I propose to deal with the administrative setting of the Department of Lands. My personal regard for the Minister and for the Department's secretariat does not in any way inhibit me from advocating very strongly that he should be declared redundant and that his Department should be abolished. I propose to elaborate briefly on this. I feel strongly that the Government should urgently reconsider the role of this Department within the Cabinet and within the operations of this House. This Department should be abolished as at present constituted because there has been no convincing reason in recent decades to make in any way unacceptable to the House a proposal to integrate this Department including the Forestry Division, into a revitalised Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
The reasons for the amalgamation— I do not think this is out of order in this setting—are quite obvious and self-evident and I think they have been fully endorsed by the recent Devlin Report. If these Departments were combined we would not in this House have to continue, by way of piecemeal debate, to insist on securing closer and more effective co-ordination and planning of the agricultural functions of the Government. This is a fundamental reason for advocating the integration of the two Departments—the possibility of operating the various agricultural services in the country more effectively and of ensuring more effective management of these services.
This would be enhanced immeasurably if we went back to the 1924 situation of direct integration of these two separate Departments of State. Co-ordination in this way is a rational proposition which I strongly urge the Minister to consider. I am disappointed that a small European nation like ours should have appointed a commission to investigate the State services and yet not take one iota of action on a major reform such as the Devlin Report advocated. I understand there may be a Cabinet division on this, but the point should have been stated for the benefit of the House.
I have no doubt that if there was integration of the Departments of Lands and Agriculture and Fisheries— and I would hope, in addition, to have arterial drainage and possibly the functions of the Board of Works affected— we need not in any way fear, as some public servants might fear, as indeed I should imagine particularly the public servants in the Forestry Division might fear, that there might emerge a monolithic, bureaucratic new structure. Although inevitably there would be more responsibility on the one Minister, there would be half a dozen assistant secretaries under the secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
This would ensure a much better intermeshing of the Departments, particularly in the formulation and execution of Government policy. These things are self-evident and do not require any great elaboration. Such a situation would give a shot in the arm to our agricultural policy which in my estimation—I do not claim any great experience of dealing with that Department apart from particular industries— is badly needed because the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries at the moment have not given any display of a sense of dynamism or innovation.
I shall pass to another aspect of the Minister's contribution. It deals with the life annuity scheme. I strongly suggest that there should be a complete re-examination by the Minister and the Department of this scheme. The Minister describes it as having had a moderate success. I am afraid his choice of adjective was rather curious because this scheme has been a failure. Let us be frank and admit that it has not had even a mild success. Since its inception we have had a sparse 22 life annuities set up and although I appreciate the difficulty of purchasing land from elderly farmers, from incapacitated farmers, from blind farmers, in return for life annuities, and although I appreciate the intractability of this problem, the record of 22 life annuities since the inception of the scheme is a cause for serious concern.
While the scheme is entirely voluntary, and while it would tax the imagination of the House to make it more effective on its present basis, it requires considerable examination. I think the Minister should, therefore, set in train a complete reappraisal of the effectiveness of the scheme. The very high hopes inspired by his predecessor two or three years ago have not materialised and, as I think the Minister implied in his opening speech, this scheme merits reconsideration.
There are two aspects of the sale of agricultural land to non-nationals with which I wish to deal. In dealing with a subject of an emotional character like this, we must put our cards on the table and ensure that the subject does not fall out of perspective. Rapacity in terms of possession of land is not necessarily a characteristic of non-nationals; it is as rampant in Ireland as in Germany or any other European State. I become slightly cynical about the show of self-righteousness which tends to develop on this topic. Rapacity is not perhaps our original sin in Ireland but there is cause for concern in the fact, as mentioned in the Minister's speech, that in the past two years alone some 9,300 acres have been vested in non-nationals with the sanction of the Land Commission. We are entitled to more information and explantation as to how this came about. The explanations given to the House for these sanctions are not adequate. The Minister stated that the types of property for which sanction was given could in most instances hold no attraction for the ordinary Irish purchaser. This, it was alleged, was the basic reason for sanctioning the sale of the bulk of that land. But I suggest the Minister should be challenged to elaborate on what precisely he meant by that statement, in other words, that out of some 9,300 acres some 5,000 held no attraction for Irish purchasers and therefore sanction was given by the Land Commission.
