Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Apr 1957

Vol. 161 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Forestry (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,329,400 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for salaries and expenses in connection with Forestry (No. 13 of 1946 and No. 6 of 1956) including a Grant-in-Aid for Aquisition of Land.—(Minister for Lands.)

Mr. Cunningham

When I moved to report progress last night, I was dealing with the question of private planting. I feel that if it were properly developed, private planting could give us very large areas of forestry. It is a shame that last year—taking last year as an example—only 625 acres were planted by private effort. I do not agree with the ex-Minister when he says that the smallness of the grants is causing that situation. I think it is lack of knowledge, the knowledge of the type of trees to plant, of the time of year to do the planting and of the proper care to give to trees.

For that reason, it would be advisable that the knowledge which is necessary for private individuals before they undertake planting should be made available from various sources. It should be made available by having the Department of Lands issue booklets to national schools, to the technical schools and to the secondary schools, so that the people would have a proper understanding of planting methods and the care of trees. It might also be possible to make available from the Forestry Division and from the vocational committees officers who would give lectures to parish councils and farmers' organisations in the various localities. The knowledge thus imparted could be used by farmers and others.

There are in this country various tracts of waste land on individual farms. In many cases, small pieces of waste ground are in the hands of county councils or urban councils. All these should be brought in and put under trees. In most cases, this land is going to waste and producing nothing for the nation and every encouragement should be given to private individuals to put this type of land under trees. The financial stimulus would be a secondary consideration. Admittedly, the grants in existence now have not been revised for some time. The grants are available only when not less than one acre is planted. It is too much to expect a small farmer to plant an acre. There is too much work in an acre and he may not have an acre of waste land available. I would also suggest that the grants be increased slightly and that they be available to persons who plant less than an acre.

This question of private planting is important. I do not think we should leave everything to the State. When our forests were being demolished and the country stripped of trees by the British, there was a general outcry by the Irish people, and rightly so. The same applied when efforts were being made to destroy our language——

Mr. Dillon

When did the British demolish our forests?

Mr. Cunningham

Some of our finest forests were cut down by the landlords and sold to the British occupiers of the country at that time.

Mr. Dillon

Do you tell me!

Mr. Desmond

During the 1914-18 war. Surely the Deputy does not forget that.

Mr. Cunningham

They were shipped to support the war drive.

Mr. T. Lynch

They were cut down by Irish gombeen men.

Mr. Cunningham

One would think that when we got control of our own affairs, there would be an all-out effort to replace those plantations but that has not been the case. However, I must say that the facilities for private planting are available. Every county council has a scheme whereby trees are available to land owners at a very nominal charge. In the case of a farmer with under £5 valuation, trees are available at about 4/– a hundred. The price is slightly increased when the valuation exceeds £5. It is not a question of lack of finance or of the machinery not being available. It is a question of lack of knowledge. That knowledge should be made available.

In other countries, a good deal of the planting done is carried out by private land owners. We should encourage and foster that angle. It could be very useful and could help the efforts of the State. A great part of the difficulty, so far as the State is concerned, is that the State must get fairly large tracts of land. It is not economic for the full State machinery to operate on small pieces of land, whereas it could be profitable for private individuals to have on their farms some investment of that nature.

A lot has been said about the difficulty the Forestry Division experience in obtaining land. I do not think that is so. My experience is that a good deal of land has been offered to the Forestry Division and in many counties they are not able to take all the offers available. I have experience of my own constituency where a lot of land is on offer. There is delay in getting round to consideration of those offers. I know it is not easy. There are difficulties in regard to getting agreement, the question of price, the question of title, and so on; but I think that should not be used as an excuse for not increasing the over-all planting rate and the intake of land. A time may come when for various reasons this land may not be available at present prices.

Somebody mentioned yesterday that there was a danger of over-planting. I do not think there is. I saw it mentioned somewhere that about 600,000 acres of forest would meet our demand for timber. At the present rate of planting, it will be a number of years yet before that maximum is reached. If we over-plant in regard to our own needs, then the surplus could be easily and profitably exported and could be used for many other purposes besides its use as timber.

I think the Forestry Division are laying too much stress on the planting of soft woods. Admittedly, commercial timber of that type is necessary for building, but more attention should be devoted to hard woods used for furniture making, and especially to ash for the supply of hurleys and so on. The rate of demolition of our hard woods is greater than the planting rate. That is a mistake which should be remedied and we should see to it that our stock of hard woods is kept up. Since the war, the manufacture of furniture and household equipment made of timber has increased in this country. At the moment, I think we are self-sufficient in that regard and the furniture industry caters for the home needs. It would be a pity if the raw material for that industry should be allowed to disappear. Only by keeping up our supply of hard wood can we make sure that material for the furniture industry will be available.

There is great scope for further development of forestry in the West of Ireland. It is something that will help the West. It will improve the employment position there and more of this type of work should be done in the Gaeltacht areas, where unfortunately there is heavy emigration to other countries and to towns and cities within this country. The employment which forestry would give in the Gaeltacht areas would be valuable. The planting of trees would be an asset to those areas, not alone from the point of view of giving employment, but from the point of view of producing something from the land available there. That industry should be started in the Gaeltacht to keep the people at home, and we should make the best use of the things that are available in those western areas.

The type of land that is available there is in many cases useful for nothing but trees, but it can be used profitably for that purpose. It may be said, in some cases, the mountains are too high and that trees will not grow on the high slopes of those mountains, but I would suggest that what is being done, say, in the Six Counties, in the areas where there are high mountains, might also be done in our own case, that is, that a belt be planted along the foothills at first and as this grows, it will provide shelter for a belt higher up and in that way we can use the hillsides for the planting of trees.

Forest research was mentioned by the Minister. It is important because from past experience we find that some varieties planted in certain types of soil will not do well and it is essential from the points of view of economy and prevention of waste that we should be as sure as possible that wherever trees are planted, they are suitable for the particular area and soil.

I should like to say this in regard to research: a good part of the money could go to research into the uses which can be made of the waste coming from the forests which are now beginning to produce waste in fairly large quantities. It would be a pity, seeing that we have got well on our feet on the way to progress in regard to afforestation, if we should allow any of the forest products to be lost and I think we should spend some money in finding ways of using the thinnings that are becoming available in those forests.

The Minister mentioned the making of roads and he gave figures for the purchase of machinery. The type of machinery necessary for the roadmaking is expensive because bulldozers and equipment of that kind cost a lot of money. I would suggest, instead of investing large sums of money in that kind of machinery, there should be some co-operation with county councils who have already purchased such machinery and it might be possible to get the use of bulldozers, for instance, by hiring them from county councils so that we would not be compelled to invest a lot of money in that kind of new machinery.

