Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 35: Forestry (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £657,300 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1971, for salaries and expenses in connection with Forestry, and for payment of certain Grants-in-Aid.

—(Minister for Lands.)

Mr. Tully

I do not propose to delay the House. I again ask the Minister if it is the policy of his Department to reduce the number of labourers employed in the forests this year with effect from 1st April? Has the policy of laying off a number of people who have been employed for some time anything to do with the increased wages granted last year and this year? Is an effort being made to save the money paid to these people by paying their comrades out of the money they would have got if they had been retained? Is this the Kilkenny cat act where they are being fed with their own tails? It appears to me that this is the reason why, when employment is dropping throughout the country, a policy decision has been taken by the Department to lay men off.

I have a number of letters from men employed in the Forestry Division. One letter states that two men, employed for 20 years and laid off a couple of years ago and re-employed again last year, have now been told they must go. Have the Forestry Division gone to the trouble of doing what the local authorities did when they found themselves in a similar position at the end of last year and approached men who are near retiring age and asked them if they would be prepared to go and allow younger workers to remain on? I am not suggesting for one moment that men would be told they would have to go but if it was explained to the men that they would qualify for a small pension, their retirement pension from the Department of Social Welfare and, in addition, a gratuity, I think many of the older men would be glad of the opportunity. This would allow the younger men badly in need of an income to remain employed.

Because the location of the work is in the heart of the country there is no alternative employment for the men. Most men who are laid off go on to the labour exchange and in many cases cost the State almost as much as it would cost if they were retained in full employment or emigrated. Every effort should be made to try to prevent this. Has it been suggested that certain contractors should be employed to replace workers who were directly employed by the Forestry Division?

I do not want to give the House or the Minister the impression that I am attacking the officials of the Forestry Division. I do believe a policy decision is tied up here somewhere and I want to get to the bottom of it. If a policy decision has been taken let us hear who took that decision and why it was taken. A few years ago it was a question of meeting Government officials representing any of the lower grades, discussing wages and conditions with them and their decision was final. There was no appeal from a decision given by them. There is an appeal now and I have found the officials in the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands—I do not want to include the Land Commission side—at all times courteous and prepared to discuss matters in a reasonable way. However, I am not satisfied that we are getting the major issues discussed and I should like to know if there is a policy decision on this. I cannot see why they should not be discussed in the same way as minor issues.

I mentioned conservation last night. The Forestry Division can help considerably in this. I travel a great deal around the country and all over the place one comes across piles of rubbish deposited on the side of the road. Could the Minister try to make available the numerous quarries and big holes which are to be found in many forests? These could be used for dumping refuse. The reason for dumping on the roadside is that a convenient dump is not available. Careless people do not give a damn about anybody and they just pull up and dump out their rubbish on the side of the road as far away as possible from their own homes. There are people who, if there were a dump available, would use the dump. I hate to see the countryside despoiled because no effort is made by certain people to find a convenient place to dump their rubbish. Indeed, some local authorities have been looking for sites for dumps. The local authority of which I am a member are very conscious of the need for such dumps because they believe every effort should be made to preserve the countryside. It is quite a common practice for people returning from marketing in Dublin to dump refuse 20 or 30 miles out from the city. This has to be cleared away and people have to be paid for clearing it. Publicans and hoteliers put piles of broken bottles on the roadside. This does not improve the appearance of the countryside. The Minister is involved in conservation and I think he could help to put an end to this unseemly practice.

With regard to the pollution of streams, this is a big problem. I saw a programme on a British station recently. Those who took part in it were, perhaps, a little hysterical; they talked about a doomsday watch. Certain scientists believe we have gone beyond the point of no return and have polluted not alone the atmosphere but the soil and the waters as well and, in a short time, human beings will not be able to live on this planet. They agreed that something must be done because we are fast reaching the point at which it will be impossible to reverse the position. I do not think it has been brought home to people that this situation is building up. While I do not suggest we should become hysterical about it, I think more notice should be taken of the position and a bigger effort should be made at school level to bring about some control; people do not realise the effect a properly delivered lecture can have on school-children, their parents and everybody else. The Labour Party had evidence of that at the last general election. The Minister might take an interest in this approach. It would not be fair to pile all the responsibility on to him, but a start must be made by somebody. The tidy towns competition has helped in urban areas but in the countryside far too many beauty spots are becoming despoiled because people use them as dumping grounds.

I appeal to the Minister once again to make every effort to straighten out the employment problem because, while his Department may save a few pounds by laying off labourers this year, eventually the State will have to pay as much either directly through social welfare or indirectly through supplementary benefits from the local authorities. This matter has not been dealt with in the way it should be. I have raised it on a number of occasions because of what happened in the Board of Works who carry on in the same way; they lay off 150 or 200 men who inevitably go on social welfare and have to be paid almost as much for doing no work at all. This is a ridiculous situation and I ask the Minister to give his special attention to it.

Mr. O'Hara

I join with Deputy Tully in the tributes he has paid to the Forestry Division. I have always found the staff very courteous and very willing to help in every way possible both here in head office and throughout the country.

Very considerable progress has been made in afforestation and the results are very pleasing indeed. Successive Ministers have shown a great interest in afforestation and have done their best in their respective terms of office. In the early years it was quite difficult to sell the idea of giving up land for afforestation. In those days a colleague of mine, Deputy Cafferky, was very interested in afforestation. He has now gone to his eternal reward. If anyone reads the contributions he made in this House on the subject they will see how strong an advocate he was of afforestation. I backed him, I am happy to say, to the best of my ability. It was not easy because some people did not appreciate what it was all about. The idea was cattle, sheep and what-have-you. It took time to bring people around to the idea of surrendering land for afforestation or, indeed, for any other purpose. The fear was that they would give away something that had been hard won. However, despite all the obstacles, a great deal of progress has been made and I am sure the Minister is as enthusiastic as any of his predecessors in having more land planted. I am sure it is no pleasure to him to have to tell the House, as he did yesterday, that the new planting programme of 22,500 acres this year imposes a severe strain on our reserve of land. He went on to say:

There are, however, indications of a continuing upward trend in land acquisition, and I am hopeful that over the next few years real progress will be made towards alleviating the difficulties of our land reserve position.

I hope he will not be disappointed and that we will have sufficient people offering land to keep the programme going. I am sure it is a matter of regret to him, as it is to me, that in the present year we will not be able to reach the set target.

There are a number of reasons for this drop in the acreage planted and one of them is that the Department find, when they go to buy land, that their hands are tied because of the niggardly price they are paying. A sum of £7 or £10 an acre is no longer an attraction to a smallholder to give up ten, 50, or 100 acres, or whatever he has. As we all know, the price of sheep and cattle has increased and some of this land can be used for winter grazing particularly during periods when there are snowfalls because often it provides shelter and water and naturally the people feel that if they sell the land to the Forestry Division they are getting a bad deal at their present prices. If the Minister wants to get additional suitable land for planting he will have to step up the price very considerably.

It should be borne in mind that many areas in which suitable land would be available for forestry can be high amenity areas from the scenic point of view in tourist regions. At present we have foreign speculators and, indeed, some of our own people returning to this country, who like to settle in places adjoining mountains, rivers and lakes and they are prepared to offer all sorts of prices for land, perhaps £200 or £500 an acre. To some extent these people are competing against the Department. Some of these people buy up perhaps 100 acres of this poor quality land and then start re-selling plots in order to recoup some of their outlay. They may sell sites for five, ten or 15 houses and make it a good business transaction. This has been particularly noticeable in the Pontoon region in recent times. As one goes from Pontoon to Knockmore and on to Ballina one sees that a number of new bungalows have been built in the area. It started off with somebody buying a smallholding and then people proceeded to buy more and more land there which normally would have been offered to the Forestry Division. The people who sold the land in the first instance got a substantially higher price than the Forestry Division could afford to pay. Word gets around very quickly that land in the area is worth £100 or perhaps £300 an acre and this makes it impossible for the Forestry Division to buy land there despite the fact that they were there before anyone else. The Minister knows that all around this area that I am talking about there are small pockets of forestry and these are the areas in which the speculators are inclined to move in. I am sure that in earlier times the Forestry Division felt that if they moved in there everything in the garden would be rosy, that they would be able to expand, but they ran into difficulties, which I can see, even at local level. Apart from these deals which one finds around Pontoon, Lough Conn and Lough Cullen, there is also the fact that there are people with a surplus of cash which they earned abroad and they are not worried if they have to pay an extra £10 or £15 an acre for suitable property. The Department have to compete with such people and this does not help things. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Minister has to come in and tell us that the area to be planted this year is only 22,500 acres. If the Minister is to achieve what he wants to achieve, more employment in the Forestry Division and a greater acreage planted, he will have to be more generous with the money.