Without being evocative or trying to corner the Minister on an emotional topic I think he should inform the House on a general basis as to the location of these 9,300 acres sold in the past two years. He might give us some details, county by county, or give us specimen properties, which were sanctioned for sale to non-nationals, to convince us of the validity of his assertion. I think the amount of the sales and the proportions and implications are quite large. I am not raising the question in any jingoistic, non-nonnational sense but to dispose of, I hope, or at least erase, the disquiet which many people have about the allegations made from time to time, that some Members of the House may have more than just a parliamentary interest in the sale of land to non-nationals. I shall leave that without elaboration, but I think it is worthy of comment.
In our strictures in relation to non-nationals we should not ignore the abuse of our agricultural land resources by many Irish nationals. We should not ignore the speculation by means of auctioneering which goes on in respect of Irish land and resources by native speculators. We cannot segregate ourselves that happily. We should not ignore the evidence—admittedly not great but still there—of tax evasion on farm losses by the manipulation and abuse of land and property by Irish nationals, and well-heeled ones, well known to the Cabinet. These aspects of the matter should not remain unstated in the House because it is important that we should get the use and abuse of land into proper perspective.
I share with the Minister his very considerable concern for the difficulties facing the Land Commission. At times I felt the Minister was adopting, almost understandably, an attitude of half-despair that our land structure and infra-structural problems of Irish land will ever be resolved or even mitigated within our lifetime. The evidence presented by him and by Deputy L'Estrange is a matter for serious concern. There are some 350,000 farms in Ireland out of which 137,000 are farms of between five and 30 acres in size. Four out of every ten farms in the country may be classified as uneconomic holdings. The magnitude of that problem and the cold, harsh, agricultural realities behind the statistics should give us cause for serious concern.
While a minority of farmers on, say, 30-acre holdings could, as I have seen done in Munster, by exceptional industry based on intensive dairying combined with fully efficient pig or poultry production, get a living—perhaps some could get a very good living —we must face, in the reality of Irish life, that the vast majority of 30-acre farmers cannot in the foreseeable future of Irish marketing trends and prices get the kind of livelihood that would stop them from wanting to leave the land. It is not so much a question of a decent livelihood: it is not what they get from the land but the attractions to them off the land, in the relevant sense.
We therefore have a massive structural problem of Irish agriculture on our hands. The future of many farmers, whether we like it or not, seems rather black. I do not know whether those in this House have the political honesty to face up to the implications of that statement, but it is time we stopped putting our heads in the sand and hoping that miracles would prevent the decline which has been and is there and which, in the context of present Government policies, seems likely to continue in the very near future.
Another obligation devolves on members of the House, an obligation to act in a positive manner in relation to land. Everybody in the House today spoke about the need to give people more land but nobody asked the question: for what purpose? for what use? for what concept? for what idea? In almost every speech we had this obsessive aspect of people wanting land and nobody indicating for what purpose or use. This is an extremely difficult concept to get across because you get what may be called, and I excuse the Minister from it, the hack cry from some of the backbenchers of his Party who will say: "There go the Labour Party again, taking the land from the people and devaluing the sacred heritage of the Irish people."
We in this House have got to convince our people in many parts of rural Ireland that there should not necessarily be a perpetual national elevation—as it has now almost become in terms of the social attitudes of our people—of land, as such, which has, in many areas, destroyed family life in rural Ireland, which has, in many areas, crucified internal relations in townlands and which has, in many areas, almost completely perverted and distorted community relations all because, when an estate was divided, someone got five acres more than someone else.
In some respects this has been fostered by the politicians down through the years. So much so is this inbred into the historic and very necessary traditions of our people in respect of land and the possession of land, that today, in 1969-70, it has been elevated to a sacredness of concept which quite frankly at times I find nauseating and, in many respects, quite hypocritical. We have an obligation to say to many people in rural Ireland that a man with personal skill, with personal training, may be in a far better position living on one acre, or having no land at all, provided he has secure and well-paid industrial employment. This is a type of concept which quite often we tend to ignore in our discussions with the people. Rather do we tend to hope that someone will be on a 25 acre farm, secure in his rights of possession but locked for ever more in an uneconomic holding from which he will eventually emerge without a reasonable standard of life.
