Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Apr 1929

Vol. 29 No. 1

Private Business. - Land Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Mr. Derrig

This is a Bill to amend the Land Act of 1923 in so far as it relates to the fixing of the Appointed Day for land to which Section 24 of that Act applies. Section 70 of the Land Act provides that the Appointed Day shall be fixed so as to suit the convenience of the Land Commission, and that different Appointed Days may be fixed for different estates and different groups of holdings. Prior to the Appointed Day the tenant will pay to the Land Commission a sum which is equal to 75 per cent. of his old rent. That sum, subject to certain deductions in respect to income tax and cost of collection, is paid over by the Land Commission to the landlord according to Section 20. After the Appointed Day has been fixed the tenant pays a certain sum which is called the standard purchase annuity, subject to such additions as may be made by virtue of the addition of the unpaid compounded arrears of rent. The fixing of the standard purchase annuity is laid down in Section 25 of the Act and in the First Schedule. According to Section 25 and the First Schedule of the Act the standard purchase annuity in the case of judicial tenants is fixed at 70 per cent. of the old rent in the case of tenants whose rents were fixed subsequent to the 15th of August, 1911, and in the case of tenants whose rents were fixed before the 16th of August, 1911, they pay an annuity which represents 65 per cent. of the old rent. That is to say, according to these provisions which determine the standard purchase annuity the judicial tenants are in some cases granted a reduction of 5 per cent., and in some cases a reduction of 10 per cent., as against the payment in lieu of rent which they had been paying to the Land Commission prior to the Appointed Day.

In the case of non-judicial tenancies the amount of the standard purchase annuity is to be fixed in each individual case by the Land Commission in the absence of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The reduction, I believe, in the case of the non-judicial tenants ought to be very much greater than in the case of the judicial tenants. It ought to be considerably in excess, as the House will appreciate, of what the judicial tenants get and the payment which the non-judicial tenants will have to pay when their annuity is being fixed, ought to be considerably lower than the interest in lieu of rent which the judicial tenants are now paying. It seems clear, therefore, that in respect of the different types of tenant farmers in the Free State who are interested in this matter, reductions of five per cent. in some cases, of 10 per cent. in others, and in the large proportion of cases, reductions of perhaps up to 30 or 35 per cent. will be made when the Appointed Day is fixed. For that reason I submit to the House that if this fixing of the Appointed Day can be done, it ought to be done as speedily as possible.

I should imagine perhaps that subsequent to the Appointed Day the position of the landlord will be that he will be paid in land bonds an amount which will be equal to the purchase annuity of the tenant capitalised at 4¾ per cent., plus a contribution of 10 per cent. from the State.

The object and intention of the promoters of this Bill is to fix the Appointed Day immediately or in the near future. They believe that can be done, and that immediately the Appointed Day is fixed the Land Commission may proceed with these investigations into title and disputes, and make its calculations. Afterwards, when it finds that it is in a position to name the Appointed Day as the Appointed Day was contemplated originally under the Land Act of 1923, it can do so, but our intention is that the vesting, when it does take place, should be made to be a vesting retrospective as from the earliest date that will be fixed in this Bill. The position which will arise in the interval after the fixing of the Appointed Day if it is fixed, by the passage of this Bill in the near future or immediately, and the final vesting as contemplated by the Land Act of 1923, will be, I think, very simple in the case of judicial tenants. Under the Land Act they are entitled to reductions which would bring their standard purchase annuity to 65 per cent. or 70 per cent. of their rent. In their case it seems to me it is simply a matter of calculation, and that the amount of the standard purchase annuity in the case of judicial tenants can be fixed at once. In the case of non-judicial tenants the position is not so easy. Nevertheless, I think it is a position which can be remedied.