A former Minister, the late Mr. Blowick, during his term of office, brought in a Canadian expert, a Mr. Cameron, to advise him about the whole approach to forestry. My recollection is that one of his recommendations was that we should have two different approaches to the problem. Indeed, let me say here that I do not think any Minister for Lands ever followed Mr. Cameron's blueprint which seems to have been shelved. Nothing has been done about what he described as a social scheme of forestry and which he advocated.

The commercial scheme is proceeding quite well but alongside that there should be a social scheme something on the lines suggested by Deputy Tully a while ago. He said that instead of paying unemployment benefit to people who would be very anxious to work if they could get employment, forestry programmes could be initiated where the economics would not be gone into too carefully; in other words, there would not be too much worry whether the scheme paid or not. Men would be put to work and would be receiving a good week's wages for it and denuded mountainsides would be planted. If the scheme was not commercially viable in the initial stages that would correct itself in the years ahead.

There is no point in the Government employing experts to make recommendations in respect of forestry unless there is some benefit to be derived from their reports. As far as I can see the recommendations made by Mr. Cameron some years ago have been ignored. I would suggest that at least some of the recommendations of his report should be implemented. The question of forestry has never been made a political football and it is far from my intention to do anything like that. I realise the many difficulties which face the Minister and his staff in acquiring land but there are tracts of land even in my own neighbourhood which would be suitable for planting and would provide employment for the locals, as Mr. Cameron recommended in his report. Such schemes would also have the added advantage of beautifying the countryside.

As other Deputies have said, the conditions for growing timber in this country are very favourable. There is a rapid growth of timber, one of the most rapid in the world, due to early rainfall, soil and other factors. We should do our best to expand the acreage and I hope the Minister will not have to come into the House next year and say he regrets the target set has not been reached, as has been the case on this occasion.

There does not seem to be very much progress in regard to private planting. With goodwill one would think that the amount of private planting could be increased. We saw examples of such co-operation during the Emergency and at many other times in the history of this country. There are particular regions where planting could be undertaken. There are men who are skilled in this work, who have a great deal of knowledge of it as a result of having worked with the Forestry Division. If these people could be encouraged to do private planting to the extent of three, four or five acres it would be a worthwhile contribution. An approach should be made to primary, secondary and vocational schools in order to stimulate interest in forestry.

It must be borne in mind that whatever steps are taken, no worthwhile progress will be made unless the grant available is attractive. Our young people are as patriotic today as they were in other generations. They have taken pride in participating in schemes which have benefited the economy, for instance, pig raising and calf raising schemes. I would urge the Minister to increase the grant available for forestry planting.

I am disappointed at the amount of commonage that has been acquired under the Bill introduced in this House some years ago by the late Mr. Blowick. The question of title in this connection has always been a difficulty. I see no reason why the Minister should not bring in amending legislation to improve the situation. There is such provision in other spheres and in connection with other Departments and I would ask the Minister to have another look at the question of commonage. In some cases there may be ten, 15 or even 100 tenants interested and there may be something like 1,000 acres suitable for forestry. It is necessary that more attractive terms be offered for such commonage. Also required are the co-operation and the goodwill of those concerned at local level in the commonage areas.

In this context perhaps churchmen, local school teachers and Muintir na Tíre could get together in an effort to encourage these people to give up their lands so that employment would be provided locally for, perhaps, one member of the family. This is very desirable in areas such as that represented by the Minister and me. It is a cause for regret that in recent times fewer people are finding employment. If the Minister would act on some of my suggestions, perhaps they would help in some small measure to improve the position. I know that the Minister is anxious to do everything in his power in this matter. Finally, I thank his officials for the courtesy that they have extended to me on any occasion on which I approached them.

Mr. Murphy

Deputy O'Donovan has agreed to give way to me so that I might make one point which I intended making in relation to the acquisition of land. I refer to the purchase of land in the Berehaven Peninsula. There are 539 acres of land there for sale but there is too much tinkering in relation to the acquisition of the land. This tinkering has extended over far too long a period but possibly the Minister is not aware of what is happening. Therefore, I decided to avail of this opportunity to acquaint him with the situation.

All of us here are interested in seeing that land is acquired for afforestation. Of course we are anxious, too, that the land be acquired at its market value. In south west Cork we have been trying for some time to have lands taken over in the Berehaven Peninsula so as to provide employment in that area— an area where there is a grave lack of employment. Adjacent to the town of Castletownbere there are 539 acres of land and let me say at this stage that if I were the owner I would be tempted to dispose of some of this land for building sites because some of it is suitable for this purpose. Building sites there could fetch as much £1,000 each. However, this land is on offer to the Forestry Division for the reasonable figure of £5,000. I agree that only 415 acres are suitable for planting and that, in so far as the Department are concerned, about 100 acres would not be of any use to them. The position is that the Land Commission have refused to increase their offer of £4,000 for the land. They seem to be under the impression that the land will eventually be sold for that amount of money. I do not like that attitude. I have made private representations in relation to this matter.

It is part of my business to value land so that I can say I have a reasonably good idea of land valuation—as good as has any official in the Department of Lands but that is no reflection on them. I am satisfied that this land could have been acquired by the Forestry Division long ago and I am asking the Minister to take a personal interest now in the matter. It has been long enough in the hands of the employees of the Department. I can assure the Minister that this land is well worth the £5,000 that is being asked for it by the two owners. Why, then, must there be this-itinerant-at-the-fair attitude of long ago when itinerants would come to buy horses and slap one's hand and ask one to divide and so on? I understand from the Forestry Division that they want land in Castletownbere and, if this is so, the land is there for them. They should not be trying to bulldoze the owners into giving it at a price that is less than its value.

I might say at this stage that the owners are anxious to sell the land to the Forestry Division in preference to letting it go to other buyers because they are well aware that the local development association are anxious that the land be acquired by the Forestry Division so that employment would be provided in the area. I wonder whether I have said enough on this matter?

Mr. O'Hara

Yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

I think the Deputy has made his point.

Mr. Murphy

If some other people had this land, it is not to the Land Commission they would sell it but, rather people from England and elsewhere who can afford to pay up to £1,000 for relatively small sites.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy to make his point. The position is that this does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Murphy

We are voting money for it.

An Ceann Comhairle

You are not voting any money for this.

Mr. Murphy

I ask the Minister to give this matter personal attention and I thank the Chair for his kind indulgence. I have no doubt that, since the Minister has been put in the picture, the land will be acquired very shortly at the figure that is being asked for it.

Mr. Carter

On looking through the Minister's speech and having listened to other Deputies making certain points here regarding our forestry programme, I want to say at the outset that, while we may differ on the details with regard to the prospects of forestry development, I do not think there is any great difference of opinion in the House on the question of its general development. One could submit that forestry is a sound investment if one referred for a moment to subhead C.2, Forestry Development and Management.

This year I took a walk through a local forest known as Newcastle, near the town of Ballymahon. It is an education to walk through a forest even if one has not a guide. I must say that the forester in charge on that occasion took the opportunity to give us full information about forestry in general. I often wonder would it be possible at this stage of the development of our forestry amenities, and forestry as a business, to have a new programme mounted to bring home to everyone in the country the vital necessity of pressing ahead with forestry development, planting, and the husbandry that follows. I saw a number of Sitka spruce which were planted in 1935 and the trees are now 100 feet high.

I was gratified and a bit surprised to note that we can grow this type of timber more successfully than the Swedes. While, on the one hand, our climate may be said to be more humid, on the other hand it promotes faster growth of timber. Sweden is famous for timber and in Sweden the winter is longer and harder. The result is that the growth is not as fast but the fibre of the timber is a bit harder. This is the only difference which we have to make up. I wonder is it a difference. I think we should be able to make it up in these days of scientific activity. Much of our timber is converted and used at home in the construction industry. To my mind not half enough of our own timber is being utilised in this fashion at the moment.

Here I should like to make a point. Perhaps those of us who are amateurs sometimes make the wrong points, but they are made in good faith. There should be a more businesslike approach to the production and handling and sale of timber in general. I would ask the Minister to consider making available to enterprising saw millers who invest heavily in machinery and plant for the development and conversion of timber as much help and advice and information as can be extended to them by the Forestry Section. I am quite sure that is being done at the moment. We have to have regard to the amount of money which is voted by this House for forestry development but a better public relations programme could be mounted.

