Last night I was about to deal with the agricultural side of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. This has gravely perturbed many of us who are closely connected with agricultural organisations and agricultural developments. We firmly believe that this programme is going to fall between two stools in regard to its target for agricultural production. It has aimed too high for the apparent continuation policy that is advocated; in other words, jog along as we have been and assume that we can merely set down a figure for increased productivity from our agricultural workers of 4.6 per cent per annum and that with a few minor adjustments—a few heifer and other schemes thrown in—the result will be attained.
I believe that is not so. I believe the figure called for, 2.7 per cent per annum, requires a far greater shake or change in our approach to agriculture than appears to be envisaged anywhere either in the Second Programme or in the pronouncements that have been made on that. I believe if we face up to creating this changed approach, we should aim not at 2.7 per cent but at a more realistic figure, a figure that would be well within our capabilities—at least four per cent or five per cent, or even better. Let us say a minimum of four per cent. I hope to substantiate that by quoting from some real authorities on this subject.
The Second Programme is based on the assumption that Ireland will be in the Common Market by 1970. At the moment that appears to be a very dubious proposition. England's entry does not appear imminent and certainly if there is a Labour victory at the polls in England in the summer, there will be then very little likelihood of England being in the Common Market by 1970. Yet, taking that as an assumption from which to proceed, it does seem rather strange that all the burden is being put on industry. Industry is to take the shocks of entry into the Common Market with the disappearance of very many large-scale industries at present, such as the motorcar assembly industry, and so on. It is to absorb these shocks and at the same time provide some 86,000 new jobs in the period.
It is suggested that agriculture, which is at last supposed to be about to get some fair treatment by entry into the Common Market, with some hope of getting near to European price levels, will lose 66,000 workers. The burden will be placed on industry of finding new jobs for those workers. In the general target, agriculture is to increase by 2.7 per cent while industry is to increase by 7 per cent. There is an imbalance there, quite definitely, which is seen in great relief when contrasted with the programme in England. The English programme aims at an increase of 4.4 per cent per annum. Industry is asked to exceed that target, at 4.6 per cent, and agriculture is to be slightly under, at 3.5 per cent. That is an expansion target in an agricultural industry that has already had a very spectacular expansion. So I fail to see how these figures can be reconciled.
Before proceeding to some of the authorities, I want to point out a fundamental difficulty here and a fundamental fault. It lies in having a different approach in the planning of the programmes in relation to agriculture and industry. That difference was first brought into relief when it was known that agriculture was not to be included in the Economic Development Council that was set up, called the NIEC, over one and a half years ago. That was a fundamental mistake because the two sectors must be developed in harmony and must also have the same pattern of development. The fundamental aim of NIEC was to secure harmony between industry and labour on the one hand and Government planning on the other, to ensure that there was free exchange across the conference table and that all efforts were pooled to produce the best result.
This segregation has been commented on in a very forthright article by Mr. Garret Fitzgerald on "The Second Programme and Agriculture" in the Irish Farmers' Journal of Saturday, 14th March, where he said:
A feature of the industrial consultations has been the give-and-take between the programmers and the industrialists, whose views on likely trend in home demand, exports, imports and output are given considerable weight by those responsible for the Programme, and will undoubtedly determine the final shape of the industrial targets. This whole process of consultation is moreover being supervised by the National Industrial Economic Council to ensure that it is carried through effectively, comprehensively and speedily.
There is the Kernel, Mr. Fitzgerald goes on to comment on the grave mistake made in not giving similar treatment to agriculture. This is highlighted by the conflict at present between the ideas of the producers, the National Farmers Association and what they believe is possible, and what the Government plan believes is possible.
The only information we have on the steps taken is that given by Professor Louden Ryan at the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society, where he spoke on "The Methodology of the Second Programme". The only apparent consultations were with the Department of Agriculture.
In regard to the industrial plan, there was close consultation with the Economics Research Institute and, naturally, they produced a cross-checking plan by Dr. Geary, which was modelled on the Irish economy. I should like the Minister, if possible, to allay our fears in regard to the agricultural plan. There is no reference that the corresponding organisation, the Agricultural Research Institute, was consulted as to the targets for agriculture. My faith in the Agricultural Research Institute would be shaken considerably if I thought that their expansion target was a mere 2.7 per cent. I do not believe for one moment that any one of their scientists would subscribe to such a paltry target for agriculture in this decade. If I did, I would advise the Minister for Finance straight away to curtail the rather generous grant he is giving to that body.
