What I am really referring to is the expenses included in the £6,000; for instance, a person who actually subscribed money and did not get a bond by straight, or by devious means gets a form which I have in front of me, which says: "Every application under Section 4 of the Act for repayment of the amount of the external loan or loans shall be made on whichever of the forms set out in the schedule to these regulations is appropriate to the application, or in a form to the same effect." It further says "Form of application for repayment of Dáil Eireann External Loans 1920-21 to be used by original subscribers who have already filed a claim for repayment." The Minister claims that everybody has subscribed legally whether he did actually subscribe or whether by one way or another he succeeded in getting a person to hand over his bonds to him. If that is so, I do not know why the forms have to distinguish between the people who actually subscribed and the people who merely got hold of the bond from the person who really gave the money. I do not quite know how far I can pursue my argument, but as far as I can judge from what I hear from America —which I admit is only second-hand— an enormous amount of quite unnecessary expense has been involved in this.
One must assume that if people advance money on the understanding that it was going to be returned to them they would be watchful of their own interests, and that once the statutory conditions in the way of publicity were fulfilled they would take the appropriate steps to get the money that was due to them. As far as I can judge from the forms which I have seen, an enormous amount of extra expense is being involved, due to the fact that the Government is so extremely anxious that every step should be taken to see that the people who did not subscribe money, but who the Minister has told us are described as subscribers in the Act, should also get the money. I think that the Act did not specify that this money must be repaid within a given time. I am only speaking from memory. I think that, all things considered, it would be much more to the point if the repayment of this money had been further deferred. Judging from what I have heard, there seems to be very great anxiety that the money should be got into the hands of those who got the subscribers to part with their bonds rather than to get the money into the hands of those who actually subscribed. Personally I quite recognise that as the Dáil voted that this money should be repaid the Government has power to do so. The Dáil cannot reverse what it decided last year. Now we are called upon to vote £6,000 for the cost of repayment. Personally I do not think that was necessary. As far as I remember, all the papers were gathered together and were in the hands of the official receivers, giving the names of those people who had subscribed. I gather from the figure which is put down for the cost of repayment that there is an unnecessarily large organisation in America. From what I hear, even from a Deputy of this House who was in America, some of the people employed over there make statements about Deputies of this House, who do not happen to support President de Valera, of a nature which, if they were made in this country, would certainly bring them before the courts.
