organisation such as Bord na Móna could do a better job than any State Department, whether it is under a Minister directly as a separate Department or is one of the Departments under the control of a Minister. An organisation of that kind, exercising the powers that the Department of Forestry has, but not subject to immediate requirements to get finance sanction for every penny that has been spent ahead of time, could get ahead very much faster. That is in the nature of the case.

Be that as it may, I believe that no State organisation or semi-State organisation will make our country worthy to be called a country with forests, unless we get the land which is in the ownership of about 300,000 people and unless we can encourage them to do their share. I believe we can do it. I believe, further, if this amendment of ours is accepted, that we will start on the right road. I believe there is a fund of goodwill for it, but that goodwill requires to be exploited, and I think a report by such a committee making recommendations as to how forestry was to proceed over the years ahead would become a common policy and we would hear no more about changing it than we do about changing the Constitution. It would become fundamental policy for every Government and would have universal support.

I think if Deputy MacBride wants to see forestry go ahead, he will vote for our amendment. I just want to reiterate that his resolution cannot be effective, whether it is passed or rejected, whether it is passed and accepted by the Government or passed and rejected by the Government. There is no date fixed upon which the ministerial inquiry under the chairmanship of the Minister for Lands would report. It could report on Tibb's Eve and satisfy the terms of Deputy MacBride's motion, whereas our amendment would have this question examined by 15 men put forward by their Parties, people who have an interest in forestry and have a report back within six months. They can examine the whole question, send for all the records and for persons, to inquire into and to consider this whole question of policy for the future, the objectives to be attained and the work and administration best calculated to attain these objectives. That committee must report within six months, not in an indefinite period such as would be the case under Deputy MacBride's original motion. I put it to the House that anybody who is in favour of getting ahead with this job should vote for this amendment and have it passed. They should accept this amendment and vote for it as a substantive motion when it is put to the House.

Mr. O'Hara rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Might I point out to Deputy O'Hara that the Chair will call on Deputy MacBride to conclude at 10.25 p.m. at the latest.

Mr. O'Hara

It is noticeable that this subject of forestry is being discussed much more often in recent years than heretofore. It is also noticeable that generally there is much more agreement on all sides of the House as to how forestry can best be advanced in this country. I shall concede right away that Deputy MacBride is a forestry enthusiast. He has always shown himself to be sincere since I began to read his speeches. I feel, however, that in his wild enthusiasm to see forestry programmes speeded up, he has quite a wrong slant on at least one vital problem, that is, the problem of land acquisition.

Coming from one area in County Mayo and living in a congested area, I fully appreciate the difficulties of acquiring land for forestry. I began my public life in 1942, and one of the things I advocated at that time was expansion of the forestry programme and I remember well how indifferent people were in those years to my appeals. At the present time, it is true that people have become more forestry minded but the fact is that even yet it is very difficult to convince many of our smallholders that they should sell their land for forestry purposes. We all appreciate that the bulk of the land which is acquired for forestry is in the one region, in the mountainous areas, and it is to these areas that generations ago many of our people were driven by Cromwell: "To Hell or Connacht," to the rugged mountainous areas.

When they were driven there, they had to eke out a living and down through the years many of these people, our forefathers, cleared those lands, limed them and drained them. Because they had to work so hard, they developed a love for the land and their smallholdings seem really valuable to them, so that when any Department of State or any other body wants to acquire land for forestry purposes or any other purpose, we find many difficulties arise, not the smallest of these being difficulties of title.

I have said in that connection Deputy MacBride seems to me in any case to have a wrong slant on things if he thinks that because he is anxious, or because I am anxious, or the Minister is anxious to have these lands planted, these people are likely to surrender them easily. All of us have at least heard of the land war and we have read of how our people resisted the landlords in this country and particularly in my native county. It was in the Straide area of County Mayo that Michael Davitt—God rest his soul—was born. The people there are traditionally opposed to anybody entering on their property, no matter who he may be, even when he comes from the Forestry Division or from any private or public company such as Bord na Móna.

I wish to say, therefore, I feel it would be very wrong to hand over the right to acquire land or the responsibility for planting timber to such a board as Bord na Móna. I know and appreciate we are not discussing the affairs of Bord na Móna here, but I would like to say, in passing, that in my county they are very unwelcome. They treated many of our tenant farmers, particularly in poor areas——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Deputy can discuss Bord na Móna on this motion.