Likewise, we know definitely that the National Farmers Association had not been consulted. It is fundamental in modern development that it must be a team affair between the producers and the Government planners. Nowhere is that more important than in agriculture. If there is one lesson we can learn from our competitors in the various countries, Denmark or Holland, New Zealand or elsewhere, it is the central position that is occupied in each of those by the farmers' organisations. We lacked that here until quite recently but now at last we have reached that stage and we have the National Farmers Association who are doing a very good job, comparing more than favourably with what is being done by similar organisations elsewhere. It did seem that we were in for a period of very close co-operation but there has been disharmony in recent weeks. I hope the Minister for Finance, who is the soul of tact, will use his good influence to see that any rift does not develop or widen and that the same speedy process of planning is applied to agriculture as is applied to industry.
The NFA have produced this first-rate document which we might call the Green Book. It is worthy to rank with the Grey Book and the Blue Book as a major contribution to our economic thinking and our development policies. I hope members of the Seanad will get copies of this, if they have not already done so, because it is a most interesting and detailed assessment of our capabilities itemised down through the various sectors of agriculture, dairying; livestock, horticulture et cetera. The figures are set out in minute detail so that it forms a very clear basis for planning. Right through runs the optimism and the feeling that agriculture must play its proper role. The target set is 4 per cent, or slightly better. On page 147, the figures add up to a total of 3.9 without including the contribution from horticulture and some of the crops, potatoes, sugar beet and poultry. So it probably adds up to somewhere around 4.2 or 4.3 per cent. It is based on at least retaining the present numbers on the land. That is the kernel of it. In other words, it is a recognition by practical farmers of the central fact in agriculture that the greatest obstacle to increased production is lack of a skilled labour force.
They give the expenditure that will be called for and that expenditure, by any measure, is modest and well within the capabilities of the State because in this document we can take it that the total increase they say can be attained in gross output in the period 1964 to 1970 is some £89 million. When that £89 million gross output in agriculture circulates through the economy, paying for some of the seeds and fertilisers being used in agriculture or spent by the farmers in buying necessaries of life or on certain pleasures such as motoring, as it passes through different hands, it expands by about a further 6 per cent so that it would give a figure of somewhere around £140 million to £150 million of an increase in the national income. Then the ordinary tax laws, whether applied to petrol or cigarettes or other things, operate on this money and, on the average, the Exchequer gets back something between 25 per cent and 28 per cent of national income. If we take an average figure, it might be a little above or a little below that, but you would expect it would recoup something around £48 million to the Exchequer each year or, over a seven-year expansion period—which is taken —begin from nought and go up to £48 million. It means that the Exchequer would be better off to the extent of £168 million.
The cost as set out here calls for an expenditure of £300 million, of which it proposes that £100 million should be contributed by the Government, £100 million by the farmers directly from their own resources and another £100 million by them from borrowing. The Government contribution should allow for some deductions due to the drop in the TB scheme and would call for additional investment by the Government of £10 million per year for seven years or £70 million. I put it to the House: is it reasonable that out of increased tax, the product of £168 million due to this expansion, £70 million might be asked from the Government as a hand-back to aid the process?
That seems reasonable by any standard. To put it another way: it is merely suggesting that the increased produce should be exempt from all taxes and make no contribution to general taxation for some few years. That again seems a business-like proposition. The whole difference between the £168 million and the £70 million would not remain in the Exchequer, that is, the balance of £100 million, because some of it might be needed to subsidise some of the exports. Even allowing for a fairly high level of subsidy, there would still be a substantial balance remaining in the Exchequer.
Consequently I suggest to the House, the Minister and the Government that the target of four per cent as proposed is a feasible target well within our capabilities. It provides for an additional 66,000 new jobs or, at least, it offsets the loss of those proposed in the Blue Book and from that point of view, I think it is something that is eminently practicable. This view, as contained in the booklet of the National Farmers Association, has been the result of a great deal of study and research on their behalf by various committees and economists and others they consulted in drawing up the document.
It is further corroborated by a publication which came out two months ago and which probably has not been noted as much as it merits. That is the ICMSA publication by Mr. Raymond Crotty, M.Sc., entitled "Agriculture in an Expanding Irish Economy". This is a first-rate publication written by a man who is among the leading five agricultural economists in these islands. Mr. Crotty is unique in that he farmed in Kilkenny for a few years before continuing his studies. His brilliance has been commented on by all. In this he has produced a study that is as fine as ever I read. It gives facts and figures right down the line. In it he comes to the inescapable conclusion that agriculture must expand by at least 50 per cent in the decade 1960 to 1970 if our aims for that decade are to be realised.
Briefly, the central thesis in this is that to increase the gross national product by 50 per cent requires roughly a doubling of imports. That will require, in return, that we will have to send out double our exports. At present 75 per cent of our exports are either agricultural produce or derived from agricultural produce. Therefore, 75 per cent is agricultural in origin. If you double exports and make the reasonable assumption that agriculture should maintain its contribution to that, percentagewise, it means you have to double the amount of agricultural produce being exported from here.
