I beg to Move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock to-morrow.
QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT. - BOND ISSUES UNDER THE LAND ACT.
Earlier in the evening Deputy Johnson gave notice that he would raise a question on the motion for the adjournment.
I gave notice that I would raise, on the motion for the adjournment, with a view to further elucidation, and examination, the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture in reference to the guarantee by the British Government of the bond issues under the Land Act. It appeared from the statement made by the Minister that some discussions took place on this matter prior to the signing of the Treaty, and that since that time, and, as a matter of fact, quite recently, the British Government made an offer to the Saorstát Government that they would be prepared to guarantee the principal and interest on the bond issues by the Government of the Irish Free State under the Land Act recently passed. Now, it is very good and very kind, I have no doubt, of the British Government to offer to give the assurance to the landlords, or to any person who may buy land bonds, but I think it is a very much more serious matter, and one that requires some consideration at any rate. It may be easily justified, but it will require some justification, to say that the Free State Government has accepted that guarantee. As I say, it is very satisfactory, no doubt, to the holders of the Land Bonds, but I doubt very much whether it is so satisfactory to the stability or, shall I say, the independence of the Free State, in doing what amounts, in effect, to this: putting this State into pawn to the extent of the amount of the Land Bonds that may be issued.
To that extent, at any rate, we have said to the British Government: "I You are guaranteeing the principal and interest of these bonds, and, consequently, it will be your duty to see that we conduct ourselves properly, so that you will not be called upon to honour that guarantee." It will be the duty henceforward, if this proposition of the Minister is carried through, of the British Government, for the sake of its taxpayers, to try to ensure that the affairs of the Saorstát will be properly conducted so that they will not be called upon to guarantee both the principal and interest of these bonds. That obviously means that we are agreeing to that amount of interference. We are inviting them to make themselves confident of the stability of this State, to keep a watchful eye over our proceeding, to make sure that we do not overrun our financial resources, and, generally, to keep ourselves solvent so that they will not be called upon to pay up. Now this may be quite a wrong interpretation of what the Minister said, but putting the reference in the King's speech to the British Parliament alongside the explanation, so far as it went, given by the Minister, it seems to me to require further consideration, and ought to have discussion in the Dáil before it is agreed to.
I think that, unless further satisfactory explanations are given, it may be necessary to ask the Dáil to inform the British Government that we do not desire that they should pass this legislation which they propose to introduce. I do not think that the Dáil should allow to pass without very serious notice the proposition that for securing the landlords or the holders of land bonds the Saorstát is prepared to ask for, or even to accept, the offer of the British Government to guarantee these bonds. I say that it is putting this State in pawn to the British Government to that extent, and it is doing it by departmental action, without reference to the Oireachtas. I hope that the matter will be discussed or, at least, that the Minister, even at this stage, will say something to remove the impression that has been created by the reference in the King's speech in the British Parliament, and by his own statement this afternoon, which was taken on short notice.
took the Chair at this stag.
Deputy Johnson referred to the impression which has been created first by the reference in the King's speech, but it would be more correct if he referred to an impression which he himself wished to create. Even though I say that, I will go on to say that I agree with practically every word which the Deputy has just stated, and I am rather glad that this question has been raised now so as to give me an opportunity of allaying the fears of the very large number of the people in this country who are ready to smell a rat at the very first opportunity. The Deputy states that this is an attempt to come to an arrangement with the British Government behind the backs of the Dáil. It is not. He also laboured the point that it would be desirable that this Dáil should be the particular body to decide the very serious questions that arise in any financial transaction with England or any other country. I agree with every word of that. I reiterate what the Deputy has said. It is absolutely essential that this Dáil should be the body to say whether it is good business for us to accept any offer, financial or otherwise, made by England, France, Germany, or any other country. I agree with the Deputy that very important issues are raised in all these matters, and that they should not be decided by departmental officials or by Ministers or by would-be experts of any kind.
These questions of high policy are to be decided, and should be decided, by this Dáil, and this question that we are debating now—whether we should accept the offer made by the British Government to guarantee the land bonds—and all the issues which that offer raises, as well as all the issues raised by Deputy Johnson—and issues, perhaps, which he has not raised—will, I hope, be discussed and decided, with the full knowledge of all the circumstances, by this Dáil at the first suitable opportunity. I hope that that will allay the fears which the Deputy professes to have. I suggest to the Deputy that in the circumstances and in view of what I have just said, the proper time to debate all these issues is when the matter comes formally before us, when we make a proposal which we will recommend to the Dáil, and when the question has to be decided, yes or no.
