Deputies, I suppose, understand that only the Second Stage of the Bill is usually discussed. That does not, of course, preclude Deputies from moving amendments on the Committee Stage.
Committee on Finance. - Central Fund Bill, 1945—First and Subsequent Stages.
Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to apply certain sums out of the Central Fund to the service of the year ended on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, and the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five, and one thousand nine hundred and forty-six.—(Minister for Finance.)
Bill read the First Time.
Agreed to take the Second Stage now.
Mr. Corish
The House must take all stages to-day?
I have been so informed. I cannot speak authoritatively on that.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I do not wish to open an elaborate discussion on the Second Stage of this Bill but following some of the statements made by the Minister, and the general tone of his reply, I should like to say that the really important matter with which we are concerned at the moment and for the future, is to concentrate on increasing the production of this country both agriculturally and industrially. If we are to drag across the facts that must face us in doing that, the facts that we have to make use of in setting about increased agricultural and industrial production, men's names, history or anything else that will obscure our judgment and prevent us joining in a full, complete and frank discussion of the facts, then we are injuring the prospect of our people, particularly the less economically strong class of our people, in getting a decent subsistence. If we drag across the discussion an argument as to whether we are going to produce for export or for home consumption, then we are going to interfere, I believe, with our full capacity to produce here. If we produce, then we can make the best possible use of what we produce. Whether we dispose of its abroad on a definite plan that we would agree would be the most suitable way of using the nation's wealth in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, or whether we dispose of it at home, I think that both on the industrial side and the agricultural side, to discredit the export market is to do very great damage to our material interests. We may feel that we are flattering ourselves as Nationalists and keeping in accord with some kind of tradition that we never attempt to understand but, if a Nationalist is a person who takes the resources of the country and utilises them to make the most of them, do chum glóire Dé agus onóra na hÉireann, and for the betterment of the people of the country, then we are not Nationalists by acting in that way.
On the side of industrial production certain complaints are made from the Labour Benches of the rise in the cost in recent years of industrial products as compared with say the pre-1932 position. I would again direct attention to the fact that the committee examining plans disclosed that, in the year 1929-30, we exported £17,000,000 worth of products that were not agricultural products and in ten years that has been reduced to £4,000,000. So that there is no use in thinking that by ignoring the export market we can increase our industrial products.
If we concentrate on increased agricultural production, we can feed our people better than if we did not concentrate intensively. The one thing that will induce confidence and induce the capitalisation of our agricultural industry is the knowledge that the market is vast, and we will serve our own people in agricultural production here if we realise that we have a vast extension of the market for our Irish farmers outside in Great Britain. If we take that into consideration, and if we set ourselves to produce not only for our own country but for the profitable market that exists outside, then our production will be increased without our overheads being necessarily very much increased and we will be able to establish credits to buy the things we want from abroad and give our people what they need in the way of food at a cheaper rate than we otherwise would if we narrowed our vision and simply set ourselves to produce for our own people.
That is the thing that I think stood out in the whole debate. We had the farmers rather disparaging the idea of production for the export market. We had the Minister rather exalting the idea of the home market, too. It is a very great mistake. It is reducing our standard of production, and if we reduce that, then we reduce the standard of living that we can offer to our people.
The Minister, in this Bill, seeks to obtain money for certain purposes. I endorse what Deputy Mulcahy has said with reference to the necessity of expanding production and raising the standard of efficiency in production. I think the Minister misunderstood me. I am sure he did not want deliberately to misrepresent my remark in regard to total expenditure. I stated definitely that only a small fraction of the total expenditure of £52,000,000 is being devoted to production. I did not say that no part of that expenditure was being devoted to production. If the Minister will take the trouble of looking up the report of what I said, he will find that he was, perhaps, not deliberately but certainly misrepresenting my remarks, and he did try to make a case against me that I disregarded the truth completely.
My complaint all through in regard to this high rate of expenditure of approximately £1,000,000 per week has been that only a very small fraction of it adds to the wealth of the nation. I do not think that any member of this Party belittles or despises in any way the importance of an export trade, not only in agricultural produce but in industrial produce. When we speak of the importance of the home consumer we are emphasising a fact that is well known to everyone, namely, that the motive behind all production is ultimate consumption by our people, and even if we do require to export a considerable amount of agricultural or industrial goods, we export them merely in order to bring into this country goods which our people can consume. That is mainly the purpose for which we export. If we did not require to import goods, there would be very little reason for exporting. If we did not require to import goods, we would be simply exporting in order to accumulate credit balances abroad which might, as Deputy Hughes suggested, be of very little use to us in the future. As it is, we export in order to import, and I think there is no member of the Farmers' Party who does not recognise the importance of catering for the requirements of the British market, because the British market is the only market to which we can export our agricultural surplus.
In addition to that, we can always be assured of securing from Great Britain a very large variety of things which we urgently need. Therefore, the economic systems of the two countries are complementary. I think every farmer realises that and endeavours to see that agricultural policy is directed towards making that aim effective. The events of the past few years ought, I think, to promote better trading relations between Great Britain and Ireland. Without going into the field of international affairs, I think there ought to be a better feeling between the Irish people and the people of Great Britain. In the past we have treasured the memories of wrongs which the British nation inflicted upon us in years gone by, but to-day we must realise that the British nation has treated this country very fairly in a time of grave danger and difficulty. Because they had done so our approach to the British people both in regard to commercial dealings and otherwise must be of a more friendly nature than they have been in the past. I am quite sure that the British people will approach us in a friendly and neighbourly way realising, as the Minister has said, that their country provides a good market for our exportable surplus just as our country provides a good market for them.
I have not much to say. I entirely agree with Deputy Mulcahy when he appeals for increased industrial and agricultural production. There is no hope or future for this country unless we make ourselves more efficient and produce more and better goods of all kinds.
Deputy Cogan, in his speech, yesterday, said that there was untold wealth in the land of Ireland. That is quite true. We have never in the history of our country extracted from the land anything like what it is capable of producing. I endorse what Deputy Mulcahy said to the effect that it will be more necessary in the future, conditions being as we know them to be, and as we may forecast them to be in the immediate post-war period, that we should keep our people on the land and keep them at home and fit and help them as far as we can by Government action to produce more and better goods for home production and for export. With regard to Deputy Cogan's speech, I only want to say that I have no desire at all to misrepresent him. I would dislike very much that any Deputy could be able to prove me guilty of misrepresentation, but the note that I took of that part of Deputy Cogan's speech was that he said that no part of this big increase, the increase between 1930 and 1945, was used to increase production. That is the note I took and if I am wrong I apologise.
Question put and agreed to.