I move that the amendment be agreed to.

I move that the amendment be agreed to.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. The capital of the Corporation is to be paid-up, half at one time and the rest on call. Obviously it could not be a trustee security until the capital was fully paid up. It was considered that it would be useful, after the capital had been paid up, to make the investment a trustee investment, and for that purpose the amendment is inserted.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. As sub-section (3) stands, the Minister could at any time demand repayment of any moneys advanced by him in respect to his guarantee in the matter of share capital, interest or certificates, and the Corporation would have no alternative except to pay that out of, say, deposits or other funds of that sort. That is considered wrong. It was considered that any repayment of moneys should be made out of profits, and that the Minister should not be in any better position than any other creditor. It is to meet that point that the amendment was inserted in the Seanad and agreed to.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. This amendment sets out that the directors shall be nominated from time to time by the Minister, and in addition the provision for co-option to casual vacancies. There was no provision in the section as it stood for the election of the ordinary directors. This amendment sets out that that matter should be dealt with in the Articles of Association.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. This is the most important amendment that is being inserted. In connection with this amendment I might deal with another amendment in order to explain it to the Committee. Section 12 gives a list of the persons to whom, and the purposes for which, the Corporation may lend money. It is proposed to add to this list another section, which is set out in amendment 8 from the Seanad, and which reads as follows:—

Section 12, sub-section (1). Before paragraph (e) a new paragraph inserted, as follows:—

(e) to any person (other than a co-operative society) for the purpose of purchasing for agricultural purposes land which was immediately before the purchase comprised in a security held by the Corporation from the vendor of such land.

By amendment 10 from the Seanad it is proposed further to add to the section, and this amendment reads:

Section 12, sub-section (1). Before paragraph (f) a new paragraph inserted, as follows:—

"(f) to any person (other than a co-operative society) for the purpose of paying off a loan which was originally made to him before the passing of this Act wholly or mainly for the purpose of purchasing land for agricultural purposes."

With regard to the first amendment, the Corporation may not lend money to a person for the purchase of land de novo, but under amendment 8 it may lend money to purchase land which is held by the Corporation as a security. The Corporation may make a loan, say, to a creamery, and may hold land as a security for the loan, but they may want to liquidate the security, and it is considered that for the purpose of its ordinary operations, even though it may not make a loan to a person to buy land de novo, it is felt that, nevertheless, the Corporation should be in a position to make a loan to a third party to buy land which the Corporation itself holds as a security, and which the Corporation wishes to sell up. With regard to amendment 10, it is considered that the Corporation should have the right to liquidate a loan already made for the purchase of land, and for that purpose this amendment is introduced.

The view taken in the Seanad on this Bill was that these arrangements should exist, not so much to create new farmers, because that is the work of the Land Commission and of other bodies, but to provide credit facilities for existing farmers, and it was on that principle that these changes were made. It was also pointed out that the report of the Banking Commission was expressly against the lending of money for the purpose of buying farms de novo, and, in the circumstances, while I have no strong views on the matter one way or the other, I am accepting the amendment. I do not think it makes any difference.

The Minister said that the second provision would enable the Corporation to turn a land asset into a liquid asset in order to enable it to lend money to a third party to buy land. If the Corporation get that land back again as a security from the third party who has made the purchase, where is the liquidation?

Obviously this is to meet a case where the Corporation held land as a security and wants to sell it up, and where it would be unable to sell unless it could make a loan to a third party to purchase the land. This amendment covers that. It reads: "to any person (other than a co-operative society) for the purpose of purchasing, for agricultural purposes, land which was immediately before"—that is to prevent, so far as you can prevent, any wangling between the Corporation and other parties—"the purchase comprised in a security held by the Corporation from the vendor of such land." Obviously, that allows the Corporation to make a loan to a third party to buy land which the Corporation wishes sold and which they hold as security. As I understand from the Deputy, his point is that he is afraid it will also admit of certain cases which are not contemplated. Is that the Deputy's point?

My point is that you are enabling the Corporation to advance money for the purpose of paying off a loan which they have already made. It does not get them any further. It is merely that they are giving money out of one pocket and getting it back into another.

There are many reasons for selling it, besides the actual value of the security. The bankers want it, anyway.

It does not seem to get you any further.

Is it not a common every-day occurrence for a banking institution to lend money to a third party in order to buy a security which they hold?

If it was a case of advancing part of the money on sufficient security it would be somewhat different.

Surely you must leave that to the directors. The directors must see when it is advisable to lend money and how good is the security. I agree that unless you have competent directors it is merely taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into another, but the directors must see to that.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. It was considered that this was a very wide section as it stood. The section reads:

"(d) to any person engaged in or proposing to engage in an enterprise designed for the service of farmers."

Personally I am against limitations. I think a certain amount of discretion should be left to the directors, but that limitation to insert the word "primarily" there seems to be right.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. I have already explained this amendment.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. The words "under this section" have been inserted twice. It is purely a verbal amendment.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. I have already explained this amendment.