At present, roughly two-thirds of our agricultural produce is consumed at home and one-third exported. If you have to double exports, you have to add another one-third to what we are producing—a 33 per cent increase. Likewise, if the gross national product and standard of living go up by 50 per cent, as we hope in this plan, then part of that money will be spent in buying increased quantities of agricultural produce. The best estimate of the experts on that is that there will be an increase of about 30 per cent in the consumption of agricultural produce. That requires 30 per cent of 66? per cent, which is roughly a further 20 per cent, all adding up to an increase of 50 per cent. To attain that, you have to do slightly better than 4 per cent per annum.
There you have again full agreement with the figures as given by the NFA. I certainly should like to see a study and some figures produced by the Agricultural Institute. I cannot understand why in the present case they were not asked for a study similar to that done by Dr. Geary for the industrial side. We should try to get that without delay. The doubling of exports involves just a seven per cent per annum increase in our sales abroad. That is certainly not outside the bounds of possibility, especially in view of the great strides being made at present in our marketing organisations.
The spectacular successes of Bord Bainne and also of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board are great auguries for the future. They are doing an excellent job. Their chiefs are quite satisfied and confident that they can cope with any marketing problems that may arise. In fact, it seems a tragedy that in the current year, which is exactly one and a half years after the foundation of Bord Bainne, the chief of Bord Bainne has stated that we will be short 20 million gallons of milk this year to fulfil the markets we got since last year. That seems an extraordinary position. It shows we are reverting in some measure to the fly-by-night type of marketing we indulged in, unfortunately, in the past. In other words, when we got a group used to buying our products, then next year came and our products were not on sale to them, so their taste for those products was lost. I should like to ask the Minister if the statement by Mr. O'Reilly concerning the 20 million gallons was brought to his notice and if anything can be done about it.
Then there is also this fatalistic acceptance of the fact that there must be a flight from the land which is permeating all thinking on this programme, such as the calm acceptance of a loss of 66,000 from the land in a period of ten years. It is just accepted that such things are happening internationally. Of course, these matters should be examined critically. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from page 18 of Mr. Crotty's booklet, which I think summarises all this:
The dependence of the Irish economy on agriculture is greater than some commentators have, of late, been inclined to suggest. Overconfidence, engendered by an uncritical assessment of the nature of the economic growth achieved in recent years, may be largely accountable for this. Public concern for agriculture has of late tended to be based on social welfare rather than on economic grounds. The attitude has been that, if all is not as it might be, an additional vote for this or for that out of an expanding revenue will set grievances right...
A further factor which no doubt has contributed to the current pejorative attitude towards agriculture is the widespread existence of agricultural surpluses in Western Europe and the United States. These surpluses clearly indicate that there has been, in a real economic sense, an over-expansion of agriculture. In those countries where this has taken place, notably Britain, the United States, West Germany, Italy, Belgium and France, it is economically desirable that agricultural output should be stabilised, if not decreased. But the error is frequently made of arguing from the general to the particular. Because in many neighbouring countries agriculture is already over-developed, and ought not to be further expanded, it is wrong to assume, as tends to be the case, that Irish agriculture ought not to be further expanded either. There are special factors applying to Ireland which make it the exception that proves the rule. If, in Western Europe and North America generally, economic progress is likely to be furthered by a curtailment of agricultural output it does not follow that this is the case in Ireland also.
Economically an industry is overexpanded when, given a free market, resources can be moved from it to other industries in which they will achieve an output of greater total value.
He goes on to prove that, of course, this does not apply here. If we move those resources out of agriculture—that is the 66,000 who are to be moved out —we move them into England, and so they are outside the Irish economy. That is a totally different situation from the one that prevails in the country that will help them to get full employment.
Mr. Crotty makes the case that if the European economy were run by a central planning agency it is more than certain that they would not advise the movement of labour out of Irish agriculture, unless they were concerned with the effects in Central Europe and were trying to restrict more intensive production to the small farmers there. I have given a rather brief outline to show that quite a lot of thinking must be done on agriculture, and that there must be quite a lot of real consultation before we get a finalised target.
I suggest that the present target falls between two stools. The target should be at least at the four per cent level. There is need also for the creation of conditions which will attract and hold the necessary skilled labour force on the land. The idea of equality of opportunity will have to apply as it applies in other walks of life. A young man who is prepared to work on the land must have as an inalienable right the opportunity of one day owning some land, if he is good enough. A young man in any of our towns or cities can aspire to become an engineer or a doctor, and if he is good enough he can attain his ambition. Something similar is required in the case of agriculture.