There has been a total absence of any effort to convince our people that land is not held as a total and absolute and irrevocable right as such. Some of our Church leaders might consider that concept and try to advise people accordingly. I think land is held as a community trust. Successive Irish Governments have failed quite miserably to convince our people that it is, in fact, an elementary concept of the ownership and possession of land, that it is held not as an irrevocable, personal, intrinsic right but in the form of a community trust and that, therefore, land acquisition for, say, the Forestry Division is perfectly justifiable in any social sense, that land acquisition for more equitable distribution is perfectly justifiable as well and, indeed, in many respects, very necessary.
Therefore, I would hope, if I may dispose of that point, that the current pathological obsession, if I may say so, of some of our politicians in regard to the possession of land will be reduced within the lifetime of this Dáil. I would hope that we would impress on our people also that having one acre of land, having on it an industrial plant based, for example, on agriculture, giving full employment to workers on a regular production basis, is, in many respects, a more viable proposition and more conducive to economic development, than 100 acres producing, say— this may be controversial—milk, which in the context of current prices and in the context of current massive European surpluses, may be poured down the drain in ten years time. Of course, one would be crucified in Irish politics for making these comments but I think they must be made if we are to revitalise Irish rural society. These are aspects which are worthy of consideration. I would hope, also, that there would be an equal sense of realism with regard to other aspects.
I want to pass on to what I would call the reality of the impending transfer of the Department of Lands to Castlebar. I would not like to see the Minister becoming redundant in the Cabinet sense. I think he could be far more usefully employed within the Government, if I do not sound too patronising. There is a considerable need for the Government to re-examine the nonsense talked about the transfer of the Department of Castlebar. I submit that there is need, as is evidenced in this House tonight, for constant communication between the Minister and his secretary, and the chief officers of his Department, which continually requires their presence in his office.
I do not think that the spurious transfer of 700, 800 or 900 civil servants to Castlebar will necessarily resolve the problem of decentralisation. A decent decision by the Government to have an industrial growth centre in the West of Ireland rather than a bureaucratic growth centre in a certain area of the public service in Castlebar, would be much more conducive to sane economic development in that area. This is not just to say that the Labour Party deplore a transfer to anywhere, or that we are opposed to decentralisation as such. This just is not a serious proposition. I know it was fostered by the Minister's predecessor with certain locations and certain desirable attributes in the political sense in mind, but I do not think it is worthy of general support.
Decentralisation in the regional development of the Forestry Division and the regionalisation and general dispersal on a provincial basis of the Forestry Division to where they are required throughout the country are much more desirable and logical propositions than having, God forbid, 850—I presume the Minister will keep about 150 of the executive staff in Dublin—of the Forestry Division staff allegedly based in Castlebar and 500 or 600 members of the Department of Lands also down there. This approach should be examined and re-examined by the Minister.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Forestry Division. By and large, I am not too familiar with the work of the Land Commission. In the past three or four decades we have built up a very considerable and major store of expertise in the field of forestry plantation and in the field of forestry management. The expertise that is available is underestimated by the Irish people, unappreciated by us and, in some respects, unknown to many people. This brings us to a central point in terms of State policy, namely, that it gives the lie to the concept that State enterprise is, of itself, inefficient, that State enterprise is, of itself, extremely bureaucratic and that State enterprise is not, of itself, in the long term interests of the Irish people. The Forestry Division of the Department of Lands have given the lie to that proposition and given considerable hope for the future in terms of industrial development.
Industrial relations in that sector of the Department are extremely good, by and large. From my contact with union officers representing the 3,600 men employed in the Forestry Division, I think they can verify that comment. The work study innovations, many of which were of a pioneering nature, were land-marks in terms of effective management. Therefore, we should not be unduly sparing in our praise for that Division of the Department.
We might advance further on a number of fronts. I would urge the need for an acceleration of the programme of acquisition for plantation, and so on. This is giving cause for concern in the Forestry Division. In 1961-62 we acquired 32,000 acres; in 1963-64 we acquired 29,000 acres; in 1968-69 we acquired about half of that only, about 14,000 acres, some 17,000 fewer than were acquired seven years previously. The slowing up of acquisition gives cause for concern. Admittedly, there is a decline, naturally, in the stock available and the potential development. There is bound to be a syphoning-off and a slowing down, but I submit that there should be a sharp examination within the Forestry Division and under the Minister's auspices to find out how best this programme of acquisition for plantation could be developed.
