If we read what the Danish sociologists think of their country, we find that they are not worried about its economic development, or about problems of the Free Trade Area; their concern is to preserve the very soul of Denmark. Again, take the mighty United States. I have lived there and seen its problems. Personally, I would not bring up my family there, if I had a chance to bring them up here. Every nation has its problems. Let us face ours squarely and honestly. Perhaps our greatest difficulty here is the ease with which our people can go to England and America and fit in there as very welcome citizens. That, you might say, is our unfortunate, or fortunate, position. If we were down in the South of Europe, or pitched somewhere in Africa, with our present standards, we would be the Americans of the region.
But, however, praising ourselves is not sufficient. We must seek the causes why we are not making more headway at present. We cannot claim that we are making sufficient headway when we are confronted with our present alarming figures for emigration and unemployment. We must face the fact, and this is no discredit to any of our previous Governments—I take it they all did their best—but the sad fact is that there were 24,000 fewer in employment last year than the previous year. I hope that the trend is picking up, and I think it is, but it is a grim reality.
Emigration and unemployment are problems besides which Partition fades into insignificance. They are our main problems, and let us not delude ourselves that by chasing Partition we are solving the other two. In fact, Partition will be solved only when the others are well on the way to solution.
I suggest that the reason for our failure to make more headway has been our failure to develop here a Christian democracy. This is aggravated by the stranglehold that bureaucracy has on our country.
Bureaucracy in an occupied country, which we were until quite recently, has as its main function to put across the policy of the occupier. In other words, it must be ruthless. It does not consult. It has to act virtually as a dictator. Then in a new country, after liberation, those organisations so necessary in a democratic country, rural, professional and trade organisations, are not developed or in a position where they can take the responsibility they must take in any enlightened democracy. We did not have these in the twenties and we did not have many of them in the thirties, and consequently those engaged in our bureaucracy, the officials at various levels, were forced to continue in almost the same frame of mind as they had when we were an occupied country.
Conditions began to change in the forties, and are changing very much at present. Our bureaucracy badly needs to adjust itself to the changed conditions, to realise that the fullest possible use must be made of all our organisations, that our organisations must carry their full measure of responsibility; we must develop together as a real example of a Christian democracy, putting foremost the principle of subsidiary function, that no body will attempt to do itself what a lesser body can accomplish.
Holland subscribes to this principle. So does Canada. So do all countries where democracy is enlightened and progressive. The older democracies such as England and America have had their democratic organisations for years. They are the competitive factor that ensures that their bureaucracy works. That is the main factor, I submit, that is missing in our democracy to-day. However, it is a lack that, once recognised, can be rectified by a deliberate policy.
The Vocational Commission reported in 1943. I must say that, in 15 years, very little advance has been made in vocationalism, notwithstanding the recommendations of that commission. Perhaps, the major advance has been the organisations that have developed in that period. Speaking of agricultural organisations, we had Muintir na Tíre beginning in 1938 and Macra na Feirme beginning in 1946. Thus the organisations that are needed for the building of a proper vocational order are now well developed, and so the recommendations of the Vocational Commission can be put into effect.
I do not want to be taken as criticising the Civil Service or any other body. I am simply stating the facts. We cannot blame the Civil Service and other bodies for taking powers unto themselves in the absence of responsible organisations. We have all had experience of irresponsible organisations. Many of them are still with us to-day.
The stranglehold of a bureaucracy is evident at all levels to-day. First of all, let us take the case of any Minister. A Minister is almost powerless to change a Department. He has not got the forward line to give the necessary impetus and originality to his Department. The regular officials of a Department are properly the defence of the State. They know all the answers as to why things do not work. But the spark of originality can be provided only by the Minister bringing in his own special advisers for the duration of his ministry.
The United States work that system and it works excellently. Ministerial advisers are brought in from business, agricultural and other organisations. Some may be agricultural officers, others being teachers and professors. Their originality makes a splendid contribution to the advancement of the State. We have a defence, but we have not got a forward line. That is why there is essentially so little difference when Ministers are changed in a Department. It is not enough merely to change the full-forward of a team. You must change a few men as well.
In dealing with the professional bodies, I submit that all our Governments are very much at fault. Such bodies are not treated as partners or as responsible citizens. Nothing emphasises that more, I think, than the recent crisis in regard to agricultural prices. I submit that in such a case the farmers should have argued the agricultural prices around the conference table.
