Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 1933

Vol. 48 No. 13

Dáil Eireann Loans and Funds Bill, 1933—Money Resolution.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the redemption of the outstanding balances of the loans floated by public subscription in the United States of America, under the authority of the first Dáil Eireann and the second Dáil Eireann respectively, and for limiting the time for making claims for entry in the Register prepared under Section 4 the Dáil Eireann Loan and Funds Act, 1924, it is expedient to authorise:—

(a) the charge on the Central Fund and the growing produce thereof of all moneys payable under such Act in redemption of the External Loans and also the principal and interest of all securities issued under such Act and the expenses incurred in connection with the issue of such securities.

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of any other expenses incurred in the execution of such Act.

General Mulcahy

Could the Minister tell us how much money was lying in America in respect of these loans, say, in December, 1922, and how much money was actually distributed to the bondholders arising out of the American courts' decision?

Mr. MacEntee

The total amount of principal of the loans was 5,746,370 dollars.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That is for the two loans?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. The total amount distributed by the receivers was 2,188,379 dollars.

General Mulcahy

Of the total amount subscribed a certain amount was spent in America. Could the Minister tell us what the amount of the residue in America was in December, 1922?

Mr. MacEntee

2,307,434 dollars. Might I say that if this information had been required for the purposes of this debate it could have been much more conveniently procured by means of Parliamentary question?

General Mulcahy

It is not too much to ask that the Minister, when dealing with the repayment of a considerable amount of money, should at least know how much money there was originally and how much was paid back. I am sorry if I have inconvenienced the Minister in giving the figures.

Mr. Cosgrave

How much is involved in connection with this Money Resolution? If I am correct in my figures the sum which would be required to pay the 5,746,370 dollars, allowing for the 2,188,379 dollars, would be something like 3½ million dollars—3,567,000 dollars odd. I think the sum mentioned in connection with the principal, that is the 43 cents to the dollar, is involved in that, and then 25 per cent. of the whole sum. Is that the whole sum involved in connection with this repayment?

Mr. MacEntee

I did not quite catch the drift of the Deputy's question.

Mr. Cosgrave

I will put it again. The Minister says that there are 5,746,370 dollars subscribed. Of that 2,188,379 dollars were paid out by the courts. That would leave something over 3,500,000 dollars to be paid under this Bill; 25 per cent. of the whole sum involved, which would be approximately 1,400,000 dollars, so I take it that apart from expenses the sum involved in this repayment amounts to 5,000,000 dollars. May I assume that that is a correct figure?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think you may assume that that is the total amount involved in this repayment, because there is every possibility that a considerable number of people may not apply for repayment. Our Estimates have been based upon a repayment of 3,357,690 dollars of original subscriptions.

Mr. Cosgrave

Plus 25 per cent. of the 5,750,000. I am not very far out. There is 4,737,000 as against 4,900,000. Does the Minister expect that only the difference between those two figures will not be asked for, that is a sum of approximately £30,000?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. We have already clearly indicated in the Bill, in asking for authority to raise up to £1,500,000, that we have made provision for the contingency that the whole of the money may have to be repaid, also for the fact that the rate of exchange may be unfavourable to us, and furthermore, for such expenses as might normally be incurred in the distribution of this money.

Mr. Cosgrave

Taking it at the present rate of exchange it is a very liberal sum. There is a good deal over £200,000 or £300,000 involved in the difference between what should be required and the £1,500,000.

Mr. MacEntee

We always like to be on the right side.

Mr. Cosgrave

I hope that the expenses are not going to be very high. There is a very big sum involved in the difference.

Mr. MacEntee

If the expenses are as favourable to the State as the settlement which has been secured with the bondholders the expenses will be very light indeed.

Mr. Cosgrave

We can thank the Minister's Party for the expenses that have been incurred in that connection.

Mr. MacEntee

Oh no. We can thank the wrong view of the law which the Deputy's Government took.

Mr. Cosgrave

The wrong view of the law, for which the people are now being asked to pay, entirely due to that Party over there.

Mr. MacEntee

I was not here in July, 1928, when the Minister for External Affairs in the Deputy's Cabinet took full responsibility for repaying this loan to everybody.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is a different proposition. What I am saying is that the costs which have been incurred and put on this State by the Leader of the Government and his Party are enormous,—over £100,000.

The President

I will have an opportunity, a Chinn Comhairle, of replying to that statement.

General Mulcahy

I should like to ask the Minister for Finance, on the point he has just raised, would he say whether he is basing his obligation to repay this money on the statement made by Mr. McGilligan, or on the undertaking given by Cumann na nGaedheal in this House, or on the present status of the State?

Mr. MacEntee

I just wish to say that I do not propose to conduct this debate any longer by way of question and answer. If the Deputies opposite feel that they can make a case against this Resolution, in view of the information which I have already disclosed to this House the onus is on them to make their case in a connected statement.

Mr. Cosgrave

When a money Resolution is put before the House the House is perfectly entitled to know what the cost is going to be. In a case of this sort where particulars are available and figures can be either estimated or anticipated it is the Minister's duty to put before the House what the cost is to be. After all it is not the Ministry is paying this money. It is the taxpayers of the State who will be called upon to do so, and when the matter comes before the Oireachtas they are entitled to know what sum is involved.

Mr. MacEntee

On the question of duty, and on the question of the information now being asked for, this information was furnished on the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I suggest that there is an onus upon the Leader of the Opposition to acquaint himself with the information already given to the House in the course of the debate, and not to further waste Parliamentary time.

Mr. Cosgrave

I must say that the Minister's answers did not disclose any great knowledge of the figures at all.

General Mulcahy

Nor his statement on the Second Reading either.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.