Another proposition I would put before the Minister is in connection with the thorny problem of State sponsored industries based on our forest resources. In the formation of policy in this regard the Cabinet has shown little imagination. The time is now ripe for a feasibility study by the Government, indeed, by the Division itself, admittedly on a long-term basis, perhaps, 1975 or 1980, of the introduction of a State-sponsored enterprise based on our expanding production of wood pulp. I appreciate that at the moment piecemeal industrial projects based on our growing pulp and timber resources must be encouraged. However, I find it contradictory that the resources of the State, the expertise of the public service, financed by the taxpayers should be for the sole benefit of private enterprise companies, either foreign or native, producing chipboard, newsprint, hardboard and so on. I know it may not be pleasant for these commercial enterprises to learn of the impending State interest in this field, but it is logical that as our resources expand in the decades ahead, we should not confine ourselves to private enterprise. We should, in accordance with the wishes of many Irish people, set about establishing a State-sponsored enterprise based on forestry resources. As I say, this is planning many years ahead, but this should give cause for an even greater sense of innovation in the Forestry Division.
Regarding the forests themselves I would suggest to the Minister that he should open up more effectively the resources of the State forests to the children and the youth of our nation. Coming from a typical concrete, suburban area of Dublin, I am very conscious of this. There are now 500,000 acres of forest in the country, and 25 per cent of that is certainly mature enough and close enough to the major urban areas to provide a golden opportunity for the further education of people of all ages and for the development of recreational facilities on a controlled basis. It is only right that people reared in suburban or municipal environment should be able to acquire an appreciation of the wild life in our forest. I would strongly commend to the Minister that in association with teachers and parents he would enable thousands of children and adolescents who languish in our cities in the early spring and in the summer months, to enjoy our national heritage and discover what is really Ireland. I would also hope that school transport facilities, which lie unused in the summer months, would be made available for this purpose.
I should like to make a special plea to the Minister, as Deputy Tully did, to improve the conditions of employment of forestry workers. Very often they work in exposed and wet conditions. I often feel that if the Members of this House spent a couple of months in the winter digging a few trenches on the side of a hill they would become less obstreperous—I am thinking particularly of Deputy Lenehan who is not in the House at present—and would be more appreciative of the work done by these forestry employees on our forest estates; and that the Minister and other Members would readily concede the rightful demands of these workers for adequate shelter and adequate cooking and heating facilities.
On arterial drainage schemes there are a large number of workers who have a major degree of skill, for example, workers familiar with difficult excavation work, with the maintenance of heavy mechanical equipment, with heavy dumper work and so on. Some of these workers complained that when they were asked to transfer from the Moy to the Boyne there were not available to them adequate transport and resettlement allowances. Such workers who make a very considerable contribution to the development of our lands should be treated much more generously on transfer within the arterial drainage scheme.
With regard to the pension schemes of workers in these services, I am extremely critical of the cynical attitude, one might even say the attitude of complete indifference on the part of successive Governments towards the pension entitlement and death benefit entitlement of workers employed by the Board of Works and other bodies within the State. It is a serious reflection on our so-called Christian concepts of social equality that such workers, after a lifetime of service to the State get a mere pittance of a Queen's gratuity, to use the old term. After seven years and up to fourteen years service, they get a gratuity of one weeks pay for each year of service; after fourteen years service and upwards they get two weeks pay for each year of service. Is it any wonder that there should be such cynicism, apathy and frustration among these workers when they witness the golden handshakes of the power politicians, when they witness the special care and consideration given to those who serve their party well, when they witness the generous pension and mortality schemes for bank management personnel, for industrial workers and others in outside employment?
In conclusion, I would urge the Minister to ensure that the various Government Departments, in consultation inevitably with the Minister for Finance, at least give generous terms on a par with what other industrial workers get when they meet the unions. I think there is a meeting pending on this matter. I hope this large body of workers, who have given tremendous service to the State, will be given their basic pension, superannuation and mortality entitlement.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on his contribution. I was immensely impressed by the concern he has shown for conservation generally. While I must advocate the rationalisation of his Department I have no doubt that the considerable understanding which the Minister has acquired from his own constituency of the problems facing the people in the West of Ireland and throughout the country could be made to bear even more fruit if the Departments were amalgamated and if he were given even greater responsibility within the Cabinet itself. With these reservations I welcome this Estimate.