At this point in time forestry has all the advantages. Having regard to our resources in land and labour, we could go so far as to suggest that a system of forestry bonds should be established for investment in forestry. The man who invested in one acre of young forest trees 35 years ago—and that might only be a marginal acre of land—would now have a return of £1,000. This would not take into account the thinnings and the fall of the forest in the meantime. It has often been said that investment in natural resources is the best investment. We all agree with that. I disagree slightly with Deputy O'Hara on the method of getting across to the people the necessity for planting trees even as a shelter belt. I referred to this before and I am referring to it now in the general context of planting only.

At the moment we know the various schemes we have under the local committees of agriculture and we know that they are not being taken up to advantage. I often think that a forester or two should be made available on a regional basis, if not on a county basis, to promote this type of development. If we look at the programme in Scotland we will see that Scotsmen do this. There used to be a slogan in Scotland, "Plant a tree, Jock; it will grow while you are sleeping." In the early days the Scots used to plant an acre of trees as a marriage dowry for their children.

There are a number of ways in which we could help the extension of the forestry programme. At the outset I said that (1), it was a sound investment; (2), there was labour content in the programme; (3), it helped the construction industry, which is a very important point; (4), forests serve as flood conductors; (5) they beautify the countryside, and last but not least the trees provide shelter. A better public relations programme for the Forestry Division should be mounted so as to bring home to all our people the necessity for an extended planting programme.

Last year was European Conesrvation Year and while the Minister had a very tight budget to work on he did some very good work. He got his Department into the news very effectively and he got across to the people that last year was Conservation Year. Deputy Tully and others have mentioned dumps. It is not the function of the Forestry Division to provide means for the disposal of rubbish; it is the responsibility of the local authorities. I have spoken about this on numerous occasions at county council meetings. We should have a stricter system of inspection in this regard. I agree with Deputy Tully that it is too bad that we should spend thousands of pounds trying to beautify certain places and at the same time allow indiscriminate dumping to go on. I am a member of a local authority and I believe local authorities in general are not doing enough to curb this vandalism, because that is what it is. No matter what the Minister or his Department may do to enhance the countryside, if dumping is allowed to continue then we are wasting our time and our money.

I realise the Forestry Division do not have much control over the rising trend in costs and salaries and wages. It would be a pity if this upward trend resulted in a decrease in the labour force employed. It is a stark fact that when costs go up managers look around to see in what way they can avoid those costs in order to stay in business. Nearly always the result is increased mechanisation. This is a good thing in one way but it would be too bad if increased wages and salaries resulted in men having to be retired. The men employed in the Forestry Division are usually employed over a long period. During that time they gain knowledge and experience and indeed a love of their job. It would be a pity if the Forestry Division had to lay off any of the labour employed as a result of increasing costs brought about by increases in wages and salaries. A programme should be mounted in order to get forestry as a business into the minds of the people. The best technical and scientific advice should be made available to those prepared to invest in machinery for the conversion of the end product.

Mr. McLaughlin

The Minister has one of the finest working groups in the country. They are interested in their work, they do a good job and they are well paid for it. I remember some years ago that public representatives were disappointed when local men could not be employed on the job, because the Forestry Division insisted on bringing men ten, 12 or 14 miles to do the work. We now appreciate why they insisted on doing this. All over the country there are groups of skilled men who are well paid for doing a good job. The days of slavery are gone. It is very encouraging to meet men dedicated to their work and to know that they are being paid £20 for a five-day week.

Deputy O'Hara spoke about commonage land being taken over. I come from County Leitrim and as I farm there I know the type of land there. I can imagine the headaches the Department's officials get when the taking over of commonage is being considered. Some shareholders will be satisfied to dispose of land because it is by no means satisfactory, whereas others who are doing really well on the commonage, will not be. This is where the problems arise and the Department finds itself in trouble.

I know that the Minister and his inspectors around the country come up against many problems. One problem I meet is that very often people may not be on the best terms with their neighbours and, because they are not, they will offer their bit of land to the Forestry Division. Those on small holdings cannot carry on unless they get a few extra acres and quite often they discover that an excellent meadow right beside their door has been taken over by the Forestry Division and that is an end of it. Ultimately the trees grow right up to their door.

Some years ago we received a circular in Leitrim which advised that, if genuine reasons were advanced to show why land should not be planted, the Forestry Division would consider the case made. In one instance the Forestry Division bought a strip of land between two portions of land held by a local farmer. A case was made to the Forestry Division but it fell on deaf ears. The Forestry Division did not do what we recommended. The policy should be to keep people on the land instead of replacing them by trees. We have had cases in which land beside a local farmer who could do with a few extra acres was planted with trees. Those few extra acres would have given him a viable holding. Generally speaking, the Forestry Division does not change its mind, irrespective of what case is made.

The Government talk about saving the West. The one thing that will save the West is giving farmers a few extra acres. By doing that the farmer will be removed from the labour exchange. There are thousands of acres high up eminently suitable for afforestation and it is on that land the Forestry Division should concentrate. There is an even greater love for the land to-day than there was perhaps ten years ago. Every time a genuine case is made against planting land I appeal to the Minister to give heed to that case. I can imagine the Minister arguing that my proposition would mean the Forestry Division getting only bad land. That might happen, I agree, but I still think it is better to improve holdings rather than plant acres of good land with trees.

With regard to the price of land, too much time is spent by inspectors going around again and again and making promises. In the interval the price of land goes up but the Forestry Division sticks to its first bid. The price is too low. The maximum is £40 and the general average is £8, £10, £12 or £14 an acre in my area. That must be changed. After a careful survey of the land a fair price should be offered instead of having the kind of delays that occur at the moment. I prefer to see land planted with people, not with trees.

There is a great deal of forestry work in both Leitrim and Sligo. Vermin are increasing in these forests. Funds should be made available to local committees of agriculture to enable them to exterminate these vermin.

Not enough encouragement is given to farmers to embark on planting on their own land. There was a good deal of publicity given to this some years ago but lately there has been no publicity at all. A regional forester should be appointed to a few counties who could advise farmers and encourage them to plant trees. Pieces of land may be of no real value to farmers because they are impossible to till or too heavy and these could be used for planting trees. Apart from being an economic proposition ultimately for the farmer, they would also provide very desirable shelter. I have no doubt that if this matter were discussed with the local farmers he would get an occasional farmer to take on the job.

In regard to the provision of shelter belts the matter seems to have been left there and is taken for granted and it only comes before the committee of agriculture once a year. Much more emphasis should be placed on the matter. Many beautiful shelter belts have been put around houses which otherwise would be wind-swept in stormy weather. The people were strongly advised to erect these shelters and agricultural instructors called to see how the shelter belts were coming along but today the Department no longer follow up this important aspect. The Minister should take note of this matter and have it pursued for a number of years. He should appoint a regional forester or inspector to cover several counties and this should be his sole job. The agricultural instructors are very busy at present and they would not have the time to do this work.

Forestry today is a very sound and successful undertaking and enormous quantities of wood have been taken from the plantations and used to great advantage. Frequently we see large lorries transporting poles to various centres in which they are needed. Only a few years ago some of those trees were of little value but today, because of the dressings they can receive, they mature well and when they are sold they are guaranteed for up to 50 years. In many mountainous areas thousands of acres have been planted under forests. Those mountains were never meant for anything but trees. When people lived on them they were only eking out a bare existence and they were anxious to come down to the lower lands to get holdings which they could improve for their own sakes and for the sakes of their sons.

Dr. O'Donovan

I should like to say a few words about the reason why we have to spend so much money on forestry. I am not going to delay the Minister, who is a very patient man. I am grateful to him for supplying us with a report on the Forestry Division for 1969-70. I am afraid I have lost my copy of the Buchanan Report and I am sorry that Deputy O'Hara is not here because I might be able to borrow his copy and have another look at it. However, it gives rise to a certain amount of folklore. There is a Chinese saying that if you are planning for one year plant wheat, if you are planning for 100 years plant trees and if you are planning for 1,000 years plant men. I do not know about the final one but there is no doubt that if you are planning for 100 years you should plant trees. The Minister and I are in agreement that the most valuable work being done in his Department is in the Forestry Division. I am not reflecting on other parts of the Department; it is just the nature of the work that is unfortunate. It is regrettable that in the early days of the State the position financially was such that very little money, relatively speaking, was spent on afforestation. Some members of the first Government did attempt to get something done but the technical officers in charge were Scots who, while excellent men, technically had not much interest in the country in a national sense. Even during the first Fianna Fáil Government the area planted was only about 800 acres a year. I am somewhat disappointed that the receipts have not been better and my reason for saying that is that we must now have a fair amount of mature forest. I agree with Deputy Carter that an acre of mature trees is worth about £1,000. However, I will return to that in detail later. The Minister referred, as did the report, to the difficulties in acquiring land. Of course it is easy to solve difficulties, as many people do to-day, by spending more money, but that is not a solution either because I am afraid there are too many people competing for the spending of more money under the aegis of the Government.