Mr. Dillon

I think it would have been a nice thing if the new Minister had introduced the Estimate this year by paying a tribute to his predecessor on a very remarkable occasion, because in this year, on 31st March we achieved the astonishing prodigy of being able to claim that there has been as much forest land planted in this country since 1948 as had been planted since the foundation of the State. On 31st March this year, we could claim that the area of forest planted had been doubled since Deputy Blowick first became Minister for Lands. I think that is a very remarkable achievement and I think it would have been a graceful thing if the present Minister had signalised the occasion by commenting upon it.

Speaking in round figures, I think it is true to say that, in 1948, we had about 100,000 acres of planted forests; we have to-day over 200,000 acres planted. I should like to ask the Minister—and, mark you, I am not prepared to challenge the Minister to-day for a vast volume of detailed information, because manifestly he is entitled to a reasonable period in which to familiarise himself with the detailed administration of the Department—to answer two questions. The Estimate that the Minister introduced is founded on a policy fixed by his predecessor, envisaging a certain rate of expansion to which he has himself referred, that is, the planting of 17,500 acres for this year, rising to 20,000 acres. I seemed to detect in the Minister's introductory remarks some indication that he was preparing the public for an announcement that he proposed to cut down on that rate of progress. I think it is not unreasonable to ask him to state categorically on this occasion whether he intends to honour his predecessor's decision to expand the rate of planting from 15,000 acres this year to 17,500 next year and 20,000 acres thereafter.

Mr. Blowick

No; 17,500 have been planted this year.

Mr. Dillon

He has done even more remarkably than I knew. He has planted 17,500 acres last year and 20,000 acres are due for planting in the present financial year. I am asking the Minister to tell us if he proposes to honour that decision. Every year his predecessor was in office, the rate of expansion was——

Mr. Cunningham

The intake last year was reduced.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad Deputy Cunningham referred to that. It would greatly help our deliberations here if people like Deputy Cunningham would familiarise themselves with the elementary facts in regard to matters of this kind before coming into the House to talk about them.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy was wrong about half a dozen times himself in the numbers he gave to the House. He had to be corrected by the former Minister.

Mr. Dillon

No, I had not. I was astonished at the rate of progress made by my colleague. The policy upon which those figures are founded was a policy settled by the Government of which I was a member. I think I may be excused if I express amazement at the rapidity with which the objects were achieved. There are in the process of acquisition at the present moment close on 200,000 acres of land at one stage or another. The previous Government passed an Act of Parliament which enables the Department of Forestry very materially to shorten the procedure involved in the acquisition of that land, by permitting the Department of Forestry to place in deposit the purchase price, once it has been agreed, leaving complicated matters of title and so forth to be settled at leisure while the Department is free to appropriate the land and proceed with its work and the money paid for it can be disbursed to those who subsequently prove their title.

I think it is legitimate in our existing affairs constructively to regard that 200,000 acres as having been acquired and to proceed on the five year cycle, that you have that land and are entitled to plant up to that limit. I think the Department, in existing circumstances, if they will adopt that procedure, are entitled to regard the reserve of land they have at present as being sufficient to sustain the 20,000 acre programme. They will continue to acquire land which they can add to the reserve which is already in hands, so that I do not believe that lack of land will provide any alibi for an attempt to depart from the programme initiated by the present Minister's predecessor, and I think the Minister ought to reassure us that he has no intention of being a party to any scheme for the reduction of that programme.

I should remind Deputies on all sides of the House that there has been a good deal of clatter since the present Government was elected about the zeal with which they are concerned to put men to work. I hope they will put as many men to work on forestry operations in the next year or two of their survival as a Government as our Government put into employment during the past three and a half years. I think it right in an avuncular and neighbourly way to warn them that the split which will ultimately afflict their Party will be expedited, if they start trying to cut down on forestry now.

Mr. Cunningham

Is that the same split or a new one?

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy will put up with it.

Mr. Dillon

I am just warning them. I think it is only fair to warn one's opponents of the dangers which beset them and one of the dangers which beset the Party opposite is an attempt to cut down the forestry programme. But there is a second problem, and here again I think the Minister would be entitled to say to me that he has not had the opportunity of investigating this matter closely, but I would direct his special attention to this matter. The forestry programme has now reached a stage where the yield of thinnings is rapidly increasing and the yield of lumber is coming near to hand. The kind of codology that Deputy Cunningham is talking about, the wicked conspiracy by the evil, base, bloody and brutal British Saxon to rob us of our timber resulted, in fact, from some enterprising citizens of the Irish nation going out and buying trees cheap and selling them dear to the British or anybody else who would buy them. That is the plain fact. But what in the name of common sense are we growing trees for if, when they reach maturity, we do not want to sell them?

Mr. T. Lynch

We will not sell them to England. We will keep them at home.

Mr. Dillon

We are getting to the stage when we will thank God that the British market is gone for ever, for trees as well as cattle.

Mr. Cunningham

And for eggs.

Mr. Dillon

To whom are we going to sell the trees? Our programme is geared to create a supply of timber four times our own capacity to consume timber. When that timber comes to maturity, if we are not going to sell it abroad, what are we going to do with it? Has Deputy Cunningham reflected on that question?

Mr. Cunningham

It is a very deep one.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Deputy propose to restrict Irish shipping to float hereafter only wooden ships?

Mr. Cunningham

Wooden ships are preferable to wooden heads.

Mr. Blowick

Talk up.

Mr. Lindsay

Only a Deputy with the erudition of Deputy Cunningham is capable of making a remark like that.

Mr. Dillon

It was not I who said it. I am asking Deputy Cunningham to bring his mighty intellect to bear on this simple question: if we have four times more timber in this country than we have use for, are we making ready to tell potential customers for that timber now that they are base, bloody and brutal British Saxons if they buy it? All I want is the removal of codology from this discussion. As I understand it, our purpose is to build up from the land a great additional export, over and above our domestic requirements of lumber and pulp. Is that not our object? The greater the surplus we have over and above our own domestic requirements, the better it is for the country and the forestry programme.

The danger is that the codology of the kind Deputy Cunningham is talking gives rise to the emergence of a certain type of "chancer" in this country who says: "Very well, then; Deputy Cunningham is bursting to see that none of our timber is bought by the Saxon. Very well, how will we do that? We will put a prohibition upon the export of timber; our Irish timber is to be reserved for Irish manufacture." When that has been effected, the Irish manufacturer turns up and says: "But the most we can pay is £4 10s. for this timber." Somebody from abroad comes along and says he will give £9 for it, but Deputy Cunningham has succeeded, by his illuminating intervention, in getting a prohibition put upon the export of timber. That has been put on for the most highly patriotic motives, in order to conserve the essential supply of raw material for industry, but the net result is that some gentleman arrives in this country, establishes a so-called industry here and then proceeds to buy timber from the Irish Forestry Department at one-half of what he would have had to pay for that timber if he bought it and took delivery of it in his own native land.