As in England, a price should be negotiated. After all, the State cannot pay out more than it has in its coffers, and any responsible organisation of farmers coming in can appreciate that fact. Having negotiated a price, it is then the duty of the organisation concerned to carry its full share of the unpopularity of any reduction of price entailed, and also carry its full share of stimulating the increased production that is necessary to overcome a price cut, rather than be forced as they are to-day to come out and attack the Government.
You cannot give money out, if you have not got it. I submit that our organisations are being put into a very false position, by being treated as juveniles, to be entertained, but not consulted. However, there is one ray of hope. It is the recent annual price review promised by the Taoiseach. I hope that develops. That could be an excellent means for both Government and organisations alike, all working and teaming together, to better develop our resources.
Again, with regard to the professional organisations concerned, I am very much connected with many of these, especially the Engineers' Association, Cumann na n-Innealtóirí. I find it an excellent body of enthusiastic young Irishmen who are keen and eager to play their part in the full development of this country. They are not satisfied with the contacts they have with the various State Departments. They feel they are being treated as juveniles who have little or no contribution to make. In fact, they have the capacity for making many constructive proposals.
I hope in the next session to be able to speak on the Adjournment on a report that the Engineers' Association is bringing out on national development. I know they have worked hard and long at it for the past couple of years. I believe it is a document that will be well worth serious study. I suggest that the Departments concerned should team up with the engineers, meet them and use them. They have ability and something to offer. Together, a notable contribution can be made.
Senator McGuire spoke about the balance between public and private enterprise. We all recognise the necessity for that, but I am stressing this other balance which is even more necessary—the balance between our bureaucracy and our professional and rural bodies. We need to keep that very much in mind. Our need is to train up our young men and women for leadership so that they can play their part in the organisations.
I am proud and happy to be associated with the adult education movement in University College, Cork. We have a similar movement in University College, Dublin. University College, Dublin, deals largely with the problem of training leaders for the various city organisations. In University College, Cork, as befits a rural university, having done its bit on the town side, it went to the country some seven years ago. To-day there are 270 young farmers holding diplomas in five counties in Munster, excluding Clare. They studied two nights per week from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. combining both sociology and leadership, on the one hand, with rural science and economics on the other.
These young men have enthusiasm and a broad outlook on the country's problems. They are not just solely concerned with farming problems. I submit that with that leadership available, a vast change will be made in agriculture. The change is already evident in many of the labour organisations, and even in management. We have got a management course, the only difference being that we have not been able to get management to take examinations. At present 130 young farmers are completing the first year of their course.
The only criticism I want to make in detail of the Estimates is the fact that we have been handed £2,000 to do a job that costs £3,500. Accordingly, we in University College, Cork, have no option but either to go into debt or to cut the courses. It would be an act of national sabotage to cut the expenditure on our courses. We must go into debt to continue. I appeal to the Minister for Finance to right this in the present Estimates if possible, otherwise we will have to go into debt to continue these courses.
The work of outside bodies is making itself apparent in a very healthy way in the many ratepayers' associations we have in the country. These are doing excellent work on the rates at present. They are adopting a businesslike approach. They are saying to those in charge: "You get so much money; do the job. It is not a question of calculating how much money you want in order to do the ideal job. You must cut your cloth according to your measure."
A good step was taken in Cork recently where the committee rightly decided they had too many top administrators, that the county should capably be run by one county manager and two, rather than three, assistants. It can be done by cutting red tape, by devolving authority, by giving the public representatives on the bodies more say. Let our council members function as befits members of corporations or county councils.
I do not wish to take up an undue amount of the time of the House. I have pointed out briefly what I believe needs most urgently to be rectified in our Government system. I pointed out that it is a hang-over from the time we were an occupied nation and that we have made progress. Perhaps we could not devolve responsibility before this. However, the time has now come to put the principles of vocationalism into practice. This will do far more to solve our problems in the future than any amount of State aid and further bureaucratic controls. Vocationalism is the key.
