The last time this matter was discussed was on the Second Reading, and in the course of the discussion we were informed by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and particularly by Deputy Egan, that this was not a matter to be considered in any other light than that of hard business. Deputy Egan told us that he was not swayed to the slightest extent by any sentimental rubbishy talk about British interference or about the British stranglehold, and frequently in the course of his speech disclaimed that sentiment had any influence in his make-up so far as this Bill was concerned. It was pure hard business. Coming from a Deputy who sails under the flag of a party which has given itself a Gaelic name for sentimental reasons, and whose reason for existence lies very largely in sentiment, it is amusing, if not interesting, to find a Deputy insisting that, at any rate, he is not swayed by any sentimental interests or emotions. While it is well to adopt a hard business attitude in dealing with purely business affairs, I wish to submit that this is not purely a business affair, and that it cannot be considered apart from sentiment. The basis of this Bill is said to have been laid in the time of the Treaty discussions in London. I have not been able to find any references in the Treaty debates in the Dáil touching upon any bargain or undertaking that was entered into with respect to the British guarantee of land bonds. I suggest to Deputies that there would have been a different result of those debates had the House been informed that part of the arrangements with the British Government at the time was that there should be a completion of land purchase on compulsory terms, that the British Government would guarantee the bonds issued by the Irish Government and that any repayment that might be made to the British Government under that guarantee, would, of necessity, be paid in British currency. Had the contents of this Bill been laid before the Dáil that discussed the Treaty arrangements, I have no hesitation in saying that the Treaty would never have been approved. In introducing in the British House the parallel Bill which undertook the guarantee, the mover, Lieutenant-Colonel Guinness, used these words:—
The present plan is based on a financial agreement between the Imperial Government and the Irish Free State to deal with matters arising out of the Treaty, and which provided that the Free State Government should finance the completion of land purchase by the issue of an Irish stock at 4½ per cent. to be guaranteed as to capital and interest, subject to agreed provision for redemption, by the British Government. The security for the payment of interest and sinking fund will be provided in the Bill in the form of the Central Fund of the Irish Free State and on any special funds established for the purpose with priority over any future charges.
Last year, in pursuance of this agreement, the Irish Free State passed an Act to deal with the machinery of land purchase.
Mr. Runciman who had been a member of the Government, I think, which completed the Treaty, also spoke of this Bill being governed by the financial agreement which was a parallel to that Treaty. Neither the Dáil of 1921-22, nor the Provisional Government, nor the Dáil which succeeded the Provisional Government, was ever informed that there had been an agreement in respect to the purchasing of land, with a British guarantee to the bonds, and that any payment would be in British currency. That agreement was not disclosed at the time of the Treaty arrangements, or had not been disclosed until the production of this Bill. The agreement, therefore, cannot be said to be one binding upon the Dáil.
The Minister responsible for introducing the parallel Bill told the members of the British House of Commons that:—
"We are only guaranteeing Free State legislation. We stand behind their Bill (that is the Land Act) in order to see that the landlords shall not be losers by any temporary weakness of Free State finance."
I want to dispute the obligation that we are under to give landlords who are being bought out under the Land Act any reason for going outside the ordinary securities which the Irish State can give and thereby formally, to however slight an extent, by an Act of this legislature place ourselves under an obligation to another State. The landlords who are being bought out now have nothing to complain about. They had their opportunity to come to agreements with their tenants under the old Land Acts. They waited until they were compelled and, being compelled, they say: "We will accept compulsion, but we are now going to refuse, in effect, allegiance to the Irish State which is buying us out; we are going to stand under the shelter, the guarantee, of the British Government, whose legislation hitherto we have refused to take advantage of."
The Minister for Agriculture told us that we should remember that landlords belong to the State and had the same rights in it as every other class. Do they? If they do, why do they want special treatment? Why do they want the treatment of citizens of Britain and the guarantees of Britain? Why are they not prepared to accept the risk that every other person with whom the Irish State entered into obligations undertakes? Why do the landlords, who are to be given the same rights as every other citizen of the Saorstát, want special treatment? The bonds that are to be issued are secured, first by the payment of annuities in respect to the sales. They are secured also by the Central Fund. The holders of National Loan are just as much entitled to security as landowners who may or may not be holders of National Loan. But the holders of National Loan did not seek the guarantee of the British Government.