He processes the timber here and then he can ship it anywhere he likes but in the meantime the Department of Forestry and the Irish State have subsidised the timber as to 50 per cent. of its total cost. I know of an occasion in my constituency when a man came from Northern Ireland and was prepared to pay twice as much for the logs on the ground as anybody could be got to pay for them in this part of the country. He was told he could not draw them across the Border, that he would not be allowed to do so. The timber was sold for half the price to somebody here and we had the satisfaction of saying to ourselves: "Thanks be to God, the base, bloody and brutal Saxon has been debarred from giving us twice as much for our timber as any pure-souled Gael was prepared to offer." Did you ever meet with such fraud as that? How are we going to build up a prosperous forestry industry if it is forever to be subjected to that kind of codology?

My objective is to ensure that the timber produced in our forests is sold to the highest bidder, if it is sold at all, wherever he may come from. If that means that we have to import timber at the same time as we export timber, why not? But what sense or meaning is there in creating a situation whereby, having invested countless millions in establishing forests in this country, the produce of those forests is to be sold for half its commercial worth? That is something to which I invite the attention of the Minister for Lands and Forestry. I suggest he should take up the position: If I am expected to produce revenue from these forests commensurate with the money I am asking for, year after year, from the public purse, I cannot do it if I am not allowed to put the produce of these forests up for public tender and get for it the highest price I can in the public market.

I do not want to suggest that any outside buyer should be given preference over a domestic buyer, but it is the purest fraud and codology to suggest that there is any legitimate reason why a domestic buyer should claim the right to buy our timber, grown in our forests on foot of public investment of capital in its production, at a price lower than that which others are prepared to pay for it. I believe that, if that kind of cod policy is pursued, we shall end up by crippling the whole forestry effort and persuading the public that the public money invested in forestry is being poured down the drain. That ought not be the case.

There has been an immense investment in forestry in this country and there will be greater investment in it in the future. Unless we can look forward with reasonable confidence to the day when the produce of those forests will pay off the investment in them, we cannot long justify the forestry policy at present operated in this country. It is a good policy and one which, in the long run, will pay, and pay well, but only on the assumption that we are permitted to get for the output of those forests their full commercial value.

There is much more which one could discuss on this important Estimate. However, I think it is unrealistic to press on the Minister a series of queries to which he must, quite frankly, honestly and briefly say he is not yet in a position to deal with intelligently. However, I would ask him these two strictly limited questions: (1) Does he propose to maintain the present rate of progress established by his predecessor and to honour the programme which was handed over to him by his predecessor, and (2) does he foresee the day when we can expect that the forestry authority for the sale of timber, whatever it may be—whether he sets up an independent corporation to handle that business or leaves it in the hands of the Forestry Branch as it is at the present time—will be free to get the maximum price for the produce of the forests, or whether Deputy Cunningham's patriotic policy is to be indefinitely pursued whereunder domestic processors may claim the right to purchase the timber at half its value and any outside buyer who comes and offers its full value is to be denounced in Dáil Eireann as a base, bloody and brutal invader who devastated the country and robbed us of our birthright? That kind of cod does harm.

The more customers I can bring into this country to purchase the produce of our soil or industry, the better pleased I am. The more they are exposed to furious denunciation in Dáil Eireann for coming here to purchase what we have to sell, the greater the danger that people will make up their minds that it is safer to go and deal elsewhere. I believe, in regard to agriculture and forestry, in a policy of expansion, based on a growing export trade. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view as to whether it is possible to maintain progress on those lines. It is essential, for the prosperity of the industry, that we get a freely competitive market for the produce of our forests in which the true value of that produce will be paid, and not a fraudulent price, based on fake patriotism, by those who want to wrap the green flag round them and pay half of what their neighbours would be prepared to give.

Mr. Desmond

Like Deputy Dillon, I should, first of all, like to pay a tribute to Deputy Blowick, the former Minister for Lands and Forestry. However, I will not run ahead as much as Deputy Dillon did. In giving credit to Deputy Blowick for the work he did in the Department while he was Minister, I would say that when Fianna Fáil were in power in the years before and after the war and when the inter-Party Government—in which Deputy Dillon played such a prominent part—were in office they failed dismally for many years in relation to the problems dealing with forestry.

It is well known that Deputy Blowick was interested in doing everything possible, but it is also well known that at all times the Labour Party was insistent on the speeding-up of the forestry policy. Having said that much, I would say, for Deputy Dillon's benefit, that if Deputy Cunningham is to be accused of "Dillonitis", accused of codology, then more of us are happy to be on a par with Deputy Cunningham concerning some of the remarks made in this debate.

I listened to the Minister's opening speech, to Deputy Blowick's speech and to that of Deputy Cunningham. I do not know whether or not Deputy Dillon was in the House all the time but I do know that, though I listened carefully to the debate, I never once heard the suggestion from Deputy Cunningham that timber should not be sold abroad. His remarks were addressed to points which he has raised here on many occasions. He reiterated the views I hold. Year after year here certain Deputies have been consistent in their views on forestry. Even when Deputy Dillon was a Minister, the views expressed by Deputy Cunningham and by myself were directly related to the fact that for many years this country had suffered in having our woodlands denuded of timber. Timber was cut down during the British occupation. It was also cut down during the 1920's and 1930's when we had our own Government. Little or no replanting was done. Surely, then, Deputy Cunningham and I are justified in asserting that something must be done to remedy the position now.

Perhaps Deputy Dillon does not remember, but on every occasion here since 1948, as a member of the Labour Party, as a member of a Party supporting the inter-Party Government I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that in many areas in South Cork timber was cut down during the emergency and a good price paid for it. But no replanting was carried out. Possibly that is true of other areas as well. That happened in the years 1948-1951 during the inter-Party Government. It also happened in the years 1951-1954 when we had a Fianna Fáil Government in office. Will that policy of not replanting be allowed to continue? Whether the people who reaped the benefits were Irish or those so vividly portrayed by Deputy Dillon is immaterial to me. The fact remains that these areas are now denuded of timber and nothing is being done to ensure that those responsible fulfil their obligations or, on their failing to do so, that the law will take its course.

I am in agreement with Deputy Dillon on one aspect. I still have some doubt as to whether future policy will mean a stepping-up of progress or a slipping-back so far as acreage is concerned. I listened to the Minister last night and I read this morning's papers. I still have some doubt as to what the Minister's policy is. I think he should clear the matter up when he comes to reply. The Labour Party believes it is vitally important to move forward. It is not satisfied to remain static where forestry is concerned, much less consider any retrogression so far as acreage is concerned.