The competition between forestry and sheep is well known. It is a question of the comparative prices for mutton and beef which really determines whether this becomes hot or not. The Minister and the Department have been doing fairly well in recent years in regard to the quantity of land in reserve. They have stepped up the purchase of land. I am interested in a technical point about which I know nothing. About ten years ago it seemed that Contorta Pine was taking over from Sitka Spruce and in the early years there seemed to be a lot of planting of Norway Spruce. I do not mind admitting that I would not know the difference between Sitka Spruce and a Norway Spruce but I know from the figures that Norway Spruce seems to be out and that Sitka Spruce seems to be coming back. I understood the important point was that pine matured much more rapidly. For instance, the men who breed horses breed two-year olds, on the whole, and the same principle could be applied in the case of trees.

Undoubtedly forestry is of great value in a country like this. A very sizeable amount of it is done in winter and it seems to me that the forestry workers are very happy men, particularly the foresters. This is notable in Germany. I take it the ordinary worker in forestry now, with an increase of £4 a week in the last 15 months, must be happier than he was. Certainly in the past forestry workers were poorly paid. They were linked with agricultural workers. I am rather surprised that the State enterprise which was projected as far away as 15 years ago, a paper pulp factory, has not been established. I know the present Government's love of private enterprise and their desire to make things easy for people to make profits.

Mr. P. Belton

At times.

Dr. O'Donovan

I appreciate the Deputy's point but there is a great difficulty in this. There is a monopoly of buyers. There are three or four main buyers. The Waterford factory is referred to here; there is the one at Athy and the one at Scariff, County Clare. These are really the main purchasers, and there is the paper factory here in Dublin. These are a small group, and this presents a grave difficulty. When the second inter-Party Government was in office a committee was established to consider how this would be approached. The Government seem to have dropped, as if it were a hot potato, the idea of a major paper pulp industry essentially to produce newsprint. Our imports of newsprint last year were £3 million. Of course, the primary objective of the enterprise would be to obliterate that importation just as forestry has, I am glad to say, obliterated, unfortunately belatedly, the importation of the standards for rural electrification. I see a reference in the report to the standards for ordinary telephone wires. It was unfortunate that we had to import enormous quantities of spars from Finland for rural electrification in the middle fifties when rural electrification was going ahead like a house on fire and when the major part of it was done. I still cannot understand why the Government have dropped this idea of setting up this major State enterprise. It could have been done very cheaply some years ago. I suppose it would be much more expensive now. It would still give a better return to the country than some of the other enterprises that are being financed by the State.

My difficulty here is that, contrary to opinion among businessmen like Deputy Belton, civil servants and semi-State work people are very good managers but they are not very good at bargaining. When they come up against the businessmen they have no chance when it comes to buying and selling. The businessman can put them over a barrel. The fact is that for many long years in this country any threat from private enterprise—not employing 100 or 200 or 300 people, but employing even 30 or 40 people—to close down because they are being hardpressed by a State company has caused a flurry and a scurry among the politicians. Then the pressure comes on the State servants: "You really must give way on this. The State has a broad back and really can afford to carry it." Therefore, I am genuinely sorry that this semi-State enterprise was not established, as it should have been established in the early fifties, to produce paper pulp.

I agree with the Deputies who say it is unfortunate that there has not been more development of private forestry. It seems to be difficult to get people to engage in this. I think the grants are fairly reasonable and relatively small areas could qualify. The Minister and his Department are in no way to blame for the situation in relation to private planting. I want to engage in something that does not seem to be done at all in this House and seems to be frowned on, that is, an analysis of the Estimate. Comparing 1967-68 with 1970-71 I notice that the increase in forest development and management, which is the productive end of this work in the ordinary sense that a businessman understands it, is only up one-third, from £3.2 million in 1967-68 to £4.3 million, including the Supplementary Estimate, an increase of £1.1 million or about one-third.

On the other hand, the cost of administration is up from £1 million in 1967-68, which included £170,000 for travelling expenses, to £1,650,000 now, which is a 65 per cent increase. I hope it will not be held against me if I am inclined to say that that is not as it should be. I do grant that the salaries, wages and so on include what I regard as the key men in the service, the foresters, but I do not think they are responsible for the increase. I notice that travelling expenses went up from £170,000 in 1967-68 to £270,000, the sum in the original Estimate this year, that is to say, an increase of 60 per cent.

In this connection it is no harm to become a macro-economist for a moment since we are held to be so silent by Mr. Hugh Munro. I noticed in the report of the Forestry Division that among the more important meetings attended were two on which I might comment. I do not propose to criticise the bulk of these meetings. One of the two was a seminar study tour of the USA. I do not think anyone would learn much about forestry by making a seminar tour of that country. However, what interested me even more is No. 8 on the list—British Association for the Advancement of Science at Exeter—this body is known among academics as the "British Ass". I cannot imagine what value forestry people could acquire from a trip to that establishment. That, therefore, is a macro-economic comment on the increase in travelling expenses.

I want to ask the Minister one technical question. It is a matter that is of interest to me because I did some work on it a long time ago: what rate of interest was eventually put into the Forestry commercial accounts? Naturally, the Department, at the time, wanted to put in a rate of about 2 per cent. The money was being borrowed at 3 per cent and the Department of Finance wanted 4 per cent put in. I take it that commercial accounts were set up for each separate forest and I would like to know whether a standard rate of interest was introduced and if so, if it has been constantly applied during the years. I presume it would be a rate of the order of 4 per cent or so. I have no wish to be taken as criticising that although it does add to the present cost. Only this morning we read in the newspapers the notification that the Department of Finance, through the Board of Works, are to charge the local authorities 9½ per cent so that the rate to borrowers will be about 10 per cent. I am not advocating that anything like that should be applied to forestry but I would like the Minister to tell me what is the rate in the forestry commercial account. We are told in the Minister's brief that Deputies will rejoice to learn that the magic million has been reached. All I can say is that this is not good enough. I appreciate the difficulties but we must remember that even 800 acres a year should result in a return of about £800,000. In most of our forests, the second thinning must long since have been carried out. This is the thinning which is done after 20 or 22 years and which must yield a substantial amount.

I wonder if the relatively small increase in the cost of forest management is not causing a decay in the rate at which extraction is being carried on. A relatively unsuccessful politician, Mr. Seán MacBride, was responsible for setting the target at 20,000 to 25,000 a year. It was he who wrote the figure into the long-term programme without having any authority to do so from the then Government and although the succeeding Fianna Fáil Government tried for a while to reduce that, the pressures were too great and it has since been achieved.

In his report the Minister regretted that the Division were not able to achieve the target of 25,000 acres last year but informed us that the amount was 22,000 acres. That amount represents almost 80 per cent of the target and it is a good achievement. If each of us could achieve 80 per cent of what he set out to do, he would be doing all right.

I wonder if the Minister would say if it might be possible that, again, the thinnings are not being carried out adequately. There were complaints from the public to this effect in the past and also to the effect that the timber was not being developed in the way it should be developed. I am referring to that period in the late fifties when there were considerable complaints from the public in this connection. Since there has been an increase of only 30 per cent in expenditure on the actual work on forestry development, I wonder if there could be some decay in standards as compared with three or four years ago.

Mr. P. Belton

The constituency I represent, Dublin North-East, is one where there is little land for afforestation but, in fact, it might have the highest percentage in that about ten acres out of a total of 50 acres of arable land are devoted to afforestation. Afforestation has continued here but there has been no new thinking in regard to it. If a person is investing money, he will find out what the percentage return is or what is the capital growth. One might accept a small percentage because of the rate of capital growth or else he will require a reasonable percentage if there is a negligible capital growth. In relation to Government loans, one will not get capital growth but will get a return by way of speculation on the Stock Exchange.