May I take it that this amendment means that any person who has substantial security, and who may have borrowed, or mortgaged his land to the bank, may get a loan for the purpose of paying off the mortgage?

No, you cannot take that.

May I ask the Minister what is the use of introducing an Agricultural Credit Bill in order to enable the farmers to maintain themselves and their families, if you are not prepared to grant them facilities whereby they will be able to get loans for long terms for the purpose of paying off mortgages already incurred?

The Deputy is under a misapprehension. I have not got the responsibility for the making of the loan. It will be a matter for the directors. They will observe the ordinary banking canons when they come to make a loan. They will make a loan where they think it is desirable, and where they think it is undesirable they will refuse to make a loan. They will be limited by the terms of the Act, but they will exercise the powers given under the Act in every case where they think it is desirable.

May I take it from the Minister that the Board shall have the power, if they so wish, to grant loans to pay off mortgages?

Certainly.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. The paragraph to which the amendment refers reads:

Any co-operative society which at the time of the making of the loan or advance carries on the business of selling by retail any goods which are neither actually nor usually ....

These are the words deleted. These words were inserted in order to enable a creamery, say, to deal in foreign butter if it wished and to cover the case of an egg society and so on. They were never quite satisfactory, and it is considered best to delete the words. There is a further amendment, No. 15, which deals with the same matter and which reads as follows:—

"(5) Where the goods sold by a co-operative society are mainly goods produced by that society or its members, any similar goods occasionally sold by such society may, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been so produced although in fact produced by and purchased by the society from other persons."

I move that the amendments be agreed to. They are purely verbal.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. It was not clear that the Corporation had the right to invest money which it might have in hands temporarily. It was necessary that it should have powers to invest money temporarily as essential or ancillary to its operations. It was, therefore, necessary to insert this amendment.

Why did you put in the end of that amendment?

Simply because the directors might see a chance of doing a good stroke for the unfortunate Irish farmer and collar a little English money.

I am glad that the Minister realises that the Irish farmer is unfortunate.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. This amendment is for the same purpose. It wants to be made clear that investing in debentures is not lending money within the meaning of that section, otherwise they could not invest in debentures, because they could only lend to persons set out in the section.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. This is purely verbal.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. This is also a verbal amendment.

I move that the amendments be agreed to. These amendments are verbal. Previously, it was the Minister for Justice who appointed the recognised banks, but as it is felt that they should be appointed by the Minister for Finance that change has been made.

I move that the amendments be agreed to. The amendment which we have just passed implies that it is the Minister for Finance who is to make the list of appointed banks, but the first of these three amendments which I am now proposing gives him power to do so. Consequently it is necessary to take out paragraph (f) of sub-section (8). The second of these amendments gives power to the Minister for Finance to consult the Minister for Justice in view of the fact that it is the county registrar who will keep the registers, and, consequently, the Minister for Justice must be communicated with.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. I regard this amendment as being an improvement on the Bill. It means that if a person applies for credit, or to continue credit, to another it shall be the right of the other to ask him in writing if he has got a chattel mortgage on his stock, and the reply must be in writing. It is made clear in sub-section (3) that the person need not reply, but if he does he must tell the truth under a penalty not exceeding £20. The request must come in writing, and there is also a penalty for wrongful disclosure. This does not seriously interfere with the secrecy of the chattel mortgage. A request can only be made by the person who is being asked for credit, and it enables a trader to find out whether there is a chattel mortgage, but it does not enable him to go to the Register to find out. It was a little bit harsh that a creditor should have to issue a process to get a decree and lodge it with the sheriff in order to find out whether there was a chattel mortgage.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. This is a long amendment, but its length is largely due to the difficulty of drafting, owing to the fact that we are dealing with banks and the Corporation. If they were all banks it might be drafted in one section. It means that if a person applies to the Corporation for a loan and the Corporation propose to take a chattel mortgage on the applicant's chattels, before executing the mortgage they must find out whether the applicant has a loan or does business with another recognised bank. If the applicant admits that he is doing business with or has a loan from another bank, the Corporation must acquaint the other bank of its intention to take a chattel mortgage seven days previously. Similarly other banks must acquaint the Corporation. In other words, it must be mutual.

Will there be any registration of mortgages other than chattel mortgages?

All mortgages are registered, otherwise they are useless. A chattel mortgage is registered in the registry of chattel mortgages.

There is a distinction between it and the registration of an ordinary mortgage. There is privacy with regard to chattel mortgages?

That is so.

I move that the amendment be agreed to. This is a verbal amendment. It was debated in the Dáil as to whether it was necessary that certificates should be issued not only on the security of good and sound first mortgages on land but against any other securities approved of by the Minister for Finance. It was agreed that unless there were power for the Corporation to issue certificates against securities other than mortgages on land the Corporation would be starved. Consequently we inserted in the Bill sub-section (2). For "good and sound securities" on land the words "authorised securities" are substituted.

Authorised by whom?

The Minister for Finance.

I move that these amendments be agreed to. They are consequential.

I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in its report.