When dealing with the £2,000,000 provided for afforestation, the Minister referred to a fair return for a fair day's pay. That is something with which everyone agrees. I am just wondering, however, what is behind all this? Is it hoped to improve the volume of planting with a lower labour content? Is it hoped by the introduction of modern methods to replace a certain amount of labour? If that is so, it is not sufficient just to come in here and tell us that. We want some further information. For many years we have been hearing in local authorities of the improved returns which can be gained by more modern methods, more modern machinery and a lower labour content. In the last analysis, we invariably find that the new methods do not always give anything like the results hoped for.

Deputy Blowick paid tribute to the staff of the Forestry Branch. I agree with all that he said, but I do not agree with him in the picture he painted when he alleged that up to some years ago nobody here seemed to know anything about the planting of trees. There has always been a certain section of our community vitally interested in planting. Deputy Blowick described some of them as cranks. A crank is a most essential part of any machine and if we did not have our cranks we might be slow to do many of the things so essential for the well-being of our people as a whole. I am not satisfied that we were in such a helpless position in the 1920's and the 1930's in so far as staff and experts were concerned.

When the Minister comes to reply I want him to give us a clear picture of the overall cost. We have a certain amount of information in the Book of Estimates, but the Minister can enlighten us much more successfully. Will he tell us, first of all, what percentage is actually spent in wages? What percentage is spent in supervision? What percentage is spent in making inquiries, and all that goes with such inquiries, before the land is acquired? It is essential we should know the complete costing in relation to acquisition, the preparation of the land and the ultimate planting of it. We will then know how far we may safely go in relation to labour content. We shall know whether we should cut down or expand the number of workers in the various areas.

Deputy Blowick gave a clear indication of the areas he thinks the most suitable for planting. He favours, probably on the advice of his officials, extensive planting in the West of Ireland. Deputy Blowick, when he was Minister, visited the south-west and the western end of County Cork. We give him credit for that. I fail to understand, however, why certain other areas have not been considered as well as the areas which are now being tackled. I remember not so many years ago being warned of the terrible dangers of planting in certain parts of the West of Ireland. Modern scientific progress may be a certain help to us. So, too, modern views on afforestation are giving us a clearer insight into the possibility of now utilising land which would have been considered wholly unsuitable for afforestation some years ago. Why, therefore, should the Minister and the departmental advisers concentrate on one particular part of the country? There are many tracts of land in South Cork that are equally suitable. There are a few areas such as Kilbrittain, Riverstick and to a certain extent part of mid-Cork that are being tackled but it was a long time before some of the areas were tackled. I would ask the Minister to give closer consideration to the claims of these areas. There are hundreds of acres in the stretch from Carrigaline to Kinsale and to the old Head of Kinsale. We can discuss later the problem in relation to the acquisition of land but let the Minister not inform us that it is essential to concentrate on the West of Ireland. There is land suitable for afforestation purposes in the South and, unfortunately, there are men unemployed there who could be put on to this important work for the benefit of themselves and the country.

I was interested in the Minister's remarks in connection with the new policy as regards thinnings. Apparently, the old system had many disadvantages, particularly from the financial point of view. I would ask the Minister to give us a clear idea as to whether under the new system of the sale of standing thinnings, removal is being done as carefully as it was done in the Forestry Division in the past. I should like to make sure that that is the case. It is vitally important that no damage should be done to the standing timber in the removal of thinnings. If the new policy results in better returns, it may be all right.

There are two matters with which I should like to deal—private planting and land acquisition. Deputy Blowick and the Minister have referred to them. As the Minister has stated, things look very bad when we consider the very small amount of private planting that is being carried on. Deputy Cunningham also referred to that matter. We have reason to be very disappointed with the rate of progress of private planting but I cannot agree completely with the remarks of Deputy Blowick on this subject. He made it very clear that, in his view, under no circumstances whatsoever should we even consider taking land unless it was handed to us on a plate, as it were. I know there is much land in the constituency that I represent where neither cattle nor sheep are being grazed and where nothing but gorse is growing. It takes good land to grow gorse. Are we to be told that all the sacred rights that we hear of are so important that we must leave large tracts of land to grow nothing better than gorse? Some people in this House seem to imagine that we can go so far but no further with the owners or occupiers of those lands who, in my opinion, are criminal in so far as they are making no use what-ever of the land. Some method of acquisition must be introduced whereby they will be given a fair return. I am not asking for confiscation of this land. These people should be made to realise that they have an obligation to the community as a whole as well as to themselves and to their families.

Suggestions were thrown out last night to the effect that we must give more grants for the planting of these lands. The Minister himself went so far as to say that he is hoping for some scheme in future, in the operation of which the farmer who has a small area of land to spare for planting would have the satisfaction of knowing that his grandson or granddaughter would have a dowry. There are many people in this country who know that their granddaughters or grandsons will never have dowries. They are the ordinary workers. When reference is made in this House to cranks in relation to forestry, Deputies are equally entitled to speak of the people who seem to expect grants for everything and increased grants for everything and at the same time want to reduce the cost of Government. I am speaking from the Opposition side of the House. I am not defending the Government. I have no reason to do so. It is essential, irrespective of which side of the Chamber we occupy, that we should express our views on such an important matter as forestry. If we have to depend on people who expect more grants to grow decent timber on some of the marshland that they own and who are waiting to get further benefits from us in order to provide dowries for their grandchildren, then God help Ireland.

The Minister should be more realistic in his approach to this important problem. It is a big problem. There are large areas that are suitable only for poor quality timber but that is no reason why that land should not be planted. If we cannot grow grade 1 or grade 2 or grade 3 timber on it, why not grow grade 4? Why is it that people are not prepared to make a fair attempt at growing small shelter belts? Apparently they must be provided by the State also.

In dealing with this important aspect I would ask the Minister not to regard organisations such as the Trees for Ireland Organisation as cranks. I am not a member of that organisation. I would ask the Minister not to treat their complaints as the complaints of cranks. Perhaps Deputy Blowick did not mean it in that way but it is essential that these people, who are giving their time and labour voluntarily for the benefit of the State, should get greater facilities from the State.

Each year Deputy Cunningham and I have agreed on one point because in County Donegal and County Cork the county councils have always provided a certain service in relation to forestry and I had hoped that Deputy Cunningham would have dealt more fully with the point that I am now about to make. If the Minister is considering any plan for the speeding up of private planting he should consider the advisability of linking the State service with the local authority service. In counties which do not operate a county forestry service they have agricultural advisers who could advise the people in their areas in regard to forestry. It is not essential that the agricultural adviser should be an expert on every aspect of forestry.