There is one individual engaged in afforestation in County Leitrim by way of private enterprise. When he was going into this business he was told that it was not possible to grow trees in Leitrim but, perhaps, with the aid of modern technology, he has proved that trees can be grown there. It is my opinion that it is only by private enterprise that we will succeed in planting trees from Kerry to Donegal to the extent we would wish to plant them. However, private enterprise will not become involved if there is not a fair return for the money invested. In so far as tree planting and growing are concerned, there is no return for a long time, perhaps not during the lifetime of the investor.

In planting trees in the west of Ireland or in any other area the Government would need to have a plan such as they would have in, say, the building of houses in Dublin. They would know which areas would be for housing, which would be for factories and so on. There should be a complete plan of the areas that could be planted. As I said, there is absolutely nothing to entice a wealthy man from anywhere in the world to go into afforestation in this country. There should be some relief, let it be taxwise or otherwise—I think it is taxwise at the moment—for a person who invests. I think there is such a scheme in England.

This would be the job of the Minister for Finance. If a wealthy man would invest in the West he should get relief on death duties. I am speaking about millionaires now who take out policies for £200,000 or £300,000 to cover themselves for the five years before they die. If this type of money could be used for planting in the West and if the Department had a proper plan whereby tourism would be allied to it—because in the future plastics may be used instead of timber; there may be some new inventions—having lakes with trees growing around them, with shooting, hunting and fishing, and monuments preserved, this could all be advertised in a proper brochure. To do this Bord Fáilte would need to improve on what they did this year because they did not get out until February instead of last November a brochure setting out the hotel rates.

I believe we must get private enterprise into afforestation. I know that many of the State companies are service companies, and I am not criticising them because they lose money, but we must get private enterprise investment as well as Government investment. Some incentive should be given to private enterprise to go into afforestation. With this investment and with proper planning the country would eventually benefit from the sale of trees and from the factories which would use the timber for building or use the by-products like wood pulp or pit props or anything else. We would also gain from tourism. At the moment, no matter what the cost is people fly over from the Continent to avail of these amenities and the number of those people is increasing.

It is not sufficient for the Minister for Finance to say that he will give certain concessions in relation to death duties, or income tax, or by way of grant. This must be advertised in a businesslike manner. People whom the Government think might be interested should be notified and given all the details. You must go out and sell nowadays. You cannot sit back and say that we have passed a law in Dáil Éireann which will help people and not advertise it.

If private enterprise were involved in afforestation it would cut out a lot of departmental work. There is the trouble of buying the land and you have to go through the Civil Service to get the money. It would be a clean-cut operation for a businessman. It would also show whether the Department are doing the job economically. Deputy O'Donovan said that businessmen can do a better deal than civil servants. I do not know exactly how he said it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Private planting is not covered under this subhead.

Mr. P. Belton

Deputy O'Donovan said that businessmen are better than civil servants to do a deal. I can see that. The businessman can go out and do a deal. He can spend two or three days on it with unlimited expenses and get a better deal. It would be hard for a civil servant to make a case to his Minister that he spent so much money to buy land. Therefore the businessman has a better set-up to do a better deal.

I should like to come now to conservation. We have pollution in Dublin now. This is not necessarily an Irish problem. It is a worldwide problem but we have pollution in Dublin in a big way. I presume that much Irish water is polluted from other parts of Europe. At the moment in Dublin many rivers have been culverted and once they are culverted that is the end of it. There is no real law to stop factories from putting their effluent into these rivers. I know of one small river which had water running in it for eight months of the year and for four months it was dry, but an ice cream factory came in and poured stuff into it. Nobody could trace it for quite some time but the stench from that river was dreadful. It is now culverted and nobody knows whether the ice cream factory are still putting effluent into it. I know it is costly for firms to arrange for the effluent to come out as clear water. A group of inspectors should be sent out to find where factories are unloading waste matter from their premises.

There is a group agitating in regard to the pollution of Dublin Bay, which the Minister knows very well since he lives in the area. I am sure he has been asked to many functions. This group have got a great case. I was at a meeting as a guest and they told me that a Minister—they did not say which Minister—would definitely make sure that there would be no extra pollution in Dublin. The same day land was given for houses that were not on the original plan. In other words, Dublin extended. The result is that 2,000 or 3,000 more houses will be using the same sewerage service. Here we had one Minister saying one thing and another Minister doing another. I know the Minister for Lands is interested in conservation and surely he can do something within the Cabinet to get the Minister for Local Government to pay attention to this.

Czechoslovakia is a landlocked country with sewage disposal units which are completely covered in, with the latest equipment supplied by an English firm, I think. I know that the English company in question does this work for all the South American countries. They are experts at this. A proper sewerage treatment scheme is essential in Dublin. At present the sewerage is pumped into the sea but with the land reclamation going on around Dublin Bay, it has been found that the sewerage is not being pumped out far enough. In fact one is lucky if one can swim on one day in the week around the Dublin area.

Conservation is not a big problem in Ireland at the moment but throughout the world it has become a huge problem. Unless we start to tackle the problem now we shall never be able to do anything about it. Jacques Cousteau has said that 6 per cent of the American budget needs to be spent on pollution if pollution is to be kept at its present level. They have made some improvements at Lake Erie, but effluent from the North American Continent flows down to the Gulf of Mexico.

If we are to prevent pollution of our rivers and of the air we must set about doing it now because if we wait even ten years the cost will be much greater. Everyone remembers the London smogs of the fifties. People died because of the smog. London would have smogs for at least one month of the year. Apparently it was caused by the prevailing winds. If the wind is coming from the Balbriggan direction Dublin will be foggy whereas if there is a south wind there will be no fog.

London has been made a smokeless zone and when one gets up in the morning in London the air is as clear as it is in the West of Ireland. The problem is nothing like as bad in Dublin as it was in London but we should try to tackle it now. I believe one of the biggest polluters of the air is CIE whose buses and trucks run on diesel. Distinguishing markings on lorries are now compulsory and while seat belts are not yet compulsory they are being fitted to cars. A device fitted to the exhaust of cars and lorries would help stop pollution.

There is a belief that if a chimney is high enough it will not pollute the atmosphere. If a 40-foot chimney is erected, although it might mean that the city is not polluted, the smoke will drop on either Dún Laoghaire or Howth depending on which way the wind is blowing. Lip service is of no avail. We must do something about this problem. It is no good saying that Dublin Bay should not be polluted and then allowing the building of 600 houses, the sewerage of which will be pumped into Dublin Bay.

We must do something concrete about pollution. The Government should take the lead. They should provide for a device fitted to the exhaust of CIE trucks and buses. They should pass a law that all new cars should be fitted with the same device. People are inclined to think that the little bit of pollution their car makes or the few broken bottles they leave behind do no harm, but this all adds up, and unless we can get across to people what has to be done, nothing will ever be done. Americans realise that they will have to spend money cleaning up their environment and we should realise it too. It is all very well for members of the Government to make speeches at Fianna Fáil functions but nothing concrete is being done.

Throughout Europe there has been a move towards the preservation of monuments. When one visits a small country like Malta and compares what is spent on preserving monuments there with what is spent here, one is ashamed. Admittedly they were probably inhabited thousands of years before us, but we are not paying enough attention to this matter.

Some incentive must be given to private enterprise to invest money in reafforestation.

Mr. Enright

Forestry is a very important matter and it is something that requires plenty of initiative because it provides a great deal of useful employment. The forests have to be thinned. The thinnings go all over the country, to Athy, Clondalkin, Scariff, Waterford and elsewhere. The factories in these places provide employment with home-grown material. After some 50 years growth the wood is suitable for building construction work. Different types of land are acquired for afforestation and some of this land would not be suitable for any other purpose except afforestation. I do not regard the money provided here as sufficient. Expenditure has not kept step with revenue. The amount provided in 1960-61 was £2,566,700 out of a total revenue of £138,839,495. For the year ending 31st March, 1970, the amount provided was £4,579,000 out of a total revenue of £411,012,014. Forestry has fallen behind; the amount provided has not kept in line. Because it is so valuable from the point of view of employment and the production of native material it deserves special attention.

As I said, the type of land varies. You have, first of all, upland, good arable land. Then you have the high bank land. A good portion of this would be bog suitable for turbary or for Bord na Móna. Then you have cutaway bog. I understand the Forestry Division would be very interested in this. Then you have moor, bog over 30 years cutaway. Lastly, there is mountain land.

With regard to the high bank, as the Minister is aware, very little turbary is being cut on this and a good deal of it in the midlands is sold to Bord na Móna which results in considerable employment for people in Offaly, Laois, Westmeath, Longford and right up to Roscommon. I understand the Forestry Division are very interested in acquiring cutaway bog because it is very suitable for planting.

