I support the amendment on somewhat different grounds. I want to supplement the argument of the last Deputy by the suggestion that the farmers of the country as Deputy Gorey has shown, are justified in expecting that the standard of living for the next generation will be higher than the standard of living in the past generation; that the people living upon the produce of the soil, whether tenant proprietors or labourers employed by tenant proprietors will live at a higher level generally in the future than in the past. If that is not to be so then there is very little virtue in the change here in national status. But if that is so, if we have a fair right to expect that the farmers and their families will live on a higher standard than their fathers then there will be, in succeeding revisions of judicial rentals, or there would be, a considerable reduction because there would be so much less available for rental, and one would imagine that with the new conception of the social standards the Commissioners who would be deciding future rentals, if they were to be revised, as under the old system, would take into account, and must take into account, not merely the profits derivable from the soil and market prices, but also the standards of life which become current, and which were due to the tenant or his labourers who were living upon the produce of the land.
Consequently there would be inevitably a smaller sum available annually for payment for the landlord. That is a reasonable expectation supposing there was no compulsory Purchase Bill and that, I submit, is good ground for looking for a considerable reduction in the amount which is to be paid in annuities, because it will all have to come out of the produce of the soil whether annuities or rental, and it is the balance from it that should be the balance after having provided a reasonable standard of life for those who work the soil, and only that balance, which should be available either for annuity or rental. Then we have to take into consideration also the new situation created by the War. I will take a lesson from Deputy Magennis's lecture, and recognise the facts that are round about us. I will recognise that there has been a war, and I submit that the memory of that fact leads us to this conclusion, not only that the standards of living demanded by the people have been improved and have been raised, but that the expectation of high prices for agricultural produce are not likely to be realised, and that the margin payable to landlords as rental or to the bond holders as annuities will be smaller henceforward than in the past. It is a fair expectation, looking at the future, and taking that expectation into account, the case for a larger reduction than that mentioned in the Bill is a sound one. The Minister told us yesterday that it was quite an easy matter for irresponsible people to make a claim for something higher, no matter how much or how little, than he had found practicable, and because it was easy, there was no need to justify it. There was some force in that. No doubt it is much easier for those who are not responsible to put forward a case, but it is their duty to put forward a case even if it is easier. It is their duty to point out that this imposition upon that very considerable section of the community who are occupiers of the soil, and even that smaller section of the community that will be effected by this Bill are not going to be in as good a position unless at the expense of their comfort, and at the expense of a reasonable standard of living in the future, to pay this annual sum to those possessing these bonds.
There has been no bargain. The demand that has been made on the part of the tenants is for a greater reduction than that which is offered. The case that is made for a greater reduction is based on the price of land in England, according to the arguments that have been adduced by Deputies Gorey and Wilson. There is a further argument, of reasonable expectation, that the amount available for distribution in the form of interest to bond holders or rentals to landlords will be smaller in the future than in the past. Let us bear in mind that the proposition in this Bill is to secure, for all time for the landlords against almost any risk, a settled income in exchange for what may be a problematical income in the succeeding generation. They are making a good exchange if the Bill passes even with the amendment proposed by Deputy Gorey, a very good exchange for something certain: the backing of the State against something problematical which would depend entirely upon the seasons, upon currency variations and upon the standards of life demanded by workmen and farmers against the general standard of life that exists in the country at present. I maintain that, we have a right to hope and expect that henceforth in this country the margin for unearned income will be smaller in the future than in the past. The landlords, too, do expect that in the future the produce of the country will, in an increasing degree, be absorbed and used by the people who help to make the wealth of the country. They have the right to expect that, and they do expect it. They are not expecting that henceforth the landlord element in the country is going to have as easy a time, or would be likely to have as easy a time, in the future as in the past; they have the right to expect that under a National Government the people who do the work of the country will be the people who will get the benefit of the produce of the country, and with that reasonable expectation they are doing very well if they get 60 per cent of their net revenue. The amendment proposed by Deputy Gorey is, I think, easily sustainable in discussion, and would be before a tribunal which was not obsessed by the position that landlords have held in the past—by a tribunal that took into account all the facts of to-day and the prospects of the future; any tribunal that took full regard of these prospects and present facts would, I think, conclude that the suggestion embodied in Deputy Gorey's amendment would be very generous compensation, and is the fullest amount the tenant should be reasonably expected to pay. We want that 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. to be paid to the labourers, where there are any.