I beg to ask the President a question of which I have given private notice—If his attention has been called to a statement made in the British House of Commons, that it is the intention of the British Government to introduce legislation to guarantee the principal and interest of the Irish Free State Bonds in connection with the completion of land purchase in the Irish Free State; if the Executive Council is in any way party to these proposals, or if any protest has been made against the proposal to legislate in the British Parliament in respect to the financial obligations of Saorstát Eireann?
LAND PURCHASE FINANCE. - BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE.
I am aware of the intention of the British Government to introduce legislation to guarantee the principal and interest of the Bonds issued by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with the completion of land purchase. This legislation carries out an undertaking given to the representatives of the landlords some years ago.
The Executive Council agrees to the proposed legislation in England, and a Bill shall be introduced to deal with our side of the matter very shortly.
This undertaking is considered necessary by the vendors under our Land Act, and was, I understand, one of the main reasons for their acceptance of the terms of the Land Act passed by the Oireachtas.
Does the Minister realise that this is an invitation to the British Government to keep a watchful eye on the proceedings of the Dáil and to interfere when they think we are doing things that will limit credit and run greater risk to them?
No, I do not subscribe to that. Our liability in respect of these Bonds will not be different from our liability in respect to the payment of the annuities due under the £130,000,000, or so, advanced up to this, and it simply places the vendors, under the recent Land Act, in exactly the same position, so far as security is concerned, as those who sold their property under the 1903 Act and the 1909 Act. In any case the proposal will come before the Oireachtas here, and it is open to them to reject it if they think fit; but the Government is simply carrying out the obligation which they believe is due to the vendors under the recent Land Act.
Does the Minister recognise that the proposed legislation is a breach of his assurance to the Dáil that he would not agree to put the Free State in pawn?
I still subscribe to the same view. But this is a matter in which I am not in agreement with the Deputy. The State is not in pawn in this matter, where two Acts were passed, one by the British Parliament and the other in this Parliament.