There should be co-operation between the State and the local authority. If that were done, it might help in those areas. Until it is brought home to the people on a county basis, at the very narrowest, until they realise in their own counties, first of all, the responsibility which is theirs, secondly, the advantages which could be theirs, and thirdly, the advantages which will undoubtedly accrue to the country as a whole if they are prepared on a county basis to throw in their weight in relation to this important industry, forestry, then perhaps we may not be worrying about the question whether or not we have too much land under forestry.

In fairness again to Deputy Cunningham, I must say I agree with him when dealing with the question of exports of timber. Last night, when the Minister was speaking on this point, he stepped a little rather in advance in one aspect, I think, when he spoke of the possibilities not alone of stopping imports but of the great advantages of exports. We all believe in that and we all hope for that time to come, but it would be fantastic for us to imagine here in dealing with this Estimate in the year 1957, that in a few years' time or even in ten or 15 years' time, we would be in a position to go into the export market in such a big way.

Deputy Dillon may assume that we can sell so much timber to Britain and other countries who may be anxious for it, that we will have no trouble in straightening out our financial accounts; but we know of course, that even at the present rate of progress, it will be a long time before we can satisfy all the domestic requirements of the people here, let alone be prepared to enter into the export market. We all are anxious to see the day coming when we can enter into that important market, should it be available to us, but it is vitally important, first of all, to see that, by providing each year an increased amount for forestry, we can come nearer to our ideal of providing all the necessary timber requirements of the home market from home grown timber.

When the Minister was speaking last night on the question of £2,000,000 a year, the impression I got—I may be wrong—was that he seemed to be worried that the time may come when we might be outstepping ourselves in relation to the progress we were making. He also referred to the fact, which we know to be true, that we cannot hope for an early return financially from timber. May I ask the Minister one simple question, if he is prepared to continue examining the policy in relation to the financial return: what is the return financially that we get from house building? Yet each and every one of us knows that it is essential that not alone should we continue a policy of building houses but should step up the building of houses until the time arrives when we are satisfied that the housing requirements of each local authority have been met? It must be a long term basis in relation to housing and so also must it be a long term policy in relation to forestry.

We must be prepared for that, if our people in future years are to get the benefit of the policy which is in operation now and for some five or six years back. It is quite true to say that plenty of people outside this Chamber and plenty of people writing to national papers find it very amusing to point out that we are all tarred with the one brush, that everyone in politics is supposed to be a devil out of hell, as it were; but if by the wisdom of the various members and Parties in the Chamber at the present time and if by our line of approach, we are prepared to hand over to posterity a policy which in itself will give to those people in times to come an increased capital value in relation to improved forestry, then I think it can be said that at least in dealing with this important Estimate we have done our own part.

I finish, therefore, by saying to the Minister that, while we are fully aware of the problems that may confront him as a Minister, we are not satisfied with any suggestion—it may not be his and I hope I am wrong—that there should be any reduction in the amount of money being made available for forestry or in relation to the increased acquisition of land for this important industry in the State. If he is to continue to improve on the figures mentioned here in his Estimate, the figure of the last few years on which we have been stepping up, and if he is satisfied to keep stepping it up, at the very least up to the 25,000 acres, then if there is any question or any suggestion of a reduction or of halting the progress in relation to that target, certainly we will be completely opposed to it.

Mr. Moloney

My purpose in speaking here this evening is twofold. First of all, I would like to make a few general remarks by way of contribution to this very important debate. Secondly, I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister with a view to drawing his attention to the requirements and the potentialities of my own constituency.

With regard to the general points of the debate, I have listened very carefully here since the commencement. It appears to me that at the present moment we are all inclined to place too much emphasis on the danger of acquiring land from unwilling owners by methods other than those of voluntary offer. I think the difficulty of acquiring land is somewhat exaggerated. My general experience in that connection suggests to me that, by a more proper approach to land owners, much more land could be acquired and particularly it could be acquired in a shorter period and at a more reasonable cost.

It is an accepted fact down the country that when the State, or any large body such as the State is deemed to be, endeavours to acquire land, they must of necessity be expected to acquire it at a greater price than a private individual or a private firm. That is the general experience of public bodies who come to acquire land for housing sites, cemeteries, water schemes and so on. I would like very much to suggest to the Minister that in the acquisition of the land, he might ask his Department to confer a little bit more freely with such people as Bord na Móna. That organisation is the one shining example in so far as land acquisition is concerned. I am prepared to agree that they have not had reason to acquire such large tracts of land as the forestry people have, but I was always very impressed with the methods employed by Bord na Móna in the acquisition of land.

Of course, somebody will readily suggest that Bord na Móna were not put to the same test in the acquisition of land as the forestry people were, for the simple reason that Bord na Móna were generally only acquiring bog land and that the Forestry Department sets out, at least in the first instance, to acquire land of a better type. However, bog lands in themselves were, and are now more than before, considered very valuable to their owners. I am prepared to state that it is as difficult at any time to get bad land as it is to get good land.

The approach in the past by the forestry people has not been as practical as it might be. If every landowner were approached in a business-like way by officials authorised to negotiate with him and prepared to offer a definite price, very much more progress would be made. As far as I can understand the general policy of the Forestry Division with regard to the acquisition of land, it seems that an official of the Minister's office approaches a reputed landowner who might have a parcel of land to offer. From then on it would appear as if one party were trying to beat down the other as regards price. There is a considerable amount of red tape at the moment, a considerable amount of correspondence takes place and it is only after a long period that acquisition takes place.

I believe we should be more realistic in our approach to the acquisition of land for afforestation. Forestry officials should be authorised to approach landowners in the same way as a private individual would approach them. I hope the Minister will find it possible to alter the methods of his organisation in order to bring about a speed-up in the acquisition of land.

It is a fact that the employment content is very great in forestry. I have listened very carefully to the debate so far, particularly to the Minister and to the former Minister, on that sphere of the Department's activity. The State's capital contribution is very considerable and I feel sure that, at the outset, the State was influenced to make such a high contributions because of the very substantial labour content that the industry carries with it. Somebody spoke this evening of the danger of our being unable to find a market for the produce of our forests. I am doubtful if that position will arise because there are quite a number of industries which rely for their raw materials on timber and on timber by-products. In my view we can contend with that difficulty when we meet it, if ever in years to come.

Our big problem at the moment is to step up our annual acreage of planting to the suggested target of 25,000 acres annually. We should try and maintain it at that figure until we are satisfied that we have attained our objectives. I am very glad to observe that the pool of land now available to the Department for afforestation is fairly considerable and that it gives them what I might call a good stake with which to carry on pending further acquisition the need for which will grow less as time goes on.

It was pointed out this evening that there may be some danger to employment due to mechanisation. The Deputy who made that point suggested that the Minister might be well-advised to be a bit more conservative and patient with the ordinary methods now employed by the Department. I agree with that. In an industry like afforestation our aim should be to give the highest employment possible. Forestry is in itself a good local industry; it gives an excellent fillip to local incomes where there are few other industries. In most of these areas the only other employment is on the land. Forestry workers get good employment near their homes and families. Generally speaking, I think, they are a contented body of men.

