The Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill as usual has been availed of for the purpose of undertaking a national stocktaking in respect of the general policy of the Government. In particular, the Government's policy in respect of industrial and agricultural development has been reviewed in the course of the discussion on the Second Stage of the Bill. I just want to travel some distance over that ground in order to mark here and there appreciation of what has been done by the Government, and at the same time to indicate that in my opinion sufficient advantage is not being taken by the Government of the opportunities which present themselves to-day for developing our industrial potentialities, and for conserving for our people the opportunities of manufacturing the commodities which our people require. So far as the Government's policy has manifested itself in the form of an active development of native industries, I think that policy has everything to commend it. After all, in a world which is now bent irrecoverably on developing a policy of national self-sufficiency, it would be the height of absurdity to imagine that a small State such as this could continue to exist by keeping its market open for the produce of every other land but its own.
I welcome, therefore, every effort that has been made by the Government to develop our industries, because I see in the development of our industries not merely the production of goods which our own people require, and not merely the provision of employment for our own people, but the provision also of a market for such raw materials as can be produced in the country. When the Government's policy in respect of the development of industries is under consideration, I think those who are concerned with the provision of work for our people, those who are concerned with the provision of a market for our raw material, those who are anxious to maintain here a volume of work which was formerly given to other countries in providing the commodities which our people required, must feel satisfied that the development of our industries marks a very substantial step in the direction of building up an economically and industrially healthy nation here. After all, the abandonment of an industrial development here must inevitably mean for our people that large scale emigration which we experienced from 1922 to 1932. Emigration is deplored to-day and rightly deplored, but during the years from 1922 to 1932 this country exported 250,000 of the flower of its manhood, the cream of its womanhood, to make for the greatness of other lands. When we think of that appalling drift of our people, when we think of that appalling exodus of the most virile of our people, we must welcome an effort to display here a balanced system of economy which is providing at home opportunities which our people were then forced to seek in other lands. If the drift of emigration on the large scale which we knew it in former years is to be stopped, then the development of industries must be welcomed in order to provide work for our people and to avoid the loss of our manhood and womanhood in the form of emigration to other countries, to seek there a livelihood which they were not able to obtain at home.
What intrigues me in discussions on industrial development here is to ascertain what exactly is the policy of the Fine Gael Party. That Party has voted against protection of our industries on almost every possible occasion, and if the speeches of Opposition leaders are to be taken as an index of their policy—they must not always be taken as an index—then one can only come to the conclusion that the policy of the Opposition is one of giving this country a mild and insipid form of protection, if in fact their policy is not one which embodies a very substantial measure of free trade. Deputy Dillon has already described the schemes for growing beet and wheat as gigantic frauds. Presumably, the Fine Gael Party, if they ever come to office again, will take steps to abolish beet growing and to abolish wheat growing, since Deputy Dillon is convinced that the production of beet and wheat is part of a gigantic fraud.
The agricultural community, therefore, must, if Deputy Dillon's words are to be taken as indicating the policy of Fine Gael, prepare themselves for the possibility that, under a Fine Gael administration, wheat-growing and beet-growing would be abolished. On the industrial side, Deputy McGilligan echoes that view, and his viewpoint on the development of industries as at present proceeding, is somewhat comparable with Deputy Dillon's view of wheat-growing and beet-growing. If we take the two viewpoints, I think the only conclusion one can come to is that Deputy Dillon stands for a policy of free trade in agriculture and Deputy McGilligan for a policy of free trade in respect of industrial commodities, or, at most, perhaps, the Party might be induced to give adherence to a policy of insipid protection. We are living, however, in the year 1937; we are living now in a period when every country in the world has found it necessary in its own interest to adopt a policy of national self-sufficiency. I agree at once that a policy of national self-sufficiency has considerable limitations in any country, and I agree it has very definite limitations in a small country; but, in a world where mass-scale production is the order of the day, where markets are virtually closed to all exporting countries, and where the surplus products of mass-scale industry in one country are exported and sold at slaughter prices in the open markets of another country, it becomes utterly impossible for us to maintain here an open market for the produce of other countries. Whether we like it or not, therefore, we are driven, as a matter of self-defence, to protecting our own industries, and that can only be done in existing circumstances by the imposition of substantial tariffs on commodities produced elsewhere and which are capable of being produced here.
Deputy Dillon's viewpoint, as expressed in this House within the past fortnight, was substantially that we ought to let in here quite a variety of commodities simply because they cannot be produced here as cheaply as they can be produced elsewhere. The logical end of that policy is to allow in practically every commodity that could be produced here, because you can find, amongst all the countries of the world, certain countries which will produce goods much more cheaply than we can produce them here.
