With regard to the matter raised by Deputy Noonan, this is entirely a matter for the British Government. We are not responsible for the diverting of this grant. It is their grant and we cannot dictate to them where it is to be spent. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Wilson, I wish to say that I share the hope that we will be able to get money at the rate we got it before the war. I am sure it is also the wish of the Minister for Finance that he will be able to get money at that rate. Coming to the actual rate mentioned by Deputy Wilson, I would say that the Deputy is perhaps a little out of date in that matter. The position is this: in the case of certain grants for farmers, the number of years for which the loan was granted was 35 years. That would be, for instance, for buildings. But for buildings with corrugated iron, such as haysheds, and for farm roads, drainage and such things, the term was 22 years.
It is quite true that if you work out that at the rate of 5½ per cent. which the Government pays, you will find that you will get £7 17s. 10d. It struck me that that was too high a rate, or at least it struck me that farmers would think it was too high a rate to pay back. I put the proposition to the Minister for Finance to increase the term of years under which it could be paid back. There was undoubtedly serious objection against that particular course. It was held, for instance, that the life of a corrugated iron shed as normally looked after—I am not saying of a shed that is properly cared —is not worth more than 22 years. Also the life of drains not properly made or maintained would not be worth more than 22 years. However, the Minister for Finance met the proposal I had put to him, and agreed that in the case of roads and drainage, as well as in the case of buildings, the paying-back period would be 35 years. And the annuity, therefore, at present that we propose to charge is not £7 17s. 10d. but £6 9s. 6d. Undoubtedly, in the beginning, before that decision was come to, and when the land loans were restored, we had, before we got the permission of the Minister for Finance, sent out notices saying that the rate was £7 17s. 10d. In all these cases a correction was made, pointing out that the rate on a 35 years' loan is £6 9s. 6d. That is to cover the interest and the repayment. But if people prefer the shorter loan they can still have it. There is an exception made in the case of corrugated iron sheds. In that case the period is 30 years, and I think that would work out at about £1 under the sum mentioned by Deputy Wilson.
The point raised by Deputy McGoldrick is rather a difficult one. First of all, there is the statutory limit in a good many cases. Originally £100 was the smallest loan that we could give. Then there was also the old rule that £35 was the limit that could be given in the case of the owners of land. That meant, in these old days, that the amount that could be borrowed was, in the case of the tenants, only three times the valuation, and in the case of the owners only five times the valuation. Again, being anxious to facilitate the farming community, we determined that an increase should be made there, and that in the case of tenants it would be five times the valuation, and in the case of the owners it would be seven times the valuation. That means, of course, that originally, for instance, in the case of the owners, the lowest valuation on which they could get a loan would be £7. We have reduced that now to £5. Then it is only fair in connection with this fund to consider this fact. Under the British this was a self-supporting fund for the following reason. Many years ago the British had a certain rate. Then there was a State fund, the Local Loans Fund. They charged the Local Loans Fund with a half per cent.—sometimes a little more—more than the actual rate they paid. That meant that the Local Loans Fund got the benefit of that half per cent. There were, in connection with that Local Loans Fund for Ireland and Great Britain, large sums of money borrowed by municipalities in England.
A half per cent. in that case meant great revenue to the Local Loan Fund. The result was that it was self-supporting even in the case of a service like the Irish Land Loan, a service which, taken by itself, would never pay. It was not merely the preliminary expenses, but the expenses of inspecting the various stages of the work which had to be met. This is not the same as a loan where a farmer goes into the bank and pledges his farm. It is a loan for a definite purpose, and consequently it is the duty of the person who gives the loan to see that the loan is utilised for that purpose. Preliminary inspection of the plans and regular inspection afterwards were necessary in that particular case. These were expensive, and the Irish Land Loans of themselves would never have paid. But the Local Loans Fund, of which the Land Loan Service was a portion, owing to the half per cent. I have mentioned, and owing to the great borrowing that took place in the case of municipalities, was a self-supporting fund. That is not so in connection with our land loans. They are not self-supporting and they are expensive. The smaller the loan is the greater is the expense. £35 would be expensive, and £50 would be expensive. If there were many of them it would make the administration exceedingly expensive in proportion to the value of the money lent, and in proportion to the amount of good that could be got out of the loans. If you bring the loan below 35 per cent., naturally you increase the economic character and you make it still harder to justify the giving of those loans. So far as Deputy McGoldrick is concerned, remember, this is a loan that can only be given once. A man cannot get it this year and get it again next year. It is not a panacea for stopping emigration. If it is only a loan of £20, a man who has a farm of that size surely ought to be able to do himself the particular work connected with the farm. This is meant to be spent in the way of money given out for labour in those particular parts.