I agree with Deputy Desmond that the results from the old and existing methods, which, we are told, are antiquated, were satisfactory and we should be very careful before we replace them by extensive mechanisation. I feel quite sure the Minister will bear this point in mind before he commits himself to over-mechanisation at the expense of labour.

For many years I have been very keen on the suggestion that a Forestry Board be appointed and I am very glad that I have been afforded an opportunity to speak on it now. The difficulties in the way of such a Board are very great, but I think the Minister could overcome them by adopting methods successfully employed previously. I think such a board should be more or less on a commercial basis rather than a civil service unit. We have had happy experience of a number of other boards of a similar type as that envisaged for Forestry; we have had Bord na Móna and Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann. The success of those two boards should be a sufficient indication to the Minister of the desirability of setting up a similar board to look after Forestry. The immediate difficulty in the way of establishing such a board forthwith could be overcome by making some arrangement with Bord na Móna similar to that made with I.A.O.S. in 1933 when the Turf Development Board was initiated. The I.A.O.S. did a good job for a year or two until the Turf Development Board and later Bord na Móna were able to take over. Bord na Móna has never looked back since.

If the proposed Forestry Board could become even half the success Bord na Móna has been, then the Minister should have no hesitation in complying with requests that such a board be set up. I feel sure a number of people have spoken to the Minister on this matter, that he has had advice from some very important people. I hope he will act on such advice in the very near future. There is a very good pool of enthusiasts in the sphere of afforestation and there are some organisations in the country that claim to have special knowledge on the subject. I think it would be a good thing if, sooner or later, these organisations could be encouraged to come in and take an active part in this great drive. Hitherto the activities of these organisations have been more or less confined to the position of the hurler on the fence, but now that we seem to be approaching the situation in a more realistic way it is time that the advice of those organisations should get a higher priority than it has got in the past.

In his opening statement I was glad to observe that the Minister dealt very fully with the question of private planting. It is high time that this important aspect of forestry was dealt with because what is not generally known or appreciated, except by those of us who have reason to go more closely into the figures, is that the State programme of forestry is contributing very substantially now to the general forestry programme. It has come to the point where it would be unreasonable for many reasons to expect the State to go much further afield in future.

Apart from that, and in order to bring this whole question properly into the forefront, it is only right that private interests, in so far as it is so, should give a helping hand. Too practicable and possible for them to do much is expected of the State in the matter of forestry, and the State has, due to the pressure of the political Parties forming the legislature, given way perhaps more than is good in order to foster and develope forestry in general.

The Minister has a very big job before him to make private planting a success and it is there that the proposed forestry board could do very useful work. Pending the formation of that board, the Minister will have to rely a good deal on local co-operation. He is rather lucky to have available to him such organisations as Trees for Ireland, parish councils, parish committees, the various councils of Muintir na Tíre, the Countrywomen's Association, and more particularly such bodies as the county committees of agriculture. Those latter bodies, whose primary function, of course, is to stimulate agriculture, have been doing quite a lot in the matter of private local forestry, and their services should be utilised to the fullest possible extent in encouraging private planting.

The first thing required in connection with private planting is some sort of general technical advice which is not available at the moment in any fair way to farmers and to landowners in rural districts. The number of horticultural instructors who look after private forestry for the county committees is rather limited. In most counties, the number of horticultural instructors is limited to two and they can spend only a very short time in dealing with questions of forestry.

We must try to make our rural people a little more forestry-minded than they have been, and, through the co-operation of our Department of Education, good progress might be made. It is very desirable that the Department of Education should provide facilities in the primary schools for the forestry officers to give lectures to the senior classes on the problem of private forestry. It is to be seen with satisfaction already that in quite a number of primary schools throughout the country, teachers have shown a fine spirit of initiative. They have very often at their own expense and great inconvenience planted demonstration plots. These plots are there as an example to the people living in the locality, but unfortunately up to the present that example has not been generally followed.

While suggesting to the Minister that local instruction is absolutely necessary to make the private planting campaign a success, I realise that at this stage, even if the money is available, the Minister would probably be unable to find a sufficent number of trained people with degrees in forestry or the equivalent from the university. However, that should raise no sefious problem because the Minister has his own staff of foresters and assistant foresters who have been trained and it should be made possible for him to make available a number of those officers—I agree a small number and possibly at a very slow rate—to form the personnel that would be eventually required to educate the people on the question of private planting.

There is in every homestead and every farm, particularly in the average type of land, some waste ground, and with the initiative that could be given by the county committees of agriculture and the other organisations to which I referred, I feel certain that the Minister will succeed to a very large extent in pushing the private-planting programme. I would appeal to all Deputies to co-operate with him in that connection. Deputies will no doubt have an opportunity on various occasions in their travels through their respective constituencies of making appeals to the people to co-operate in that great drive. It is my belief, now that the Minister has seen fit to deal with that very important aspect of forestry, that he will make an unqualified success of it.

In order to stimulate private planting, grants should be increased. We are aware that the county committees of agriculture makes grants to people of certain valuations, but we should go further than that. The Minister should prepare a scheme of grants on similar lines to those operating under the Farm Improvements Scheme and the Land Reclamation Scheme. As some Deputy said, he would probably be going a little too far if he were to subsidise private planting. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of expense involved in the planting of trees—I have some experience of it myself—in fencing off the area, in protecting those trees and giving them attention during the early stages of growth. I can tell you that out of every 100 trees that an ordinary person will plant he is very lucky if 20 come to maturity in due course.

It would be too much to expect at this stage to have private people experimenting to that extent. As has been suggested in the Minister's statement, very few people will take on the job on such a large scale. Generally speaking, you will find many people who will take three to five acres and plant them, which would be no mean achievement. Money would be very well spent if those people could be facilitated with grants and I see no reason why a sum of money should not be spent for the purposes of private forestry, just at it is spent for drainage or any other agricultural purpose. I wish the Minister every success in his very difficult undertaking. I think we have a long way to go yet. We are very happy to know from the Estimates and from the reports available to us from this debate that we have at last turned the corner. I am glad that we have a man such as Deputy Childers as Minister, with drive and initiative to carry on the good work in the future. I wish him every success.

Mr. Manley

The activities of the Forestry Branch have been debated here at least four times during the past 12 months. They came up on the recurring Estimate last year and they were debated on two motions which came up during 1956. This annual Estimate gives the fourth occasion for discussion on the activities of that Division. Perhaps all that goes to show the importance of the Division; to my mind it is a Division that will grow in importance in the immediate future years and it may well rival other Departments in importance in this State.