I see no reason why if the House really desires it, and if the Dáil desires it, as I believe they do, that they will not now carry such legislation into operation as will fix the appointed day for the non-judicial tenants as well as the judicial tenants. The way I suggest the standard purchase annuity could be fixed in the case of non-judicial tenants is by fixing arbitrarily an approximate annuity. That approximate annuity can be found by fixing a judicial rent in the case of these non-judicial tenants and basing that judicial rent upon the average rent of the area in which the holding is situated. When the judicial rent is fixed the reduction of 30 per cent. should be made and a margin of error should be allowed upon that in the tenants' favour. Subsequently, when the holding is vested and when accounts have to be squared between the non-judicial tenants and the State, I submit to the House that it is a perfectly feasible proposition that whichever amount may have been granted to the non-judicial tenant upon the fixing of his purchase annuity, whatever excess reduction may have been granted to him can be added to the purchase price of the holding, and that you have a precedent for that in the manner in which, under the 1927 Land Act, you added the unpaid compounded arrears of rent to the tenants. That can be done, and it merely means that certain financial adjustments will be necessary by the Land Commission. I am not going to go into that question now, but I know that it is within the capacity of the Land Commission to make these adjustments. The only thing that is necessary is that the adjustment, of course, will have to be approximate, in the first instance, upon the fixing of the appointed day. Afterwards final adjustments can be made and the accounts reconciled. Untenanted land can be dealt with, I suggest, in the same manner as I have suggested should be adopted in the case of non-judicial tenancies.

With regard to the landlord, the landlord gets his purchase price. According to the cost fund which is provided by Section 5 of the 1923 Act, he has his costs for carrying through his sale. I cannot see, therefore, that there is any financial reason whatever, so far as the landlord's interests are concerned, why the tenants should not be granted the full reductions to which they are entitled.

To pass on to another aspect of the question, which is an unsatisfactory feature of the present system of fixing the appointed day, that is that while some tenants have the appointed day fixed in their cases comparatively early and without any great delay, in other cases there is a delay of very many years and the tenant has to wait all that time. I suggest it is most unfair that while one tenant should receive priority in getting these reductions the other tenant should have to wait for a number of years and be deprived of them. I say that is not equitable. It is not satisfactory, and it is not sound. It cannot be defended, I think, upon any grounds. I believe, and the House will agree with me, that it is a gross injustice, from which thousands of Irish tenant-farmers have suffered during a number of years. The Dáil has now the opportunity to remedy that injustice, and I hope they will take advantage of it. If I may sum up in respect to our claims for the two classes of tenants, judicial and non-judicial, it is simply this. On behalf of judicial tenants we say: "Give us the reduction to which we are entitled. It is simply a matter of calculation. Proceed afterwards at your leisure, disentangling and investigating questions of title and so on. So far as we are concerned, you have the full facts of our case at your disposal, and there is no reason why we should not get these rights." With regard to the non-judicial tenant we take up the attitude that they also should get a reduction, but that reduction of course will have to be approximate and subject to readjustment by the Land Commission.

I submit that these adjustments can be made and that the final adjustments can be made later. There are not, as far as I have been able to gather in the course of my inquiries, any valid legal objections to treating this matter in the way I have suggested. Transactions between the State and the tenant are similar to transactions between vendor and purchaser. It is quite a common practice in connection with a sale between vendor and purchaser that a joint account should be opened; that the purchaser should get full beneficial enjoyment and full possession of the land or property; that in the meantime the question of title should be proceeded with, possibly over a period of years, and that at the end of the period, when the transaction is finally closed from the legal point of view and all questions of title have been settled, then the vendor is paid the purchase money and the accumulated interest. We are simply asking, in the case of the Irish tenant farmer, for the same procedure and the same rights as the purchaser gets in the case I have mentioned. I am sure the Dáil will grant that. I may be told that this matter of fixing the appointed day immediately, or in the very near future, will necessitate the re-casting of the finances of the 1923 Act. I do not agree with that. There will, I believe, be certain adjustments necessary, but with the experience the Land Commission has had up to the present I believe no great difficulty will present itself. What I have suggested here could, I think, be adopted, and that is that in the fixing of the annuity for the non-judicial tenant the average rent in the area should be taken as a basis. Working upon that basis, I think the Land Commission will have no difficulty in settling the matter.