Mr. O'CONNELL
May I interrupt the Minister to ask him whether he stands by the statement that the offer was made and accepted?
Mr. HOGAN
Certainly. An offer was made by the British Government, and, so far as I am concerned, and so far as this Government is concerned, they have accepted that offer, subject, of course, to the approval of the Dáil, just as the offer was made by the. British Government subject to the approval of the British Parliament. I have to reiterate here again a fact which Deputies seem constantly, either deliberately or otherwise, to forget, namely, that we are an independent country, but that England is another, and that when an English Government makes an offer of that sort it Must make it subject to Parliament, just as we can only accept subject to the consent of Parliament. That position is perfectly clear. Let us talk business, and this is a business matter. If business is to be done with an English, French, or German Government, someone must make an offer, and someone must accept. Once it is well understood that both offer and acceptance are subject entirely to the consent of Parliament, what is wrong? Where is the danger? Is it the Deputy's case that the English. Prime Minister came to us and said: "Look here, during the Treaty discussions we acknowledged our obligations for land purchase, and if you think it is good business we will guarantee the land bonds." We could not prevent them from saying that, and personally I would be sorry to prevent them, but we are entitled to consider that, if we think it good business subject to the Dáil. This business is being discussed here. It will be necessary to have legislation introduced into each House. The English Parliament can discuss this freely and independently, and we also can discuss it freely and independently. If the difficulty is as to who is to begin, it is childish to take up the time of the Dáil. I want to meet the Deputy fairly in this matter, and I want to get next him and see what he objects to. I would like to understand his point of view.
The Minister will perhaps allow me to say this, that the assurances that he is now giving me are very much better given before the issue of to-morrow's papers than after this discussion has taken place.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Is this by way of explanation or point of order?
By way of explanation.
Mr. HOGAN
That is the sort of thing. which I object to. The Deputy knows perfectly well that no member of the Government, not even such an important personage as an External Minister, is able to bind the Parliament of the nation. It is not good enough for the Deputy to come here and pretend that he thought that I went to England and told the British Government that I was going to accept their guarantee for land bonds which we were about to issue, and that I was not going to allow the Irish Parliament to have a word to say to it. That is a little bit too thin. If there are misunderstandings amongst ignorant people throughout the country, the Deputy has gone an extraordinary way about doing what he professes to do, namely, clear them up. The Deputy knows as well as I do that if an offer is made by the British Government, and accepted by the Irish Government, it is subject to the sanction of both Parliaments. He knows that perfectly well, and any attempt to pretend now that there was some attempt made here to come to an agreement behind the back of Parliament is not good enough.
On a point of order, the position should be very clear to the Minister that if it had gone out from this Dáil that we have accepted the offer which has been made, without the further explanation which the Minister has given to us—that they only accepted subject to ratification by the Dáil—the effect, of such a statement on this country would have been a bad one.
Mr. HOGAN
I am quite ready to believe that the Deputy was genuinely afraid that such an impression would get abroad, but from my point of view, I think there is very little danger of that. I hope that there is enough political education in the country to underStand clear political event of this sort. I do not think that there is any likelihood that such an impression would get abroad but I am willing to give the Deputy credit for thinking that there was some necessity to clear it up. If there were such danger, I am glad to reiterate that such arrangements must be subject to parliament. As I have already said, the English Government is the government of an independent country. It is meeting parliament for the first time, and it is a habit to put in the King's speech reference to legislation which it is intended to introduce.
I take it that that is the reason that reference to this arrangement was inserted in the King's speech. We will find a suitable time to discuss this question, and that will be when introducing the Bill. That Bill will be introduced pretty soon, because we are anxious to get ahead with land purchase and to be in a position within the next two months to issue bonds. I am not prepared to say at present what form the Bill should take, but all these matters will be discussed on that Bill, and Parliament then will, of course, be perfectly free to take into account all the circumstances of the case and to take into account what are the real interests of Ireland in this matter and decide accordingly.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Do I understand the Minister to imply that if this arrangement is not entered into there will be difficulty about the issue of land bonds?
Mr. HOGAN
I made no such suggestion. It is obvious, if we agree to accept this guarantee, that it imposes a duty upon us to introduce such a Bill and to let Parliament decide whether it is good business or not. It is clear that if that is the state of affairs, the time to introduce such a Bill would be before the issue of land bonds. If Parliament has to decide that issue, it must be decided before issuing those bonds.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 o'clock until Wednesday, 16th January, at 3 p.m.