I think that this Bill requires a little discussion and a little explanation from the Minister, particularly as regards its effect on the debt owed by the 70,000 farmers who have purchased under the Act of 1923. When the 1923 Act was being passed it was understood that their liability would be for the repayment of the land bonds mentioned in that Act. It was, of course, understood then that these land bonds would be bonds that would bear the same value as any other Free State securities. It is proposed now to inflate the value of those bonds, and, in that way, increase the liability of the 70,000 farmers who purchased under the 1923 Act by at least three million pounds. Those bonds must be redeemed within eighty years. The holders will have a chance by periodical drawings of having their money paid at par at a much earlier period. The bonds, when this Bill becomes law, will be even a more gilt-edged security than the two and three-quarter per cent. Irish Land Stock under the 1903 Act, and even a more valuable security than Consols, because in neither of these cases is there any provision compelling the Government to redeem them at any period at par. It is computed that the entire purchase money under the 1923 Act will amount in bonds to about £30,000,000. In the ordinary way, if the bonds are not inflated, they will probably work out at present at a price of about 84, that is, comparing them with the price of the National Loan and making allowances for the difference in interest.
If we calculate that they will be at least as valuable as the 2¾ per cent. Irish Land Stock, their value will be 95 so that the inflation in the value of the stock will be at least eleven points. If the £30,000,000 of Land Bonds were calculated at 84, the price would be about £25,200,000, whereas at 95 the amount would be £28,500,000, representing an increase of £3,300,000 as a result of this Bill, in the value of the Land Bonds. The 1923 Act was more or less a bargain between the landlords and the tenants. The landlords did not think, in the discussions on the Bill, that they got enough while the tenants thought that they were paying enough, but I think it will be recognised that a fairly equitable arrangement was come to in the end. That was on the assumption that the bonds would bear only their normal value in the money market of the day. It was never stated while the 1923 Act was going through this House that a British guarantee would be given to increase the value of these bonds. I have no objection whatever to the landlords getting the best price they could for the Bonds they have to take for the lands, but I do hold that if there is any change to be made in the 1923 Act, either by the inflation of the bonds or in any other way, that might be said to be for the benefit of the State, that the State ought to come forward and pay the amounts that would be added on to the tenants' liability under this Bill.
The provisions of the 1923 Act provide that the annuitant purchasers will have to pay until the entire sum is redeemed. There is no limit of years as in other Acts. In other Acts a limit of years was put to the period in which the annuities are to be paid, but in the 1923 Act there is no limit. It merely says that the annuities will have to be paid until the principal is paid. It is quite evident that it will take a much longer period to pay off £28,000,000 than it would take to pay £25,000,000. I should be glad to hear the explanation of the Minister on this point, as to whether there really will be any addition to the liabilities of the tenants under this Bill, and if there is, if it is good State policy to do what is proposed under the Bill, and why it is that all this burden of £3,000,000 should be placed on 70,000 tenants and not be borne by the State?