I think the sum total of all these adjustments in which so many thousands of tenants are involved, will in the long run be not so very considerable. Although the total amount involved may be great, I think the ultimate balance of accounts will not mean more than a comparatively small sum one way or the other. As a matter of fact, only a few months ago, referring to the recent amending Bill passed in the British Parliament to defer the appointed day in respect of certain tenants in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said that the tenants there who had not been vested will be recouped for whatever amount they are paying as rent in excess of what they will ultimately pay as their purchase annuity. That is an instance of where the retrospective principle has been adopted and is being carried out. The Dáil and the Government itself accepted that principle and embodied it when, under Section 2 of the 1927 Act, they decided that the compounded arrears of rent—unpaid arrears— should be added to the purchase price. I submit the principle and the procedure are the same. If the members of the Dáil are anxious— and I believe they are—that this question should be settled and that the tenant should get fair play—and that is really all we are asking for— then they will pass this Bill into law, making whatever consequential amendments that may be necessary in Committee. They will make whatever adjustments may be necessary and they will place upon the Land Commission an onus which I believe they can carry out—that is, making necessary adjustments after the appointed day has been fixed.

Mr. Hogan

May I ask one question? The question is mainly to clear up a point. The Deputy mentioned that the appointed day shall be fixed on a certain date. Is it the intention that on that date the fee simple of the land shall be vested in the tenant I could not gather that from the Deputy and I was not clear about it.

Mr. Derrig

I will put it in another way. I understand that under Section 28 of the Land Act the Land Commission have the power to resume certain lands. If the Government are willing to accept the principle of the Bill—that the appointed day shall be fixed very shortly— then we would be willing to grant whatever rights the Land Commission had prior to this in connection with the acquisition or resumption of holdings. We would be quite willing to grant those rights.

Mr. Hogan

That is not quite the point. The Bill as it stands sets out that the appointed day shall be fixed not later than 1st December, 1929. As the Land Act stands, on the appointed day the fee simple of the lands is vested in the tenant purchaser and a folio is opened in the Registry of Title for the tenant purchaser. Does the Deputy contemplate that that procedure shall continue to take place—that on the appointed day, on 1st December, 1929, the fee simple of the lands shall vest in the tenant and a folio shall be opened registering that fact in the Registry of Titles? I only want that for my own information.

Mr. Derrig

There are a great many points that I do not understand in connection with the Land Commission. I do not know whether the Land Commission will have to change its procedure or not. The purpose of the Bill is simple. It fixes the appointed day and gives the tenant the benefits I have mentioned. If the Land Commission find it necessary to change procedure. I think they ought to do so.

Mr. Hogan

Procedure, of course, can be changed. I was wondering whether they were supposed to change the procedure to meet the point I have mentioned. I wanted to know whether that was the suggestion underlying the Bill. This is a Bill amending certain Land Acts and it must be read in conjunction with certain Land Acts. It suggests specific alterations of the Land Acts. It merely changes the provisions of the 1923 and 1927 Land Acts in so far as the appointed day is concerned. It does not alter the point made clear in the Land Acts, and that is that on the appointed day the fee simple must vest in the tenants and a folio must be opened. If this Bill is passed, that procedure must take place and I want to know if that is the intention of the Deputy.

Mr. Derrig

I cannot say.

Mr. Corry

I desire formally to second the motion for the Second Reading.