We are all aware that this is the most tree-denuded country in Europe. We regret that as a national loss, that we have considerable arrears to make up in the matter of afforestation. If forestry had been undertaken 25 or 30 years ago we would to-day have a very valuable money earner. Had it been undertaken on a scale such as the Shannon Scheme, or as an alternative to the Shannon Scheme, we would probably have had more beneficial results in forestry development in this country than even through the development of electricity. If for no other reason than the fact that it holds out a vast potential field for employment, forestry should be undertaken with great energy. It is to the credit of the previous Minister that he advanced the annual planting acreage to 17,500 acres last year and that he had aimed at a plantation of at least 20,000 acres next year. That emanated from the debates here during the past 12 months —that we should aim at a minimum target of 25,000 acres yearly.

I hope the Minister will keep that in mind and that there will be no lack of money for planting, whatever economies are to be effected. I hope that these economies will be effected in the interests of the plantation of this country. I doubt if there is any sight so soul-stirring as that of a young growing forest. It is one of the loveliest products of nature but apart from the sentimental values that we can get from forests and apart from the fact that they beautify the country, forests improve drainage of the land, provide much needed shelter in exposed places and help to give a drier climate. They improve, we are always taught, the atmosphere by the absorption of certain chemicals from the air. These are things which should not be lost sight of. The main fact, however, is that the development of forests affords wide-scale rural employment and in a few years when electricity development will be coming to an end and unskilled workers in rural electrification will be dis-employed, we should have advanced sufficiently in forestry to absorb those workers as well as those who will be available for employment in the interim.

We are agreed that capital is scarce with the Minister but, whatever capital is invested in Irish enterprises, certainly the capital available for forestry should not be cut down. We shall all be disappointed if the target is not maintained; I believe there would be an outcry if there was a cutting back of the money which is now available. There is no scarcity of planting land. I was delighted to hear from Deputy Dillon that 200,000 acres of land are in the process of acquisition at the moment. That is very comforting but I think that the present price offered for lands for planting bears no relation to real money values now. I was amazed to learn during the past 12 months that when land is taken over for forestry development and when the price comes to be paid for the land, the accumulated arrears of the annuities outstanding on that land have to be deducted from the price so that the Department will take it over as a freehold. I do not think that is fair. I think there should be some inter-changeable arrangements between Departments to take responsibility for the payment of these annuities. It is discouraging to find out that this is the case and I was amazed to be brought face to face with that reality.

When he was speaking yesterday on the Department of Lands, the Minister referred to the fact that he was consulting rural organisations in regard to certain matters in connection with his Department. It has been suggested here that he should continue that on a wider scale in regard to forestry. We are not tree-minded in this country but if the Minister would keep in touch with big organisations, such as Macra na Feirme or the National Farmers' Association, and get them to suggest where plantable pockets are available in their areas he would get them to become tree-minded and that in turn might encourage private planting which is so desirable. The intensification of private planting would greatly relieve the Department of some of the work which it now has to face, relieve it of a great deal of responsibility and create that atmosphere in the country which is very desirable.

Forestry fires recur all too frequently. I think it is an unpardonable crime for anybody to set fire to a forest deliberately. Miscreants responsible in the past have got off too lightly for interfering with forests; we have lost a good deal as a result of such conduct. No matter how often the Minister warns the public the fires will go on until the public becomes conscious of their responsibilities and of what forests mean to the country.

I should like to digress for a moment to refer to what the Minister said when speaking last evening on the Department of Lands. He made the statement here that any representations made by Deputies on behalf of applicants for lands will carry no weight with him.

Mr. Corish

They never did.

Mr. Manley

I compliment him on that statement and I believe he will act upon it. The conception is there that nothing can be obtained in this country except through pressure. It is a false conception and strikes at the very roots of democracy. I am glad the Minister has had the courage to declare himself in this respect and I hope he will be followed by other Ministers in their respective Departments. Deputies know the annoyance they would be spared if there was a more direct approach to the Departments from the people.

Mr. MacCarthy

I think the general national position is far too serious for us to spend time lamenting the failures of the past. The faults and defects are too obvious. We should rather face now the present position and set our minds towards the improvement and expansion of the national wealth and well-being. It is a matter for satisfaction that improvements have been made and are being made in afforestation, as the years go by. It would be very disappointing if that were not the case. The planting of 15,000 or 16,000 acres a few years ago compared with 17,500 acres in the present year does not show a very abnormal expansion; but it is well that some progress has been made, and I hope that progress will be maintained and extended until we reach a substantial standard of annual planting in accordance with the requirements of this nation.

National wealth is being produced; employment is being given; the general appearance of the country will show, both to our own people and to strangers visiting us, that there is a spirit of enterprise and an improvement in our national wealth. That in itself would be a very useful thing, but the important point is the labour content of the afforestation programme. Anything that helps to stem the tide of emigration is to be commended very heartily. One disappointment in that regard in recent times is this: When land is acquired in a certain district where there is considerable rural unemployment—seasonal unemployment, at any rate—a big number of workers are brought in by the Forestry Division from miles away and the local people are left unemployed. Anyone could understand that a number of key workers are absolutely essential in a new forestry project, but the fact that the local labour potential are left in their existing condition does not improve the situation very much. I would ask that that position be remedied and that a good proportion of the local unemployed people be taken on when forestry work is being carried out in a rural area.

In the first place, this gives encouragement to those who have been waiting for work. If they are not taken on, it means disappointment and very grave disappointment. Furthermore, it deprives that particular place of the advantage it would have from the interest these people would have in the forest in subsequent years. Deputy Manley spoke a while ago of the immense loss due to forest fires and so on. If the local people had taken part in the planting of the forest, they would have an interest in it. In future years, the people living in the cottages and homes around the place would have an interest in the preservation of that national asset. I think that should be taken into account.

I agree also that it is bad policy to purchase at this stage heavy machinery for the construction of roads through our forest lands. A big amount of heavy machinery has been imported and that did not contribute favourably to our balance of payments position; but when it is in the country, and in the hands both of private people and local authorities in particular, it should be used to the fullest extent. We all know that, in recent years, at any rate, there has not been sufficient money for county councils to keep their workers and machinery employed right over the year. Here is a field where they can co-operate.

If the road is to be a private road, just a forestry road, that machinery and some of the workers could be employed for the making of the road. If it is eventually to be a public road, for which the county council will be responsible when it is constructed, then the policy that prevails at the moment in many counties where big building sites have been developed could be adopted. It is that the builder makes money available to the county council on an agreed estimate and the county council finishes off the road because the county council will maintain it subsequently. That is the type of work the Forestry Division should engage in rather than spending £32,000 or £34,000—I think that was the figure the Minister mentioned last night—in one year for the purchase of heavy machinery for road construction in our forest areas. I think that would be very bad and I would be sorry to see it undertaken.

