So far as I can follow the Minister, in the rather serious, if not sensational, statement he has made in moving this vote, he only explained how the amount of £160,000 was likely to be used. I am prepared to vote for this amount, and, if necessary at a later date, a greater amount for the same purpose, provided I am satisfied that the amount that is now being asked for is only being voted for the purposes of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act. If the figure of £160,000 is only being asked for that purpose, I would like some explanation from the Minister as to what the difference represents. I say that because I am not prepared to allow the amount to go into a Vote of this kind under a general description in the Estimates. I do not want an amount slipped into that Vote which would prevent me getting a suitable opportunity of discussing in detail the reason for it, when, as a matter of fact, I do not know at the moment what the difference represents.
I really think that Deputy McGoldrick really hit the nail on the head when he said that we are faced with the position which the Minister has explained to the Dáil to-day because neither the Minister nor the Executive Council have had vision to see what was coming upon them. I am only an ordinary Deputy, and I have not by any means the information that is at the disposal of the members of the Executive Council and the Extern Ministers who are charged with the government of this country. I have had, however, an amount of information and a number of letters conveying to me for some time past the attitude of the banking institutions in this country, and the effect of their obstructive tactics in the development of the trade and commerce of the State. As a result of that information, and not drawing on my own imagination, I put down the following question on Thursday, the 11th December, 1924, addressed to the Minister for Finance—
"To ask the Minister for Finance if, in view of the restrictions on credit and the industrial depression resulting therefrom, he is prepared to set up a Commission to inquire into the operations of banking institutions in the country in respect to credit facilities."
The Minister was as usual evasive in his reply. This is the reply he gave me—
"In the absence of evidence on the contingencies put forward by the Deputy, namely, that industrial depression is the result of unreasonable restriction of credit by the banks, I am not at present prepared to adopt the Deputy's suggestion."
I am glad that the Minister has told us that, as a result of his experience— and the experience one gets is in a dear school—his view is quite different because he is confronted with the situation that he has admitted to the Dáil. He admits that what I conveyed on the 11th December last is a fact. He has produced evidence to convict himself. It is an extraordinary state of affairs in any State, and especially in a new State like the Free State, that the banking institutions will not have as much confidence in the Government of the country as would enable them to advance three-quarters of a million of money for the development of the industries of the country which help to a large extent the prosperity of the banks themselves. The prosperity of the people and the development of the country is very largely bound up, and helps, to a considerable extent, to make banking institutions more prosperous.
Personally I am not prepared to do anything for private banking institutions which would enable them to get a greater dividend than they are getting to-day. I think they are doing very well. I have always tried to realise that the development of this country does not and cannot depend on physical effort, or on the willingness of the individual to work. While we are faced with a situation such as the Minister has now explained, it must be obvious to the Minister and to the Executive Council that they must have a considered and definite financial policy, such a policy as will prevent the savings of the people from being diverted into institutions which will work against the development of the State itself. If the Minister's action will, and I believe it will, tend to counteract the effect of what I have stated, I am prepared to go further than the Minister has asked, and in addition to the Vote now asked for, at a later stage to vote for a larger sum for the National Land Bank to do for the people of this country what the banks holding the surplus savings of the people are unwilling to do. According to the returns, and I am not quite sure if they can be relied on, the savings of the people have been put into banking institutions—the most powerful of which is registered in England—to the extent of £195,000,000. It is a disgraceful and discreditable state of affairs that the directors of these banks, having the use of £195,000,000 of the savings of the Irish people, are not prepared to advance £750,000 for the purpose of finding work for the unemployed and developing the industries of the State. That calls for immediate action on the part of the Ministers, and the Executive Council should realise that until they have a well-considered, definite financial policy there is no use in talking about work and developing the industries of the country.
A Deputy, who is a supporter of the Government Party, said in a speech recently that it was proposed to look for a loan of £20,000,000 for the purpose of making roads good, carrying out the Shannon scheme and the drainage of the Barrow, and other things not mentioned, but that Deputy did not explain whether the money was to be borrowed externally or internally, and I think that was important. It is all very well going out on electioneering stunts and making ridiculous statements like that and, perhaps, misrepresenting the Minister for Finance when other and more important things should be considered. There is one thing which I think may result from the disclosure of the Minister to-day, and that is that those who are anxious, apart from political views or factions, to develop the State, its industries and its natural resources—if they are the patriotic citizens they claim to be— rather than that their money should be diverted into the institutions which refuse not only to assist the State but who obstruct the State, will put it into the National Land Bank to assist the State and stop this anti-State activity. I hope patriotic citizens will think the matter over seriously, and if necessary withdraw their savings from banking institutions whose headquarters are in England, and who are playing England's game to-day. I was speaking to a prominent man quite recently who claims to come into contact with a prominent Minister of the English Government, and in a conversation they had recently this prominent Minister, who had a good deal to do with the setting up of the Free State through signing the Treaty, said that it was within the power of the British Government at any time to cripple the finances of the Free State and thereby the Government itself. I have no doubt he was speaking the truth. Deputy Good, in endeavouring to drive home this great argument about no income tax, spoke of the money diverted outside the Free State by reason of the difference in income tax charges in Great Britain and the Free State. The Deputy knows quite well—better than anybody—that this money was diverted outside the Free State before the Treaty was ratified.