Mr. Hogan

When I asked a question a few moments ago, I was not asking it for the purpose of blocking the Bill. I find I am in considerable difficulty in discussing the Bill unless I have that information. As the Deputy is unable to give it to me, I can only take it that the Bill means exactly what on its face it appears to mean. In order to make the position clear, perhaps I might outline shortly the procedure under previous Land Acts. I will take the 1903 Act as typical. Under the 1903 Act there were three vital dates: (1) the date of the passing of the Act—an important date; (2) the date when the agreement or undertaking to purchase was signed by the tenant; (3) the date when the lands are vested in the tenant. Under all previous Land Acts, including the Land Act of 1923, when the lands are vested in the tenant they are registered. The fee-simple of the lands is vested in the tenant and the lands are registered in the name of the tenant in the Local Registration of Title Office under the Local Registration of Title Act. That was a very important Act, particularly important from the point of view of the ordinary farmer.

In the old days, before that Act was passed, the laws connected with real property were extremely complex. If a man was assigning any real property, no matter what the area, very long searches and very elaborate procedure had to be gone through. The vendor or the person assigning it had to get the title, and this entailed very elaborate procedure. Searches had to be made in the Registry of Deeds, and all sorts of titles had to be cleared up by evidence collected here, there and everywhere. It was a very slow and expensive procedure. All those questions arose not only when land was being assigned by one person to another as a result of a sale, but also when the owner of land died and when his land went to a third party under an intestacy or a will. In addition to that, all these questions had to be investigated when any dispute about rights-of-way, easements, and so on, occurred in connection with the land. While law was generally expensive, it was admitted that the law's delays and the expense in connection with the law were more acute when they were connected with dealings with real property than if they were connected with any other aspect of law.

To meet that situation the Local Registration of Title Act was passed. The aim of the Act was to simplify dealings with land. The Act provided that all property held in fee simple should be registered in the Registry of Titles, that a folio should be opened, that that folio should set out the name of the owner, the area of the land, the head rent in connection with the land, easements in connection with the land and, finally, there should be attached a map showing the exact boundaries of the land. The same Act provided that in case of any transfer of the land by deed, under a will, or by intestacy, or should there be any dispute in connection with the land, that that particular certificate was evidence for everything that appeared on its face, and it should be accepted as such by anybody concerned, judge or anybody else. That saved every owner of land and property immense time and trouble and, comparatively speaking, immense expense. It was one of the most beneficial Acts ever passed from the point of view of the owner of land.

I take it that it is not contemplated the Local Registration of Title Act is to be, by implication, repealed by this Bill. I take it that it is not contemplated that the procedure which solicitors, landowners, tenants, owners in fee—everybody concerned —admit is a great convenience and a great advance on the old procedure should be repealed by this Bill. I take it that the procedure we have at present under which the title of every tenant is registered in the Registry of Titles should still be maintained. If that is so, the position is that under the 1903 Act, on the day or during the week in which the fee simple of the holding is vested in the tenant, a folio is opened in the Registry of Titles for that particular holding. That folio sets out the name of the owner or tenant purchaser, the exact area, any charges on the land, any rights in connection with turbary or grazing, and it contained a note which I will refer to now, but which I will deal with later on—a note to the effect that the holding was registered subject to equities. That folio would be absolute evidence of the title of the owner to that land, and would be evidence of every other statement specifically made on its face.

When we were passing the 1923 Act we felt that the procedure of the 1903 Act could be somewhat improved. The procedure under the 1903 Act contemplated three important dates—the date of the passing of the Act, the date of the signing of the agreement or undertaking to purchase, and the date when the fee simple of the land was vested in the tenant. With that latter date coincided the opening of the folio. Under the 1923 Act you have only two dates—the date of the passing of the Act and the date on which the tenant signs his agreement to purchase. On the date on which the lands are vested in the Land Commission the lands are also vested in the tenant. In other words, instead of having two periods, a period between the passing of the Act and the agreement—a period between the signing of the agreement and the vesting, which was the procedure under the 1903 Act—you have now only one period, the period between the passing of the Act and the vesting of the land in the tenant. I said when we were passing the 1923 Land Act that we cut out the pretty long period which used to elapse between the signing of the agreement and the vesting. We have done that.