Mr. O'Hara

They paid sums of 10/- or 15/- per acre and have treated the people badly, and to hand any further authority to these people would be a move that I, personally, would resent and something the people I represent would resent. Therefore I say again that I think the ideal body to deal with this situation for the time being is the Forestry Division.

We should all like to see a little more progress and more and more acres of our mountain lands planted. However, the difficulty of acquisition arises all the time. Deputy Moylan referred to it; Deputy Aiken referred to it, and the Minister referred to it. The greatest difficulty which confronts us is the difficulty of acquisition. All these Deputies, including the Minister, are from the country. Though Deputy MacBride is a city Deputy, I am aware that he has a good idea, generally speaking, of rural conditions, but if he lived among those people, as I do, he would appreciate that that great difficulty exists.

Deputy Moylan—I want to mention it in support of what I have said— emphasised an important point in regard to the Cameron Report. He pointed out that while we should all like to pay tribute to Mr. Cameron, the F.A.O. expert who came to this country and helped us in many ways with his good advice, he certainly knew very little about actual Irish conditions. That is true: he spent only nine days here altogether. Lest I should be taken as being critical of Mr. Cameron's report, I want to join with the Minister and others, including Deputy MacBride, in expressing thanks for his valuable report.

There is nothing easier than to criticise Governments and Ministers, but we should appreciate, too, that successive Governments in this country have made some considerable progress in afforestation. I pointed out already that when I entered politics in 1942, I found that the people at that time were very reluctant to listen to anybody speaking on forestry. I appreciate that the Government of the day had their difficulties in convincing the people, regardless of how much goodwill was behind it, of the desirability of the advancement of forestry. The then Minister and his Government certainly had a problem to convince the people. I will say, by way of mild criticism, that I think more progress could have been made, but we can take pride in the fact that, with the passage of time, successive Governments and successive Ministers have made progress and that the future, far from being black or bleak, is quite bright.

Our technical men in this country have gained considerable experience. Deputy Aiken referred to certain experimental plots which we have in certain areas and we are all aware that our technical men have gained a lot of knowledge from these plots. Questions regarding climatic conditions, the planting of trees adjacent to the sea coast, and so on, have been watched very carefully by our technical men, who have compiled quite a lot of useful information. That being so, I feel that, with the passage of time, there will be further and greater progress towards the goal of increased afforestation.

Mr. MacBride

The purpose of this motion is to ensure that in future some attempt will be made to reach the targets decided upon by this House and the Government. In 1949, it was decided that there could be an annual plantation rate of 25,000 acres. Now, seven years afterwards, we find that we have not nearly reached that target. The present Minister and former Ministers have all assured us that it is not their fault, or the fault of their Governments, or the fault of their Departments, that the target has not been reached. If I am to accept that, it points clearly to the unwillingness or the inability or the unsuitability of the present organisation.

This motion was brought forward to ensure that something will be done to prevent further delays in proceeding with our afforestation programme. I do not know whether or not the Minister's statement indicates that he proposes to accept my motion. It is a reasonable motion. If the Minister does not accept it, then I think he is not fit to be Minister for Lands. I do not know whether or not he is expressing the view of the Government as a whole, but if the Government refuse to accept the motion, then I think it is an unreasonable Government.

I must say that, of the speeches made here to-night, I whole-heartedly welcome Deputy Aiken's statement, which I regard as the most constructive statement made from that side of the House by any member of the Front Bench there so far. The reason I cannot accept the amendment is that, in my view, it will tend to postpone the consideration of the matter. For six months, there would be a select committee. Then it would make its report which would then go to the Government and another six months would be lost.

I will make this proposition to Deputy Aiken: If the Government do not report back to us on this matter within a fortnight of the House resuming after the Christmas Recess, I am prepared to join in a motion with Deputy Aiken or any member of the House requiring the Government to report back forthwith to this House——

Mr. Cunningham

The Government might not be back.

Mr. MacBride

Well, if not this Government, then some other Government. I should like to see a permanent voluntary committee of this House composed of people from all sides who believe in forestry and who would take it upon themselves to keep an eye on forestry, to help it and push it along to the best of their ability in this House. That suggestion might be considered by members of different Parties. If we are to take forestry out of the political sphere, I feel we should have such an active body here composed of members from all sides of the House.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hession, James M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Larkin, James.
• Leary, Johnny.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Connor, Kathleen.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, James.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kelly, Edward.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Noel.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McQuillan, John.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donough.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and James Tully; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.

Question declared carried.

Amendment negatived.

Motion put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13th December, 1956.