I rise to oppose section 1 and I do so because of the many complaints of hardship and loss that have come to my notice over the years as a result of paying for land in land bonds. Probably there is no Deputy who has not had this experience. Everybody who has land to sell objects to payments by way of land bonds. I was not here for the Second Stage of the Bill which went through in a very expeditious manner. In fact, many Deputies who would have liked to contribute did not get the opportunity to do so. I do not know what explanation the Minister offered for seeking permission to create £15 million worth of additional bonds for land purchase. I suppose the Government intend to purchase more land for distribution and, perhaps, the price of land has gone up and, therefore, the means to purchase land is required. This is a form of barter, a form of barter that is unacceptable to anybody I have come across whose land is being taken for division. It is unacceptable because of the reasons given by Deputy Murphy, that very often there is rapid deterioration in the value of these bonds.
There is also in the Bill a proposition that the Bank of Ireland come into this and these bonds are transferred to the Bank of Ireland. Say a man who gets £10,000 for a farm owes the Bank of Ireland £10,000, will the Bank of Ireland accept £10,000 worth of bonds in respect of this debt? The answer clearly is that they will not. Therefore we are pretending to be paying a price for land that, in fact, we are not paying. I would say that there is quite a large element of confiscation in this method of buying land and that it leads to endless delays and objection on the part of people who have land for sale. I could safely say that most people selling land to the Land Commission would accept a much lower price if they got cash for it and it would be much easier to carry out the various transactions in relation to the purchase of land if we had cash to offer for it.
Some time ago I asked a question here as to the amounts of money that were being paid by way of bonds and by way of cash and was told that approximately £½ million was paid by way of cash and the balance £1½ million was paid by way of bonds. This in itself creates a lot of difficulty because there are all sorts of allegations that certain people are singled out for special treatment and that they get cash, that the friends get cash and those who have not influence and friends are paid in bonds. I do not know exactly how people are selected for cash payment but I assume that they are selected because they are selling, perhaps, a smallish area of land, that they are poorish people.
Take the case of a person with, perhaps, a large farm but, also, a large debt in the bank. How is such a person to rid himself of this debt if he is paid by way of land bonds for his land? This is a serious difficulty that arises in the system by which we pay for land by way of land bonds.
This Bill sets out to create more and greater difficulties because, obviously, we intend to increase our operations and we intend to create a greater number of dissatisfactions as a result. I ask the Minister why, instead of paying in land bonds, the Government do not simply borrow the extra money required and overcome all the difficulties that arise and eliminate all the hardships and loss that people suffer. There is no doubt that there is a large element of confiscation in this because of the rapid deterioration in the value of the type of bond that is used and which it is proposed to use in an increasing way if this legislation is passed.
I should just like to hear what the Minister has to say as to why this is not done. It would save endless difficulty and delay and many more people would be prepared to sell their land to the Land Commission if they knew that they would get cash for it. I believe that there would be people coming forward and offering their land to the Land Commission whereas at present they are hiding from the Land Commission and trying to use all the secret devices known to them so that the Land Commission will not know that they are in the market until they have sold privately to some other purchaser. In fact, in many cases, people do not get the full value of their land because they are afraid to go to public auction because if it is a holding suitable to the Land Commission, the Land Commission immediately step in and say that they will put their foot on the land and the owner cannot move.
Last year I brought before the House the case of a widow whose land was taken. The arrangement was that she would be paid in land bonds. The Land Commission set that farm for 12 months and it took more than 12 months to settle the legal difficulties in establishing title and in making all the other arrangements necessary before the purchase finally went through. Two things happened during that time.
The interest on the land bonds increased by one per cent but the Land Commission insisted on paying at the price arranged a year earlier. During that year or 14 months this lady got no income whatever from the land and no income from the letting made by the Land Commission, who took the money from the letting, and no income from the bonds. The only explanation the Minister could offer me and the House was that the interest was, in fact, accruing to her credit and that she would eventually get it, but in the meantime that lady suffered the total loss of income during that period. I give this as an example of the many hardships that can occur arising out of this system of purchase of land by land bonds.
I want to object to that system as strongly as I can. I hope the Minister will reconsider the situation before he insists on putting this legislation through the House.