Under the 1903 Act, taking average cases, and you can only deal with average cases, it took three, four or five years before the landlord was persuaded to sell. After the landlord was persuaded you then had to fix the price with him. It was not a compulsory Act. You had, first of all, a considerable delay between the passing of the Act and the signing of the agreement to purchase by the tenant—a delay of four, five, six and, in some cases, ten or twelve years, while in other cases it would be only a year. The average would be five or six years. During that time the tenant was paying full rent, rent to the full 100 per cent., and there was no reduction of 70 per cent. or 65 per cent. Then you had the agreement to purchase, and in five or six years more, again speaking in averages, you had the lands vested. On the day on which the Land Act of 1923 was passed, the tenant got an immediate reduction of 25 per cent. and that reduction lasted to the date of vesting. That period is considerably shorter than the total period which elapsed between the passing of the 1903 Act and the vesting, in an average case. During that period there was a reduction of 25 per cent. under the 1923 Act. What is the suggestion of the Deputy? It is that the appointed day shall be fixed on a date not later than 1st December, 1929.

I must assume that the Deputy does not mean to abolish the Local Registration of Title Act. I must assume that on that date the fee simple, the landlord's interest in the land, is to be vested in the tenant; that the tenant is to become the owner in fee simple, and a folio is to be opened for him in the Local Registration of Title Office. On that assumption, and I can see no other, what is to happen? Between this and the 1st day of December, 1929, certain particulars must be accurately ascertained. They must not be ascertained approximately, but put beyond all doubt. There must be no possibility of any mistake, because, remember what it means: they are to be accepted by any judge as absolutely right without any further evidence. The folio must set out certain particulars, and these particulars will be accepted without any further evidence in any dispute or any assignment or any dealings of any kind in connection with land. It may be said by people who are not used to dealing with land, "What difference does it make if there are slight mistakes?" Any solicitor knows how people in the country feel about rights-of-way and how bitterly title cases are fought. Any solicitor, or anybody who is used to dealing with land, knows that in a very big number, though I admit in a minority, of cases there are assignments, sub-tenancies, easements, rights of turbary, rights to grazing, all established on behalf of third parties after the date on which the fair rent was fixed on the land. On all these matters that folio must be absolutely accurate, otherwise either the owner of the land or some third party who has rights must suffer very grave injustice.

I find it difficult to deal with this matter because I am not clear as to what the Deputy means, and I believe the Deputy is not clear himself. I do not believe that he thought out this question. He said "Let this thing be adjusted afterwards; vest, open your folio, register so-and-so, say the area is so much approximately, say that the occupier is such-and-such a person, set out a map showing that the boundaries are so-and-so, that the area is so much, that the rights of turbary are in favour of A. B. and C., or there may be no rights; if there are any mistakes put them right afterwards." Of course that means scrapping the whole procedure under the Local Registration of Title Act. It means going back again to the old procedure under which every right in connection with land, such as the rights to fee-simple or to easement, must be proved by the evidence of engineers and lawyers and the oldest man in the district. Undoubtedly if you do anything of the sort you will have a very large number of cases coming up before a judge where he will have accepted this approximate certificate and where it may be proved afterwards that the certificate is wrong. You cannot have it both ways. It must be either of two things. You must go back to the old procedure under which all rights, either the right to the fee-simple, the right to any easement, a right of way, or anything else in connection with land, were proved by specific evidence of engineers, old deeds, as a result of searches in the Registry of Deeds, or proved by the memory of the oldest man in the district, and so on. You must go back to that position with all its insecurity, or you must, when you are opening the folio, make it absolutely certain that every statement on that folio is correct. The Deputy may say that there are certain rights to land which are not set out on the face of the folio, that there are certain rights which are covered by what is known as the notice of equities. I will not say what those rights are, as they are innumerable. Perhaps the most satisfactory way to explain the position will be to say what rights are not as a rule covered by that notice of equities. When the folio is opened these must be put beyond all doubt. It must be put beyond doubt that the holding is in fact a judicial one. The landlord's return is not always complete as to that. The landlord may return so-and-so as the judicial tenant. When you get the fair rent order you may find that while a judicial rent was fixed in 1892 a portion of the holding was assigned to somebody else by agreement with the landlord, that a certain amount of the rent was apportioned on the assigned portion and that the holding is no longer judicial. You must find out who the actual occupier is. The actual boundaries must be found out —they cannot be taken from the map. There is no map in any case except where the fair rent is fixed by the Land Commission. A fair rent in the old days could be fixed by the Land Commission or by the County Court.