There are, of course, different layers, depending on the number of years the bog has been in existence. There are three layers, one is a type of spagnum moss peat, the next is fen peat and further down there is a pine layer. The fen peat is ideal for horticulture. Spagnum moss is very suitable for turf production and over the years it is cut away completely and a lot of the fen peat is also cut away. You find here that there is a clash between three groups, Bord na Móna, the horticulturists and the foresters. However, there is sufficient land to ensure that all three are catered for and that they will have sufficient. The point is that once fen peat is cut away it is gone for all time and this is a problem. If it is planted for forestry purposes then it is saved for that period because it will be left there and it will be there while the trees are growing over the years.

A lot of this fen peat soil is ideal for horticulture and therefore I should like to see closer liaison between the three groups I have mentioned in regard to the proper utilisation of these estates. Different Government Departments, such as Agriculture and Lands, have held meetings in different counties to work out different ideas like this but I am afraid the meetings have come to nothing and there is not the desired liaison between those concerned. As I have said, forestry is an excellent form of employment and a lot of people are employed in this work but I should like to give some figures in this regard. One man would be able to plant and develop ten acres of forestry over five years. When planting and development work has been done one man would be able to look after approximately 100 acres. However, in horticulture the employment content is much greater. If there were proper liaison between the Forestry Division and horticulturists mountain land and moorish land should be used for forestry instead of fen peat. In Offaly, in 1964, the income from horticulture was £3,000 but in 1970 it was £158,000, a vast increase. However, as I said, I would like to see the Forestry Division and horticulturists developing a proper plan for acquiring land and in regard to estates.

Up to a number of years ago the price paid by the Forestry Division for land was £10 per acre but now through agreement with the Department of Finance they can pay up to £30 or £40. From figures which I have worked out I gather that the price paid per acre of land by the Department of Lands is in the region of £14 on average. If that figure is incorrect I should like the Minister to let us know what the figure is. I know of one estate of approximately 650 acres of mountainy land which would be suitable for nothing else but forestry and the owner is anxious to sell the land to the Forestry Division if he gets a realistic price but he is only being offered £4 to £5 an acre. The land is not being used to its fullest capacity and on that basis he is not likely to sell. The Forestry Division should give a realistic price because it would be a tragedy if this land were not used to its fullest capacity. Even if he let it for shooting rights, which he does not want to do, he would nearly get as much money. Even the top price of £30 to £40 which the Forestry Division pay is not sufficient in modern times because £300 to £400 is quite a common price for agricultural land and the Forestry Division should come into line with present day standards. Years ago when they were paying £10 an acre agricultural land was going for £80 to £100 but now it has gone to £300 or £400 per statute acre.

As the Minister is aware, there are vast tracts of land which would be made available to the Forestry Division if proper title could be established for the people who own them. Many cases are held up because the legal title to the land is not in order. This would be not alone for ordinary mountain land and moorland but for bogland. The Department of Lands and the Forestry Division must devise a scheme to accelerate the acquisition of estates suitable for forestry development. There is a different approach in the Land Commission and in the Forestry Division. The Land Commission can compulsorily acquire an estate from somebody, move into possession and allot the land among local smallholders; whereas the Forestry Division can agree to acquire an estate but until the legal title is fully cleared up and the Forestry Division are registered as owners they do not take possession of the estate. The Land Commission invests the money, either in Land Bonds or on deposit, and the interest is accruing to the people who later prove their title. I would not like to see the Forestry Division making payments in Land Bonds because the bonds would reduce in value. However, the Minister could have consultations with the Minister for Justice so that a person who could produce an affidavit that he was in undisputed possession of land for 12 years would have the money paid over to him. This would accelerate the availability of land for forestry. Vast amounts of land which are lying idle and of no use to anybody would be planted immediately and this would be in the interest of everybody.

I have come across many cases of people selling land to the Forestry Division in which the amount of money they obtain for their estate is relatively small because of the quality of land, and because the Forestry Division are not getting as fair an allocation from the Government as they should be getting. Out of this small amount of money the vendor gets for his estate he has to pay the legal fees for transferring his property to the Forestry Division. When the Forestry Division agree to purchase an estate they should go a considerable way towards meeting the legal expenses of the vendor. This would not involve much extra expenditure on their part.

In regard to the matter of conservation, the preservation of our national parks, the prevention of pollution and so on, I believe the Forestry Division can make an important contribution in this respect by bringing home to the community the importance of the environment in which they live. The Forestry Division can also contribute by the proper care and management of the estates they take over, by the thinning out of trees in the estates and by the planting of trees. They can help to bring to people's attention the importance of maintaining or restoring the beauty of the scenery for which this country was always famous.

In my own area there are many thousands of acres of land which were lying idle and useless and which the Forestry Division have brought into use. There is great benefit from the fact that the Forestry Division have a training school in Kinnitty. Thousands of acres of land which was useless is now growing millions of trees. Added to this is the fact that it makes a most picturesque drive around the countryside. This is a living monument to the work of the Forestry Division down through the years. They have provided excellent employment and it is important that this work be carried on. Much work remains to be done, commercially and otherwise.

Minister for Lands (Mr. S. Flanagan)

The terms of reference of this debate were fairly narrow, but the Members, perhaps inevitably, extended the scope of the debate into forestry policy generally. I will do my best to deal with the principal items that were raised, beginning with the excellent contribution from Deputy Cooney whose succinct style I would recommend not only to some members of his own party but to some members of my party also.

Deputy Cooney was concerned particularly, as were many other Deputies, as to the reserve of land held by the Forestry Division and he, as well as other Deputies, made the point that the Forestry Division are not paying enough for land to enable them to acquire a sufficient reserve. Obviously, the two most important factors here are land and money. I should like to make the situation clear at the outset in regard to the policy of the Forestry Division in relation to the acquisition of land.

It is true that up to some years ago the average price paid for land for afforestation purpose was quite low but Members of the House will appreciate that a duty rested on the Department to use capital moneys voted by this House to the best advantage and to obtain the marginal land mostly needed for afforestation purposes, at the best available price. However, it became obvious some years ago that the acquisition of land was slowing down. A new system was introduced a few years ago. Under this system each area offered is valued on the basis of a clear assessment of its potential in the particular area for timber production and the cost of developing and planting it. This new system has already begun to show very good results. As an example of this I would mention that in the season 1968-69, the total amount of land acquired was only a little more than 14,000 acres— obviously, an insufficient amount to maintain an annual planting programme of even 20,000 acres much less the annual programme of 25,000 acres. However, in 1969-70, we took in 25,000 acres and, so far this year, we have already acquired 30,000 acres. I have every confidence that in regard to land acquired the trend which has manifested itself during the past couple of years will be maintained. Therefore, I look forward with confidence to having no problems in the future so far as plantable reserves are concerned.

I should add also that, as I mentioned in the reply to the main Estimate last year, my officials are also working on a scheme to simplify the acquisition process so far as legal technicalities are concerned. I am sure that Members of the House will agree that this is a desirable development. I hope that, within the next 12 months, that new scheme will be finalised and that apart from the greater flow of money that is now available for the purchase of land, there will be a more simplified procedure.

Deputy Enright asked what is the average cost at the present time and he quoted a figure of £14 per acre. This is a reasonably accurate figure. Perhaps it may be £1 more at the present time.

Mr. P. Belton

To purchase the land?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Yes. That is the average, taking into account that certain lands are purchased at a much higher figure while land of a poorer quality is purchased at a lower figure. It is incumbent on us to acquire land at the best price. In that regard, we are in no different position from a person buying land for his own use either for planting or for ordinary agricultural purposes. After all, we are dealing with capital money and virtually all of the funds at the disposal of the Forestry Division come from the capital Budget. I do not have to remind Members of the House of the problems that any Government would face at the present time in relation to the financing of the total capital programme of the State.

However, I hope that what I have said in relation to the question of acquisition will allay the fears of those Deputies who have said that at the present time we are unable to maintain our planting programme because of an insufficient reserve of land. I am satisfied that as a result of the changes made in recent years, this is no longer the position and I believe that the upper trend in acquisition which has manifested itself will be maintained at least for the next few years. Of course, we are dealing ultimately with a volatile commodity. Perhaps that is an odd remark to make in regard to land but the optimum use to which land can be put at any given time is a matter which varies, depending on economic and social circumstances of one kind or another. Obviously the question of maintaining a reserve is also a question of maintaining an open mind on how best to achieve the results.