There is to be another loan some time, more or less soon, in relation to the Shannon scheme, Barrow drainage, and other drainage, and the persons who are willing to lend are prepared to accept the risks that citizenship of the Saorstát carries with it, or, if they are not citizens, they are prepared to accept the security the Saorstát can give. But these other citizens, whom we are asked to remember as belonging to the State, are to continue to be granted exceptional treatment which is not in the bond. We have never contracted, as far as I know, to give to the landlords exceptional treatment.
The question was raised on the last occasion, and will be raised again, of the provision regarding currency, which is an entirely new proposition: that if it ever happens that the Saorstát is called upon by the British Government to make good its obligations, or if at any time any change takes place with regard to currency, whether the British Government enters into it or not, the holders of these bonds shall be paid in British currency. The Minister for Agriculture told us he had never heard of any loan being floated the interest on which was to be paid in any other currency than the currency of the time at which the loan was floated. I wonder can any Minister tell us what is the position, say, of pensioners whose claims for pensions ante-date or precede the claims under this Land Act? Are they always to be guaranteed to be paid in British currency, or are they to run risks that any other citizen will run as to the value of any Irish currency that may at any time within the next 80 years be in operation? The holders of National Loan stock may well, and certainly with the same amount of justification, demand that whatever happens their payments the value of their interests in the market, its purchasing power must never be lower in any case than the value of British currency in the market. I do not understand what kind of answer would be given to holders of National Loan stock or to pensioners if they demanded, at least, that never at any time must they be paid in a currency which is of less value than British currency.
I suggest that the effect of this provision is going to be to tie up the Saorstát to the British financial system, and to the British currency system. We may voluntarily decide that it is better to continue to be tied up in that way. We may. I think we shall not always but for quite a long time no doubt there will be a great deal to be said in favour of that view. But why should we enter into this bond with citizens of the Saorstát, persons to whom the Minister refers as having the same rights as any other class in the community? Why should we be binding ourselves in respect to a contract already entered into without any such obligation to pay the interest in a currency which may be of more value at the time than the currency which is operating within this State, and of which they are presumed to be citizens? I have not yet heard any argument which, to my mind, justifies the passing of this Bill or for the Dáil to agree to enter into this further compact with the landlords. They have a right to take all the risks that any other citizen of the Saorstát has to take.
I said before that the kind of obligation that is being entered into here by Britain, undoubtedly gives an added interest on their part in the doings of the legislature here. The Minister told us that there was already £130,000,000 worth of stock floated which would be exactly in the same position as this £30,000,000. That may be true. If that is one of the obligations we took over, if that was the position which we entered upon, I say we are quite wrong now in deliberately entering upon a new obligation of that kind to add another £30,000,000 to the £130,000,000, which invites the British Government to take a fatherly interest or a creditor's interest in the doings of the Saorstát.
I would like to know what provision is made, for instance—there is certainly none in the Bill—for deciding when there had been default on our part. In recent months we have seen the way nations and Governments have had to enter into arrangements with their creditors, being other states, and assuming at some future time there was depression and inability to meet liabilities on the spot, who is to say whether there has been absolute default or merely stringency? The British Government is going to determine. They are going to pay our liability under these bonds, and then we are to be in the position of being absolutely dependent on their willingness to forego payment. We would not be able to enter into a general undertaking with all our creditors for deferring payment of interest unless the British Government came along and said they agreed, and they could make their own conditions.
Deputy Wilson has his own views on this matter which, I think, are very well worthy of consideration; that by this Bill you are making more difficult the redemption of the bonds. You may be making more difficult the redemption of the bonds, but I leave that for him to develop if he has anything to say on it. I have yet to learn what value there is of a business kind—this hard business kind that the Minister for Agriculture spoke of, and that Deputy Egan emphasised—which is going to be heavier in the balance as between what may be called the political view and the desirability of maintaining to what extent we can a sense of self-reliance. I also want to know why we should give these exceptional terms to landlords that we refuse to give to any other creditor? It may be said there was an undertaking in the terms of this Bill. Will the terms of that undertaking and the date of it be made known to the Dáil? If there has been no undertaking, then I am very anxious to know what are the arguments in favour of passing this Bill or this resolution?