Even where the fair rent was fixed by the Land Commission, in numerous cases the map is found to be wrong. So it is necessary to check the actual boundaries, and in all cases to check the actual area, and it is absolutely necessary in practically all cases to check the rights as to turbary and as to grazing; not only the rights of the owner of the particular holding as to turbary and grazing elsewhere, but the right of any person in the district as to turbary and grazing on the particular holding. You cannot open a folio otherwise; if you do the folio is no use. When you speak of vesting, I presume you mean opening a folio which on its face shall be evidence of the title of a particular person to a definite holding with a certain area, certain boundary, certain rights to turbary, certain rights to grazing. If you contemplate that, then all these inquiries must be made before vesting with the greatest possible care. They must be made so carefully that there will be no prospect that they are wrong, and that the judge who has accepted, and must accept them by law, has not done a grave injustice to somebody else who has rights there.

I can understand the Deputy saying, "I do not mean that; I mean something else." But then what does he mean? When he speaks of naming the appointed day and vesting a holding in the tenant, does he mean setting out somewhere that A.B. is the owner in fee-simple of a certain holding with a certain area, with a certain annuity, and with certain rights—in case there may be such rights—to turbary or grazing on a neighbouring holding, and that C.D., E.F., and G.H. have rights on the holding either to turbary or grazing? If he does not mean that, what does he mean? I do not know. If he does not mean that, then the Bill has no meaning to me. If he does mean that, then let us face the question. Let us see whether all that can be done in respect of all the holdings in the country before the 1st of December, 1929. Possibly it could if you trebled or quadrupled the number of people in the Land Commission. If you told them to give up the purchase and dividing of untenanted land, and if the whole energies of the Land Commission, quadrupled or multiplied by five, or whatever number it may be, were concentrated on the work, then possibly it could be done. I could not say. The only point I make is that simply to state in a Bill that all this work shall be done in respect of an unnamed number of holdings within an arbitrary time leads you nowhere. The Deputy has not proved to us that 90,000 holdings can be vested by any reasonable staff of lawyers and inspectors within that time. I believe that if it were examined, and if the exact number of people who could reasonably do this within the time were stated, and the cost was stated, and also the implication that the Land Commission should concentrate upon it and do nothing else, Deputies would not agree to this Bill at all, even if the Deputy did propose it.

I agree there is plenty of room for difference of opinion as to whether the procedure in vesting land has been too slow or not. There is plenty of room for criticism if you like. I was responsible for it myself, and it may be open to criticism that there ought to be more attention paid to vesting land and less to acquiring and dividing it. I think there is a great deal to be said for the matter of giving a rest to the policy of acquiring untenanted land, and that there should be concentration upon the vesting of tenanted land. That is quite reasonable, and can be discussed. But when the Deputy, without being clear as to what he wants, without apparently being clear as to the implication of his Bill, simply introduces the Bill—he may be clear, but he will not admit it—fixing an arbitrary date at which a certain amount of work which he has not apparently contemplated and without any advertence to the difficulty of doing the work or as to what follows from the procedure—when he introduces such a Bill and names an arbitrary date, I cannot understand him.

Mr. Derrig

It might help me to make up my mind as to what we want if the Minister could make up the Government's mind as to what exactly they are prepared to give.