What can we do ourselves? I believe that each section can make its contribution to the economic development ahead. First, let us place at the head of everything, the community. We are all Irishmen first—the community or the taxpayer. The taxpayer at present is called on to pay, to provide the money for subsidies both to agriculture and to industry. The taxpayer's natural reaction is: Why should he? We must show the taxpayer why he has to pay those subsidies. We must make him feel they are all part of a definite plan. We need a five-year plan, with targets as to what must be produced in the various years. We should set up these targets and show the taxpayer where we are going. I have no doubt that the taxpayer will willingly make his contribution thereby making as big a contribution to the advance of the nation as the farmer who is working in the fields.
Then we come to consider the contributions that the various sections of the community can make to the national five-year plan. First, consider the agricultural community itself. Everybody has stated in recent periods that our whole future depends upon agriculture, that it is our greatest single industry and that we must develop it fully before we can really hope to develop the industrial arm which we also wish. The two may go hand in hand, but the development of agriculture is the primary necessity at present. I now wish to give a few facts and figures in that connection because there seems to be a lot of very wrong thinking abroad at present on agriculture.
I want to deal, first of all, with the idea that we are a great agricultural nation, or that we are producing such tremendous surpluses. A few figures will show the magnitude of these surpluses. Last year we produced a record amount of butter—50,000 tons. We exported 15,000 tons of that to the British market. The total imports into England last year were 360,000 tons. In other words, we supplied 4 per cent. of the British market. New Zealand exported to England 150,000 tons—ten times what we supplied.
We are sending the produce of half our pigs—that is, somewhere around 500,000 pigs—to England. The total English consumption at present of pig products is over 10,000,000. Accordingly, we are supplying 5 per cent. of the market.
Take beef production. Our total potential here, if we kept our stores at home and fattened all these, is 300,000,000 lbs. of beef in the year— enough to feed 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 Englishmen or 2,000,000 Americans. In other words, our present production is just a drop in the ocean. It follows, therefore, that we have not the capacity within ourselves to create gluts on the foreign market. If gluts come, it is New Zealand and others that will create them. If New Zealand increases her production 10 or 15 per cent. that can create a glut. The little increase we can achieve over the next few years, or, even with planning, in the next five or ten years, can never of its own accord create a glut. It follows that the only way we can develop here is to produce as much as we can. We have to export to live. Agriculture is our mainstay in exports.
The question is raised: can we export economically? There is no use in producing an article costing 3/- and having to sell it for 2/6. We want to know if we can export agriculture economically. We have the facts, in the Farm Survey, to answer this question. In that survey, you have the record of 600 farms out of 2,000—the top third of our farms—and how they work; then the middle third; and then the bottom third. If we aimed at raising the general level up to the level of the top third of our farms at present, I submit that would be a reasonable target for, say, ten years. This would give, on the Farm Survey figures, an increased production of about 45 per cent.
An increase of 45 per cent. on last year's production of £180,000,000, at last year's prices, would amount to £82,000,000. Perhaps, you say, we would not get that, selling abroad. All right. For argument's sake, assume that for exports abroad we must accept a price reduction of 25 per cent. on home prices, on the understanding that exporting abroad does not in any way affect the price we get for produce on the home market. Let us agree, then, to take 25 per cent. less—and that is a very drastic figure, because any extra cattle we produce are at present prices and many of the extra crops will be consumed at home. Therefore, if you take a reduction of 25 per cent., that gives a potential cash return of £60,000,000 for our increased exports. If we go back to the Farm Survey we can calculate, based on the pattern of production on the upper third of our farms, what the increased costs are likely to be. I will give just a few figures. Fertilisers would cost an extra £3,000,000; machinery, depreciation and equipment would cost an extra £5,000,000; foodstuffs, which would probably be bought from the neighbours, would add up to another £10,000,000; seeds would cost another £1,500,000; other items would cost another £5,000,000. The total cost would amount to £25,000,000, leaving a balance of £36,000,000 to reward the extra labour involved in the increased production.
The Farm Survey also shows what extra labour would be required. We find what we all know, that the better worked farms are employing more labour, between family and hired labour, than the other farms. We find that the amount of labour required on that pattern would be 70,000 men and accordingly the additional 70,000 men would have a labour reward of £35,000,000—that is an average of £500 per worker engaged in the industry. I submit that is an attractive proposition at any industrial level. Remember that I took export prices at 25 per cent. under home prices. That gives the answer to the question, "Can we produce?" Of course we can, if only we face the task.
We might not realise the calculated increase of 70,000 additional labour force because advances in technology would probably cut it down somewhat. However, even if we employed half that, 35,000, that is a substantial increase in employment, when we consider that with our whole industrial efforts we have placed only 50,000 extra in employment over the past 30 years.
