(Cavan): At Question Time today I asked the Minister for Finance to take immediate steps to put the Agricultural Credit Corporation in funds to enable them to give and discharge the loans offered by them to farmers during the past 12 months, where the borrowers have entered into commitments on the strength of the said offers and where the borrowers are prepared and anxious to take up the loans. I expected the Minister to give me an assurance that he would accede to my reasonable request, but he did not see fit to do so. I, therefore, raise the matter now on the Adjournment.
For some years past the Agricultural Credit Corporation have been lending money freely for various purposes, including the purchase of land. The Agricultural Credit Corporation were, in fact, encouraged to lend money and farmers were encouraged to borrow money for various purposes. In the letter granting the loan there was a stipulation that the loan should be taken up within three months. The Minister, in his experience as a lawyer, knows as well as I do that such a stipulation in a contract, specifying any special time for doing something, is never literally interpreted by the courts unless and until it is made the essence of the contract by a special notice in writing.
In fact—and I believe the Agricultural Credit Corporation will so inform the Minister — this three months' stipulation was never insisted upon and never acted upon. Rarely, if ever, was the loan taken up within the three months. Lest it might be said I exaggerate, I say, without fear of contradiction, that quite frequently the loan was not taken up within the three months, but it was nevertheless granted. Frequently, indeed, it was impossible for borrowers to take up the loan within three months because the title of their security, or some of their security, was not in order and it required a court application to put the title in order. Very often the court application could not be made inside the three months. The Probate Office, the Land Commission, the Land Registry, and other Government Departments were involved and that made it impossible for the borrower to put his title speedily in order and take up the loan within the three months.
The important thing, however, from the point of view of my argument, is the fact that the Agricultural Credit Corporation did not insist on the loan being taken up within three months and it was quite reasonable then for borrowers and borrowers' advisers to proceed on the basis that this stipulation was not a hard and fast rule and would not be arbitrarily enforced. However, like a bolt from the blue, in July last the Agricultural Credit Corporation, without notice of any kind, started insisting on the letter of this three months' stipulation, enforcing it strictly and literally. The result has been many cases of hardship.
For instance, farmers bought small adjacent farms—aye, and big farms too—of land beside them and entered into binding contracts to purchase these farms on the strength of the offer of a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. They went further. They paid deposits on these farms. Some of them sold their own smaller farms, entering into binding contracts, in the hope of buying larger farms with the assistance of the loan which had been sanctioned. Other farmers paid deposits out of their own pockets or persuaded friends to advance them money on a temporary basis until such time as the Agricultural Credit Corporation loan would come through. These serious financial commitments were entered into on the strength of a letter from the Agricultural Credit Corporation that they were prepared to make these loans.
I can give examples of loans which were sanctioned and cancelled within a short time: a loan for £1,900 sanctioned on 24th May, 1965, and cancelled on 31st August 1965. In that case an application to the court was necessary and that application could not be made until November. Another loan for £2,500 was sanctioned on 31st May and cancelled on 3rd September. A loan for £1,200 was sanctioned on 25th February and cancelled on 5th August last. In that case probate was necessary and a sub-division involving two Government Departments.
I maintain the Agricultural Credit Corporation have broken faith with their borrowers. They have done so through no fault of their own. On the direction of the Government, and as a matter of Government policy, they encouraged people to borrow money; they subsequently cancelled these loans, again on the direction of the Government and as a matter of Government policy.
I say that the Government should now put the Agricultural Credit Corporation in funds to enable that body to discharge loans to farmers in cases where farmers have entered into serious commitments on the strength of these loans. They did so in the belief—a belief encouraged by their advisers—that this three months was a mere formality. It was stated the Agricultural Credit Corporation would lend money to buy land. They would lend money only for productive purposes. As a Deputy asked here today, was there anything more calculated to increase productivity and thereby add to the wealth of the nation than a progressive farmer buying a derelict farm next door, a farm which had lain idle for years, and putting that land into good heart to produce wealth for the nation? In each of the cases I have mentioned that is what would have happened had the loan been forthcoming. How the Government could pretend such loans were not for productive purposes I do not know.
I undertook to allow Deputy Harte to speak on this matter and I propose to give him time. I am not playing politics here. I am asking the Government to enable the Agricultural Credit Corporation to keep faith with the borrowers. It would be a sad day for this country if the people could not do business with a State-sponsored, State-financed organisation on this basis of being able to rely on the assurances given them by that body.
It is very doubtful whether the cancelling of loans without due notice would stand up to a test case in court. However, I do not see why any farmer should be put to the expense of bringing a case against the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I say the Corporation are not entitled, as a matter of law, to adhere strictly to this three months' notice without first making it of the essence of the contract by serving a special notice. They have not done that in this case. Without any warning at all, they just cancelled the loans. It is significant that they thought fit in each case to send out a notice cancelling the loan. They did not take the chance of relying simply on the three months' notice and saying it had lapsed. If they thought they were on strong ground and had the force of law behind them to avail of that three months' notice, they should hardly have sent out notices cancelling the loans. They did not send out a letter saying the loan had lapsed, but sent out a letter saying the loan had been cancelled.
I appeal to the Minister to relieve cases of great hardship throughout the length and breadth of the country which have been brought about by a drastic change in Government policy without any previous notice to the people concerned, who had involved themselves in heavy financial commitments on the strength of promises from a State-sponsored organisation.
