Less than six months ago we had a sham battle here between the Minister for Finance, supported by his very loyal colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce concerning the policy enshrined in what is known as the Central Bank Report. The Minister for Finance on that occasion made it quite clear that he was accepting the policy enshrined in that report while the Minister for Industry and Commerce endeavoured to persuade the House and, through the House, the people that he and the Government stood for its rejection. Now we are confronted with Estimates and a Vote on Account supported by a speech made by the Minister for Finance in which it is quite clear, to me at any rate, that the Minister for Finance, supported by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, has won this sham battle. Sham battle is all it is or all I can see in it. If, however, the speech made by the Minister for Finance on that historic occasion and, more particularly, the speech that he made here when introducing this Vote on Account, indicates the considered policy of this separatist Republican Government, then it is fatal to the future of this country. It is financial suicide to follow British financial policy when the circumstances and conditions in the two countries are so different.
We are a creditor country, high up on the list of creditor countries. Britain, on the admission of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is facing bankruptcy. A considerable portion of our surplus profits is in Great Britain by way of external assets, invested in a bankrupt country. We are asked by the Minister for Finance, supported again by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, as he will be on this occasion, to continue to invest in Great Britain the profits of our agricultural and industrial production, the profits of the daily labour of our people, and to increase our investments and external assets in Great Britain rather than use them for national development purposes to provide employment for our people in our own country.
That is a clear-cut issue. It is a fundamental issue. As far as this group is concerned, there is a wide gulf between that policy of the Fianna Fáil Government and the policy of the members of this group.
The inter-Party Government has been condemned in unmeasured language for repatriating or proposing to repatriate, not all our external assets, but a portion of our external assets for the purpose of carrying out works of a capital development nature, thereby providing increased employment. The short history of the inter-Party Government proves that that policy was to the advantage of the plain people of this country. Now we are asked to reverse that policy. We are asked to subscribe to a policy of restriction of credit and to follow Great Britain, with whom there can be no reasonable comparison, in pursuance of that policy.
Why is Britain carrying out a policy of credit restriction? It is in order to make it possible for people to be changed over from industrial employment to the manufacture of arms and armaments, atomic bombs and so on. Surely we are not expected to pursue that line of policy, if neutrality is the policy of this country to-day and if neutrality is to be its policy for the future.
By continuing to invest our surplus assets, the profits of our agricultural and industrial production, in Great Britain at 1 per cent. and less than 1 per cent., at a nominal rate of interest, we are allowing the profits of production in this country to be used by the British for the purpose of carrying out a rearmament policy. Apart from other considerations, is that in keeping with the policy of strict neutrality?
I want to know whether the policy outlined by the Minister for Finance in introducing this Vote on Account will help to increase agricultural production. All of us in this House, whether associated with groups or so-called individual Deputies, subscribe to the policy of increasing agricultural production in the interests of all sections of the people. Will we help to increase agricultural production by increasing the rate of interest on agricultural loans at a time when everybody is pleading for an increase in agricultural production? An increase in the rate of interest on agricultural loans will increase the cost of agricultural production. I cannot understand why Deputies like Deputy Cogan, who talks about interest-free money when he speaks in the Carlow County Council, can come in here and support a speech made by the Minister for Finance which amounts to a confirmation of the attitude of the Minister in increasing the cost of agricultural loans simply because Mr. Butler, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, increased the rates of interest in Britain for entirely different reasons. Is it not a glaring example? Is it not clear evidence that he is following the financial policy of the British Chancellor in the most patent and loyal manner?
By increasing the rate on agricultural loans, instead of reducing the rate of interest, as has been demanded very often in this House, we will not help to increase agricultural production.
Will we increase agricultural production by suspending the activities in connection with the acquisition and division of land? When the inter-Party Government was in office, several decisions were taken affecting the acquisition and division of large estates in my constituency. I can quote them if challenged. The Fianna Fáil Government, immediately they came into office, as far as I know, deferred some of the decisions and reversed the decisions in other cases. Does not every Deputy who represents an area where there is still land available know that if that land is acquired and divided and allotted to industrious people who have been working the land on conacre, and who will work the land to the best possible advantage, agricultural production will be increased?
I wonder does the Minister for Agriculture know the extent to which the Land Commission is responsible for reversing decisions of the previous Government and deferring others in connection with the acquisition and division of land? I challenge the next Deputy on the Government side who speaks in this debate to say whether the rules that were to be made under the 1950 Land Act have yet been issued or are in operation. I accuse the present Minister for Lands and his colleagues in the Government of deliberately holding up the issue of these rules so that they can hold up the operation of the 1950 Land Act, against which the Fianna Fáil Party voted when they were in opposition.
Can we increase agricultural production by slowing down the land reclamation scheme? The Minister for Agriculture will not deny that that is being done with his connivance and goodwill?