There is one snag, that more capital is required for this development. One expects that. The better farmer has more cows, more houses and more machinery. Again, from the survey we can actually estimate the additional capital required. The figure is about £6 an acre, or something between £80,000,000 and £100,000,000. Even, I submit, expressed in that way, an industry capable of employing a sizable fraction of 70,000 people, capable of earning a labour income of £35,000,000, would be attractive, even if it required £100,000,000 capital.
Agriculture, however, has one advantage over industry, it does not need all the capital before it begins to produce. It is a gradual process; you put in a little this year and you get increased production, you put in more next year and so on. With a factory it is different; you require to build the factory as a start. I submit that the only practicable way to provide the capital for agriculture is to pay prices for agricultural produce that will enable the farmer to plough back. That is the only efficient way of doing it, and it is the chief reason why we should pay high prices for our agricultural produce at home. The higher prices we pay the better, because the quicker we can get our agriculture capitalised and thereby get the increased production of which agriculture is capable. These are the simple economic facts of the case.
These facts have to be explained clearly to the taxpayer; a five or ten year plan has to be set up; and the taxpayer has to feel that he is as much part of the increased effort as the farmer working in the field. We all, at the end of each year, want to see that our production target for that year has been reached. Remember that England set herself a target after the war to increase agricultural production by 50 per cent. She kept a check on that target from year to year and she actually beat the target. We can do the same.
There is just one snag—I do not wish to go into it right now—it is this question of 70,000 workers on the land. This calls for turning back to agriculture the cream of our young men. In other words, it calls for the development of farm apprenticeship. This has been very much in the news recently and many of us have been working steadily at it for the past four or five years. I do not wish to detain the Seanad on it now, as it would take far too long. The principle in it is that any young lad who decides to make a career on the land must have a hope of one day becoming a farmer, if he is good enough. Farm work has to be given the status that it merits, it has to be made a national service that a young lad is proud to undertake. Macra na Feirme has given status to the farmer. Our young farmers now would not change places with any professional, but status has to be given to the farm work if we are to develop our agriculture.
The other bottleneck is that of marketing. That has to be dealt with also, if we are to succeed. We can do it, but we have not tried up to the present. I have to make reservations on that point. We did not have the produce, or the continuity of supply, which would have enabled us to make a proper attempt at marketing. We can face that task and, please God, with a united effort, we can succeed. It should be remembered that we are looking only for a couple of million people to buy our produce, we are not asking everybody in England to buy it. We can supply only a couple of million. Even if we advanced spectacularly over the next five years, we could still supply only 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people. The population of America is increasing at present at 2,000,000 a year; therefore, we should not take a defeatist attitude. We can sell and will sell, please God. It merely demands courage, patience and originality.
I turn now to the question of bureaucracy. What contribution can bureaucracy make to our increased efforts? Here I want to go on record as supporting Senator O'Donovan when he says that the Government cannot deny to its own employees that which has been granted to other employees. That is only simple justice. I believe that increases should be conceded to those employees, if they are conceded generally to other employees. However, we then have a right to ask from these employees increased effort, just as all other employees getting wage increases are asked for increased effort. Now, what increased effort can we get from our officials? The average number of hours worked by an official at present is something like 33 to 35. I submit that, in our present national crisis, that is too low. Many of us would be prepared to put in that amount voluntarily. If an increase in wages is given, as it must be and should be given, the hours of working should be increased to at least 40 hours a week. Large economies could be made by suspending recruitment to a great extent for the next three, four or five years. I do not see any merit in providing jobs just for the sake of jobs. If we lengthen the working week, we should not need that recruitment. If we cut out red tape we can get increased production from our civil servants just as County Cork is going to get it from its officials. But you may say that it is not fair to young men who are perhaps preparing for the Civil Service or similar positions. If such young men are material for the Civil Service, then they are quite capable and competent to follow a university course and they should get it. If we are not prepared to give it to them, they can readily get it in an English university, though I think we should provide it for them. In other words, we should offset the decreasing opportunities for our young men by increasing the opportunities for university and higher technological work. Then we will create the team of young men which will be needed if we are to develop as an exporting nation. You cannot simply double or treble your exports without a vast and well-trained organisation to handle those exports.