The machinery is there in every county council area. The work is the work on which engineers and workers are ordinarily engaged throughout the year when there is work for them. They would be working in their own sphere; it would give them more continuous employment; and it would be a better development generally. I would deplore very much the present trend of bringing a big body of men into these forest areas and absolutely ignoring the appeals of the local men. Many of them would have emigrated but they saw that forestry development was to take place in the district. Many of them have been waiting for years to get employment and then their appeals for work are ignored and people are brought in from outside. It should be local development as far as possible. By all means, bring in the necessary unit to get things going and to show how things should be done, but use local labour to the greatest possible extent.

I was rather impressed by members who advocated more education in the matter of showing the worth of the reafforestation project. Lectures are all right in their way. It took a long time to build up a favourable public opinion towards the policy of covering certain portions of our land with trees. What makes most appeal is the demonstration. I was glad that some members made reference to that fact, that pupils in the vocational schools are actually taken out and allowed to plant some little patch with trees. In that way, they are shown how things are done and they see through the years how the trees grow and beautify their particular area, as well as being a national asset.

To help in planning the planting programme, we now have nurseries in certain county council areas. We should see for what types of tree there is a home market, and we should set out to develop that home market, either by processing the timber when it is matured for utilisation locally or for use in industry by its conversion into pulp and paper and so on. In that way, we can expand our industrial potential from our own national wealth.

The type of tree planted is very important. We have seen that in Scotland, for example, when they start on a planting programme they consider what the railway requires for sleepers for tracks; they see what is required for housing and for various rather rough developments such as the building of sheds and outhouses as well as the poles required for all sorts of purposes, props for the mines and so on. They plan according to a system and when the trees come to maturity the market is there for them.

We have had a fine training down through the years. Foreign experts have been brought in from countries where forestry work has meant a great deal. We now have the necessary trained personnel, I am sure. A previous member of this House, the former Deputy Dowdall, was at one time very seriously aggrieved by the fact that when men were brought up in the forestry section and had been trained in the development of afforestation they were moved to some other Department of State and all the work and training lost. It was felt that the men who were trained in such a special way should be promoted within the compass of their own Forestry Division so that their experience and training would be all the time available for further forestry expansion.

I think that private planting takes on a different aspect from the big woods and forests. We want to dot the countryside around the holdings with shelter belts and little scenic plots that will take the dreary aspect from our countryside. The help of local organisations would be very useful towards that end. Some progress has been made; further encouragement will lead to further progress and I think that eventually the results will be satisfactory. The public mind is now attuned to progress along these lines and the availability of young plants from county council nurseries, demonstration plots and elsewhere, as well as instruction by county committees of agriculture and inspectors on their visits round the country, will bring to the rising generation, who are looking afresh at the whole problem of Irish agriculture and Irish industry a new outlook that will have beneficial results. I hope the Minister will throw his undoubted talents and energy into the production of the best possible results from the money expended on this work.

Mr. Lindsay

So much has been said from time to time about the Forestry Division here that it is unlikely that anything new can be offered now or in the future. However, it would appear that the very best position one can take up in matters such as this is to keep pressing the same points year after year in the hope that some of them at least may be accepted.

I regard this branch of the Department of Lands as a very important one, one in which it is particularly noticeable that we have the desirable position that the labour content is very high. On my reckoning, out of a total estimate of £1,941,000, there is clearly and distinctly laid out for labour £1,493,000. In addition to that latter figure, there will be that type of skilled labour which is taken into account under various other sub-heads. I think, subject to coercive reasoning and to a good explanation, that the figure of £250,000 in an Estimate of something approaching £2,000,000 is too high for administrative costs and would not be tolerated in any well-run business enterprise. That can be said of almost all Government Departments, but then there may be something special to explain such a high percentage devoted to administrative costs.

I appreciate and concede that inspectorate costs in a Department such as this must be very great but nevertheless I would regard the figure of about £250,000 as too high. When you put that with the figure of £47,000 for travelling expenses, making a total of £300,000 for administrative costs, as against almost £1,500,000 for the exact labour content, that is 20 per cent.——

Mr. Haughey

The £250,000 includes £115,000 for foresters.

Mr. Lindsay

The foresters are not very far removed from the labour content class.

Mr. Haughey

They are not administrative.

Mr. Lindsay

Not administratively or possibly on strict accountancy methods, but nevertheless approaching it in practice. I think that possibly too great a stress is being laid on the present-day commercial value of forestry enterprise rather than on paying some attention at the same time to the decorative as well as the useful. Upon examination it will be found that forestry, even in small amounts over many places, is not of decorative use only; it has a climatic and a tourist value in addition to stimulating other people towards private planting.

I am glad to see that the Minister is directing his mind towards stimulating private planting and, within the compass of his thoughts on that matter, I would ask him to direct his officials to try to stimulate private planting particularly in relation to shelter belts along farms which adjoin large commonages. You will have the dual combination of the shelter belt and the prevention of trespass upon tillage land by animals using the commonage. "Trespass" is probably not the right word. It is probably the damage done to lands by the actual owners of the animals by reason of the fact that there is not any adequate protection. I speak of that particularly in relation to sheep farming.

I intervened in this debate, apart from any general observations which I might make, for one particular purpose, which is to refer to a small enterprise—small at the moment but capable of very great expansion—in my constituency at Glenamoy, County Mayo. Anybody who will recall questions on the Order Paper yesterday asked by me of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Lands in relation to the labour content on these enterprises at Glenamoy at various times will readily understand my apprehension in this respect.

This area was first acquired at the intervention of the Department of Industry and Commerce for the growing of grassmeal. That was discontinued by the last Government and the lands were taken over by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Lands. The Minister has 19 people employed, apart from engineering and executive staff, in his particular portion of those lands at the moment. I refer to the matter particularly because I am apprehensive as a result of two things.

One was that the present Taoiseach, speaking at Belmullet on 28th April, said he deplored the discontinuance of the grassmeal scheme in this area and that, when he had an opportunity, they would look into the matter and see if it were a commercial proposition—even at that late stage, there seemed to be some doubt as to that particular facet of the business—and would continue it. That at the very best might mean that the forestry work at present going on there might be discontinued or reduced to a negligible minimum.

On the day after that speech the present Taoiseach visited this area with a former director of the grassmeal project. The purpose of that visit is not clear, but if one puts the two together, the speech on the evening before and the visit the following day with a former director, one must naturally be apprehensive as to the future of the forestry undertaking in that area and particularly on those lands, and I should like to know from the Minister whether there is any intention in his Department at the moment to discontinue the forestry project, reduce it, alter it, or interfere with it in any way.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.