Deputy Cooney made some relevant points in regard to continuity in planting and felling trees. He asked that there be greater continuity in this regard in all forests so as to avoid employment fluctuations. Obviously, this would be most desirable but the gradual process of building up forest blocks and the paucity of our plantable reserves in the past have not facilitated the spreading of planting in individual areas even over a long period. However, great improvement has been made during the past ten or 15 years and at the present time there is much less fluctuation in forestry work than was the case some ten or 15 years ago.

Deputy Cooney was concerned, too, about the recruitment of graduates. I would like to assure the Deputy that there is liaison with the university in relation to the recruitment of graduates. Some graduates emigrate but frequently they do so with the intention of gaining experience in other countries while they are still young and then returning to work in their own country. Of course, there is involved the risk that some of them will become so attracted by the way of life in these other countries that they may never return or that they may find themselves staying for longer than they had intended. In the main, we consider the risk to be worth while and the fact is that most of them do return. I can assure Deputy Cooney and the House that we will be very glad indeed to have them. The next question I should like to turn to is the subject of forestry workers themselves and the redundancies mentioned by Deputy Tully, leading off on behalf of his party. Of course, this subject was also mentioned by Deputy Cooney. It is perfectly true that there will be reductions in staff at various forests throughout the country, beginning next month. In any event, this is a normal situation since forestry programmes of work cover financial years and the staff quotas at the various forests are subject to variations at the beginning of April.

Perhaps I should deal in some detail with this matter. The first thing we have to accept is that the tendency is, and for some years has been, towards a fall in the manpower requirements in forestry. At one time it was very highly labour-intensive. It is still, I think, labour-intensive in comparison with many other activities, but the combination of rising costs and technological advances have both combined to reduce manpower requirements. Rising costs make it imperative to secure economies in all aspects of forestry work, if timber is to be produced at a price at which it can compete with other materials. Forestry undertakings all over the world have been putting considerable effort into finding ways and means of off-setting this rise by new methods, new mechanical developments, greater use of herbicides and so on.

Perhaps Sweden is the best example of this because for many years past the Swedes have been relatively highly mechanised in the use of forest labour because, in their country, manpower was at a premium. Even there in the past few years new methods have led to a very great reduction in manpower utilisation in Swedish forests. At the other end of the world, in Australia, they are also engaged in improving harvesting techniques intended to reduce costs. I mentioned this earlier in my introductory statement. So, overall the trend in every country is towards a reduction of manpower use for the reasons I have mentioned and our forestry service have had to keep up with these developments and to their credit have done so over the past ten years, in balancing rising costs involved in improving living standards with technological improvements and in that way keeping the industry viable.

I suppose that the Government and, for that matter, the Members of the House, would have to think again about forestry expenditure if they were not satisfied that the forestry section were doing their stuff in this regard. While it is true, therefore, that reducing employment is the other side of the coin from increasing wages—and wages and fringe benefits have undoubtedly increased very much in recent years— it would not be true to say that men are being laid off at present because of current wage increases in particular. The fact is that, with so many demands on the Exchequer, we would still have to accommodate our forestry programme within the limits of the resources available whether or not we improved our economic viability. Had we not made the progress that has been made towards maintaining forestry on a viable basis in the face of rising costs, this would not mean that we would now be employing more men but rather that we would be doing less forestry.

In this context two other specific points were mentioned by Deputy Tully. He feared that the introduction of a superannuation scheme for forestry workers might be causing disemployment in an effort to find the money to pay the pensions. This I am happy to say is not true. The scheme has already been introduced and since last January any worker laid off who has adequate service will qualify for a pension. Deputy Tully also asked about the Civil Service staff. The approach here is that the need to contain staff costs applies at all levels, indoor and outdoor. It has always been a matter of policy to do with the minimum of Civil Service staff because that staff is an overhead cost on timber production.

At the same time, we have to face the fact, and I have to say to the House, that as a result of the stringent capital budget and, indeed, the general budgetary situation at present, I have to accept a cut in the estimate which I furnished to the Government for our 1971-72 programme. As a result, I have to face the fact that workers we would not otherwise have had to declare redundant will be declared redundant. This is something which obviously, as Minister, I regret since it involves a loss of employment I hope only on a temporary basis, but one can only hope that, for forestry workers who will have to be laid off.

Mr. Tully

Can the Minister say if my suggestion that people over 65 years with long service who might be inclined to go out was considered?

Mr. S. Flanagan

I understand that this is being done and that it is being borne in mind in the arrangements that are being made in regard to these redundancies. Of course, it is not a pleasant thing to have to say that, apart from the factors which I mentioned earlier, and which have caused a reduction in manpower employment in forestry work, not merely in this country but all over the world, because of the cut back we also have redundancy which we would not otherwise have except for the financial——

Mr. Tully

The Minister is very honest to admit that Government policy caused unemployment.

Mr. S. Flanagan

——situation at present.

Mr. Coogan

That is very honest.

Mr. S. Flanagan

There is no point in trying to disguise this fact.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister is to be complimented.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I must say, also, that another by-product of that will be that in 1971-72 we will not achieve our target acreage of 25,000. Indeed, it will put us to the pin of our collar to maintain the 1970-71 planting programme of 22,500 acres. I feel that it is only fair that I should put Members of the House fully in the picture in this regard. As I pointed out earlier on, this will not be because of a lack of land but because of financial considerations. At the same time, I will keep the whole situation under review. Indeed, I was interested when Deputy Enright pointed out that the percentage that the Forestry Vote had in 1960-61 of the total Vote was considerably higher than the percentage which it enjoyed in the current year, ten years later. I do not know whether I had those figures in my mind when I was arguing with the Minister for Finance about how much we should get for forestry.

Mr. P. Belton

The Minister should have had them.

Mr. S. Flanagan

We would all agree that forestry is one of the productive national undertakings which it would be desirable to restore as soon as the financial position is better.

Deputy Cooney also mentioned the timber production forecast I referred to in my opening remarks. This forecast only became available during the last few months and we thought it proper that it should, in the first instance, be circulated to the timber trade. This has been done. Obviously the people in the trade are most closely concerned with this forecast. When we hear from them I assure Deputy Cooney, and the House, that we shall be very pleased to make the forecast available to Members of the House generally.

Deputy Tully also mentioned—with some annoyance on this occasion—the fact that he had not heard from the Department in regard to certain submissions made by him on behalf of the Federation of Rural Workers. I have had an opportunity of looking into this matter in the meantime. I do not like to see Deputy Tully being cross—it is very unusual for him—so I hope that what I have to say now will act as a suitable palliative. I understand the average working week since 1st April, 1960, has been 42½ hours. This is operated by working 43 hours in the summer and 40 hours for the nine weeks in the winter. I gather that on 4th February the Federation wrote to the Department saying they wished to apply again for a 40-hour week for their members. There is no trace of any previous representation in the Department.

Mr. Tully

It was 12 months ago exactly.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It is my information that the first intimation the Department had of this was a letter on the 4th February saying that the question of the 40-hour week was now one which, in the absence of a suitable reply from the Department, would be heard at the Labour Court. I understand a copy of the communication was sent to the Department of Finance on 18th February expressing the view that the claim was in breach of the national wage agreement. I understand that no reply has been received from the Department of Finance on this matter.

I have also made certain inquiries as to developments with local authority employees. I understand that only in Tipperary South and Kerry has agreement on a 41½-hour week been reached. Incidentally, the Labour Court recently recommended that Donegal County Council should remain on the 42½-hour week as this was the normal rate for similar employment in this county. I am asked to point out that developments so far would not justify the Department agreeing to a reduced working week. Obviously, if a previous application was made, as Deputy Tully has just said, and the application has been lost or mislaid, the situation might be altered. I will give the Deputy my personal undertaking to have this question further examined in the light of what he has just said.

Mr. Tully

Would the Minister not agree that where a request has been made for a change in the hours or conditions of employment the least that could be expected is an opportunity to discuss the matter at official level? Many men complain that this was not done. I see no reason why it should not be done between trade union representatives and the Minister's officials.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I am sure in line with what the Deputy has said about the usual approach of the Forestry Division in regard to these matters it was probably due to the fact that they were awaiting a reply from another Department before communicating——

Mr. Tully

I appreciate that. I am not condemning the officials for this, but if the Department of Finance can sit on something and no reply comes back, the Minister can understand what my members would say when I have nothing to show them.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Yes, I can. I hope from that point of view that what I have said will put the Deputy's situation as well as the Department's in proper perspective.