I now come to Senator Murphy's question of workers involved. I believe there should be production targets, but as a nation we must guarantee specifically that anybody producing more will earn more. We have got to dispel the belief, which unfortunately is very often only too true, that a man can work himself out of a job. That is the real reason why Irish labour is not more productive. I for one cannot blame them. It is for the same reason that the farmers have not succeeded in giving greater production. They feel that with increased production they will have less at the end than at the beginning. I submit that there is common ground between the industrialists and the farmers for that fear. We can get spectacular achievements in production from our labour when we guarantee them an adequate reward.
I next come to two or three other categories in the community. We are all very concerned about the very large number of unemployed, not alone so much with the loss of money as the psychological effect which unemployment has on the individual. The Government might well consider allowing any unemployed man to work two days a week without any reduction in his unemployment allowance. It may be said that there will be abuses but there will always be some people who will take a mean advantage of any scheme we draw up. Our task should be to do the greatest good for the greatest number and not merely to catch out the small percentage of people who will try to defraud any regulations or system which we bring in. With the unemployed we should also build for the future. We should encourage them to attend trade classes in our vocational schools, and aid them so that they can make profitable use of their period of unemployment.
In regard to teachers I think that they can make a tremendous contribution, and are making it, but they can make an even greater one by spreading enthusiasm for work, love of the country and a belief in the future of the country. That is the special task of the teachers. It is not demanded in the school syllabus but it is a work that they can do better than anybody else. Teachers can play an ever-increasing part in the many organisations that are developing and in development committees. We have professional personnel scattered all over the country and there is no town in which a proper development committee could not be set up to prepare development plans for their region.
Finally, in regard to the universities. They are already making a contribution. The hours which we work in universities are often up to 12 and 1 o'clock at night. It is not merely a question of the hours which are written down, it is the time which you have to devote to thinking, to research, to writing and to planning. That is the special function of the university. A university is not merely a threadmill for lectures. We have got to give lectures, but I submit that the real contribution that the university can make to the country is on a different level. It is in training in leadership and in this field I submit that there is nothing more important than the adult educational movement. Speaking for myself and my colleagues we are never happier than when returning home at 12 or 1 o'clock, having gone 40 or 50 miles to an adult educational centre. It is an education for my university colleagues and myself to go and meet the enthusiastic young men and women of the adult education movement, whether they are farmers, trade unionists or ladies. At such centres lectures are on a topic like increased production for an hour, an hour and a half or perhaps two hours and then one stands up to a barrage of questions for another hour and then sits down to tea with the class. That is as fine a contribution as we can make to the general community effort. Again, of course, we can be of service to Irish industry, though our technological departments are very small. But small and all as they are, our university departments are at all times eager and willing to give service. Speaking for Cork, a very notable development has taken place there in the past few years where industrialists are rallying around to supply funds to the university for research and in return they are having their research problems investigated as far as we can do with our limited resources.
I must conclude by returning to ourselves here in the Seanad. What can we do? Personally I feel that we have not done very much this term. We have met only on five days. I think it is a record of which we cannot be proud. Admittedly it was not our fault as Bills were not coming up from An Dáil, but we should make work for ourselves. We read of the tremendous work which is done by other Senates, America for instance, where there are Senate Investigation Committees. This Seanad could make a tremendous contribution in that regard by having Seanad inquiry committees. The days of the standard commission are, perhaps, numbered. Commissions are more or less in disrepute. They take too long to accomplish anything and we have had too many bitter experiences of them in the past—the latest, of course, being the fiasco of the Milk Costings Commission. That has shaken my faith in all forms of commissions. I do not want to hold up the House on this matter now, but I will deal with it during the next term. I will then ask for effective action from the Seanad. It is something which we have to face up to, something that has to be fearlessly investigated and exposed if the Government is to regain the confidence of the agricultural community, or, should I say, the confidence, not alone of the agricultural community but of the community as a whole? When the rest of the community see what has been done to agriculture, they will have no faith in any commission set up for any purpose. I do believe that if we only think we can make work for ourselves, work that will justify our existence here, and work that will make a very important contribution to the welfare of the nation. I see no reason why we cannot achieve what the American Senate Committees have done. Above all, we can instil confidence. Let us constantly repeat the blessings we as a nation enjoy, and when we thank God for all we have got, then we should be in a proper frame of mind to plan for the future.