On the question of policy, we see that the third arm of our economy is emerging as tourism. A great deal of notice is focussed on this by the many statements from those concerned. I am a little perturbed about this industry as a whole, because, as it is at the moment, it is far from being an ideal type of industry. It has a short season, and it gives employment to young boys and girls who have nothing better to do at the end of the season than go to England. I suggest that if there is to be increased investment of public money in tourism, a good deal of it should be channelled into efforts to create steady employment in the tourist industry. That involves making a very decided effort to lengthen the tourist season considerably, and to give full employment to staffs of hotels and other people. The slack in the tourist season should be taken up. There should be training courses in the various adaptations that are required. If that were done, October and part of November, and probably the early part of the season would be brought into the tourist season. I suggest that the tourist industry for four or five months of the year is a type of industry we would be almost better without.
We are not satisfied that any Government have tackled the problem of our emigrants in a realistic way. In fact, we have tended to wash our hands of our emigrants immediately they left on the ship, except to hope that they would send back what are called emigrants' remittances, which help to get us out of our balance of payments difficulties. We should provide liberal aid to centres overseas, and ensure that they are first-class centres for keeping our emigrants together, for advising them and giving them some of the assistance they should get. We are just extracting the last pound of flesh and giving nothing in return. The remittances they send home at present run to £12 million a year. We use that money in our economy. It figures in our national income. It is subject to our tax laws and it produces £5 million a year, but we do not spend £1 of that £5 million on our emigrants. It is all used within our own State.
I suggest that our emigrants have a strong claim on the tax that is raised on the pounds and shillings they send home to help those they left behind. I should like to see an Irish centre established in London. I know the work that is done by the Irish Club and others, but I think a centre should be established with ten or 20 times their resources. Welfare officers should be attached to it who would do everything possible to help our emigrants to get adjusted to their new life, and who would run training courses. Perhaps that might be done on this side, but it could be followed up over there. It is no excuse to say there are many organisations to cater for them. We must not start thinking in pounds, shillings and pence. In this case we really should think in millions. We should be prepared to spend as Denmark spent on marketing organisations and centres in London, for our people as well as for our markets.
Finally, we read quite a lot in the papers about the agitation over take-over bids, and the vast fortunes which are being made. I wonder what is Government policy in this regard? Are they looking calmly at this question, or can they be encouraged to ensure that there would be at least one representative of the Minister for Finance present at each take-over bid to claim his share of the easy money that is going?
Finally—and I mean it: I am still within my time — I should like to appeal to the Minister to use his great influence, as he has used it many times in the past, to try to bring the various groups together to ensure that there will be united action on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. My memory of the Minister goes back quite a long way. When I was a student at University College, Cork, I once heard the Minister introduced as “An Fear is grámhaire chroí i nÉirinn”. I hope he will spread that measure of goodwill over to the problem of getting the organisations to work together. Apparently consultations with the industrial groups have reached a sound and reasonable footing here at present and are satisfactory to all. In other words, the groups concerned feel that if they go into consultation they are really being consulted, that their point of view gets across and that it has a full chance of being considered and probably of being a big influence on the plan. But other groups do not feel this way.
The educational groups in the country are still smarting under this type of second-class treatment. They feel they are just expected to carry out what the Department concerned dictate rather than be consulted as they should be consulted in a modern democratic State. We should get away from that. We should credit the groups who go to the trouble of making representations with having something to offer and we should look on this as team work.
Then there is the glaring example of the way the agricultural organisations feel they are being treated on this. I appeal to the Minister to do his utmost to ensure that all are harmonised together in our common effort to ensure the success of this plan.
While at this stage we have to be highly critical of anything we think should be criticised in the hope of improving those features of it, once the plan gets the final imprimatur I know we will all combine together to ensure that the targets are exceeded. I suggest that in the present debate the Minister has heard the contributions and noted the great research work put in by Senator Dooge and Senator O'Brien and there are many others here who are equally anxious and who have put in considerable research work.
I ask the Minister to give us a means of communicating that research work and our efforts to those who are concerned with making the plans. It is not just sufficient that we should simply talk here for an hour or an hour and a half, as in the case of Senator Dooge's valiant effort. We want something more than that. We want to hear our figures thrashed out across the conference table. If there are errors in them, we want those errors pointed out. If there are not errors in our figures, we want them to carry the weight they should carry in the planning quarters. Officially or unofficially, the Minister should make some arrangements to see that this is done.
A wonderful step forward would be to ask Seanad Éireann to set up a Committee on Economic Development. If he does that, I think it would give the Seanad an opportunity of making a real contribution to this problem. If we had those opportunities, I think we would be far less critical in our public utterances on this matter. If we have no other means of communication but what we can do in public then we have got to take that means and we have to give the figures as we see them. We have to try to focus public opinion on it. Surely it would be far more in keeping with the modern planning spirit if we could do a great deal of that across the conference table? I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to try to see that that is brought about. If he does, I assure him that we in Seanad Éireann will not be found wanting either in energy or in the giving of our time to this great national effort.