Deputy O'Donovan asked if Norway Spruce and Cyprus Spruce have been superseded by Contorta Pine. The answer is that Norway Spruce is still used where suitable. It is slower in growth than Sitka. In general Sitka Spruce and Contorta Pine are used more extensively because they are the most suitable species for the land types. Sitka Spruce is a very fast-growing tree, producing timber very suitable for general construction purposes and, in relation to thinnings, ideal for pulp. Contorta is ideal in very exposed conditions and is a promising timber, to judge from such testings as have hitherto been possible, but it has less to offer than Sitka and there is a tendency for more land to be put under Sitka.

Deputy O'Donovan also asked a number of questions on the economic side. If he pleaded guilty to a lack of knowledge concerning trees, I can plead guilty to not having a total knowledge of the answers to the economic questions he asked. He spoke about macro-economists and I do not think I could even describe myself as a minuscule economist. In any event, commercial accounts as such were not set up because they would have been a form of window dressing in such a long-term business. The conjectural value of growing stock would have been too significant an element in the balance sheet. In its planning the Forestry Division aims at an interest rate of approximately 5 per cent. I hope Deputy O'Donovan will be satisfied with that information.

In regard to subhead C.2—Forestry Development and Management—the Deputy asked why this, which he said concerned the effective working of the Department, was costing proportionately less by way of increase than the staff side over recent years. Forestry development and management is partly wages and partly materials and equipment which have not increased in price anything like as rapidly as wages have risen. That explains why this apparent difference in growth has taken place.

Deputy O'Donovan also mentioned paper pulping by State enterprise and asked if this was dropped like a hot potato. Perhaps not. Perhaps it was just let fall like a tepid cabbage. In any event, I am satisfied with the way in which the timber industry is carrying on its operations. Our advice is that the existing industries should continue to expand before consideration is given to the establishment either by private enterprise or otherwise of any additional plants. I am satisfied this is good policy. The expansion which has taken place in the plants already in operation will be able to take care of the expanding production of our forests. They are already absorbing all available pulpwood and our thinning programmes are up-to-date. I have no reason to think that the establishment of a State controlled factory is either necessary or desirable.

Deputy O'Donovan also raised the question of the travelling expenses of officials and he was quite amusing on the subject of the "British Ass". The seminar in the United States was an international study session of tree breeding. This is a matter of considerable concern to us. It was attended by one of our research staff engaged on genetics and my officials say they are very satisfied that it was a worthwhile effort.

There has, of course, been a considerable exchange of views between officials here and officials in both Britain and Scotland over a long number of years and attendance at the British conference was a useful opportunity for continuing this exchange of views. Before we took over the State very good work had been done by the British in the field of forestry in the early part of the century. One example of that is Avondale, the home of Charles Stewart Parnell. There has always been close co-operation between British foresters and our foresters, to the mutual advantage of both.

Deputy Murphy was concerned about some hundreds of acres in Castletownbere. I must confess I had not heard about this, but I will be glad to have the position examined and I shall communicate with the Deputy as soon as possible.

Deputy Carter, Deputy Belton and others mentioned private forestry. Deputy Dr. O'Donovan expressed the view that the grants are sufficient and said it was not the Minister's fault that private planting was at a lower level than it should be, but I think it is fair to say that these grants have not been increased since 1958. I am concerned about this because of the obvious steep rise in the cost of maintaining the planting, screening and thinning programme in the last 13 years. I have advised the Minister for Finance that I will be making a strong claim for an increase in the grant for private planting next year. A good case has been made for such an increase and I can assure the House that, when an increase is given, the system under which the grant is paid in instalments at the moment will also be examined, with a view to improving it.

Deputy Belton talked about private enterprise and that falls in with suggestions made by Deputy Carter and, outside this House, by Mr. Paul Rowan about getting people involved in forestry through a bond issue carrying certain advantages to those interested on a private enterprise basis. This is something which is being examined very closely and I think Deputy Belton's suggestion should also be examined closely because anything which helps to remove even some of the burden of the financial problem from the State must obviously commend itself.

Mr. P. Belton

It also has the advantage of taking money out of the cities into areas in which it is required.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Exactly.

Mr. P. Belton

At the moment the return is 4 per cent or 5 per cent. It would have to be about 9 per cent. It could be 4 per cent or 5 per cent plus concessions.

Mr. S. Flanagan

In estate duty?

Mr. P. Belton

Yes, something like that. The suggestion is worth examining. I shall refer to these suggestions again as soon as the examination I mentioned has been completed.

Mr. S. Flanagan

With regard to conservation, this is a matter of deep concern to Members of this House. It is one in respect of which forestry has a very special role. I do not share Deputy Tully's fears about fire risks in forests as a result of bringing people in. Experience has shown that the presence of a very large number of people in forests has been a dramatic success because they are a safeguard against vandalism since, with so many people about, the vandal is fearful of retaliation.

Mr. Tully

What about the careless person who drags along behind?

Mr. S. Flanagan

He is a risk, but so far our experience has been very good. The response to the opening up of the forests to the public has been nothing short of dramatic. A number of new walks will be opened in the near future. These are playing a significant part in the leisure activity of the people.

I do not think a crash programme is needed to educate people in conservation. This was successfully done, I believe, during Conservation Year, particularly where children were concerned. The success was not even throughout the country. I could not pretend it was but, where it was a success, it was an unqualified success due to the enthusiasm and co-operation of the teachers and community leaders. I would instance Cork where 12,000 essays were produced in a competition sponsored by the North Cork Federation of Golf Clubs and the Regional Game Council by the pupils of the primary, secondary and vocational schools. The standard achieved by these young people was quite admirable. It was unbelievably high. In other parts of the country a similar competition was not quite so successful. But taking one thing with another the young in particular and people generally to some extent have become conscious of the issues involved in conservation. I agree with Deputy Belton and others who mentioned particular cases of pollution in Dublin and elsewhere that action is urgently needed in certain respects. This would be action that would be taken not by the Minister for Lands but rather by the Minister for Local Government or the local authority.

What I am concerned about is that some overall responsibility in this regard should rest with somebody and possibly not with the executive agent but with somebody else. This is a problem which is being examined by a departmental committee at present and I can only hope that the results of their deliberations will be forthcoming soon. Some practical progress has been made: responsibility for pollution of the sea has been taken over by the Minister for Local Government from the Minister for Transport and Power and the more centralisation of responsibility there is for the actual carrying out of anti-pollution measures the better. Of course we also need to bring our laws up-to-date in this respect.

I must say to Deputy Cooney and other Deputies who mentioned the matter that the wildlife legislation which was promised last year is ready for introduction, and has been ready for some time, but due to the backlog of work which we have here, both in regard to Estimates and legislation, we were not able to introduce it but I hope we will have it safely off the ground in the near future. We do realise that this forms an important and integral part of any effective conservation policy.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is aware that arterial drainage is having a tremendous effect on wet lands on which birds normally stay as, for instance, at the mouth of the Boyne?

Mr. S. Flanagan

This points to the need for some form of national advisory council which will weigh the balance between drainage on the one hand and wet land on the other, and so forth. I should mention the "Country Code" a little booklet which is still available to anybody who wishes to have it. We distribute the booklet to school children mainly and to organisations interested in various aspects of conservation. It is small and handy and sets out the way in which people should behave in the countryside when enjoying its benefits as part of their leisure activities. We still have plenty of copies available for distribution to anyone who is interested.

We have to face the fact that the improvement of the situation where it happens to be less than good and the prevention of damage to our environment where it is good at present will both cost a considerable amount of money although I am inclined to agree that it will cost us less on the preventive side than on the curative side and if we can take the necessary steps now we will not find ourselves in the position in which other countries are and that have to take very expensive remedial measures, sometimes at a very late stage. In general we are fortunate, except in one or two instances and perhaps in one or two areas, that our pollution problems are not acute and our environment is still basically good. It is up to us to take the necessary steps to preserve it where it needs to be preserved and to cure the defects where they need to be cured. I am satisfied that so far as responsibility rests with the Forestry Division of my Department we have discharged our responsibility fairly and honourably in the past couple of years.

There are many other points which were mentioned but I will deal with them either personally or through my Department by direct contact with the Deputy concerned. In conclusion, I want to thank all Deputies who spoke for their contributions and I hope that our work will be sufficiently up-to-date the next time to be able to have a full scale debate and not a truncated one such as we had on this occasion.

Vote put and agreed to.