As so much has been said on this Bill I do not propose to detain the House very long. We are disappointed with the contents of the Bill. We are of opinion that the Minister, instead of adopting what the Americans call a "stand pat" attitude with regard to this important matter should have used the opportunity given him by the Bill to improve economic and industrial conditions in the country. This Bill merely leaves matters as they were. Certainly, the Minister cannot claim —and I do not think anybody can— that conditions economically and industrially are such as he or anyone else would like to have them, or anything near that. Industrially this country is in an impoverished condition. That is not the Minister's fault. It is not entirely the fault of this House any more than of the Minister. Largely it may be said to arise from historical causes, but the opportunity that we now have, such as it is, to legislate to improve industrial conditions in the Twenty-Six Counties is not being used to the full by the Minister, or to anything like the full extent. There is a field here that is ripe for development. Unless we are going to make use of all the powers we have to develop that field, and to encourage others to come into that field and till it we are not doing our duty.
The Minister was a disciple for a long time of the late Arthur Griffith. He maintains, and his Party maintains, that they are following the Griffith tradition. But, if I know anything about Griffith's economic education, he certainly would not follow the industrial and economic policy being pursued by the present Government in propounding Bills of this kind. This is largely an agricultural country——