Mr. Hogan

Of course, that is common form enough. I often went to buy a bullock, and I said to the owner, "What do you want for it?" and he said to me, "What will you offer?" but that is not the way to do business. If you are to get business done, you must take a document of this sort introduced here as meaning what it purports to mean. I am willing to admit that it is debatable as to whether there should not be more time concentrated upon vesting and less time upon the division of the land. I thought vesting would be completed quicker. I suggested five years when the Act was being passed. And may I say at that time the statistics were not as accurate as to the number of tenancies in the country. It has been found that there is about 40 or 50 per cent. more tenancies—the figures are there—than we had contemplated, that is because of the wide way in which we interpreted the term "agricultural land." I mentioned the term of five years. It could have been done in five years. None of us contemplated there would be such demand for the acquisition and division of untenanted land. The Land Commission, during 1924, 1925 and 1926, were driven to devote all their energy to acquiring untenanted land and dividing it up. If the Order Papers during the last one, two, three, four or five years are examined, it will be found that for every one question in connection with the vesting of tenanted land there have been fifty in connection with the purchase and division of untenanted land. The Land Commission reacted as it should to what seemed to be the policy of the Dáil at that time—to buy and divide up land, and not to mind vesting so much.

I have always thought, even when I was in charge of the Land Commission, that more time should be given to the vesting of land than to the acquiring and division of land, but, nevertheless, we were driven to spend more and more of our time acquiring untenanted land and dividing it and less of our time in vesting land. My view is perhaps there should be more time given to the vesting of land now that most of the big estates are divided and less time to the acquisition and division of untenanted land.

I think I know what the Deputy means. This Bill is a very respectable looking Bill. It contains a lot of legal jargon which makes it look all right. But it is a much simpler thing that the Deputy wants. I do not believe that Deputies on the opposite benches, no matter what they would say or how they vote, seriously contemplate that the land should be vested in an indiscriminate way without taking any care whatever to see that boundaries, areas, rents, easements, and all the rest, are accurate and that afterwards it should be left to the barristers and solicitors to make a big fortune out of setting the whole thing right. The lawyers would do really well out of it. I would try to get as much myself as possible and we would come well out of it. There would be a vast field for litigation. That is not contemplated. It would be a wanton thing to repeal the Local Registration of Title Act and vest land in that indiscriminate way and, as Deputy Derrig says, repair the mistakes afterwards.

The meaning of this Bill is this: Do not fix the appointed day. He is not concerned as to when the appointed day is fixed. He is concerned with this: that instead of giving a reduction of 25 per cent., we are to give a reduction of, say, 32½ per cent. at once. If the Deputy introduced a Bill to that effect we could understand it. He has not introduced such a Bill. He has introduced quite a respectable Bill with a considerable amount of legal jargon, and it contemplates an appointed day within a certain time and presumably the consequences that would follow.

The Bill, as it stands, is absolutely unworkable and impossible. In spite of the fact that this is a sovereign assembly there are some things it cannot do, and one of them is the impossible. It would be quite impossible to work this Bill; it cannot be done. What the Deputy is really after is that instead of a reduction of 25 per cent we should give a reduction of 35 or 40 per cent. The Deputy is entirely illogical. I believe 25 per cent. is a fair reduction. Not only do I believe it, but I am sure of it. I think fair play is good policy. I thought 25 per cent. was a fair reduction at the time on rents fixed in 1886 or some other date. I am quite satisfied that as compared with the outgoings that the farmer had to pay, rents fixed in 1886 and 1902 and 1906 and reduced by 25 per cent. represent a fair reduction. The Deputy is not satisfied; he is entitled to his opinion, but I think he should be at least logical. The Deputy should go a step further and introduce a Bill providing that the landlord should get no rent and should get no bonds. Is not that the position? It seems to me there is no half-way house between a reduction of 25 per cent. and simply saying "We will take the land from you."

Mr. Derrig

I think the Minister's mention of the landlords is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Hogan

That is too subtle for me. I do not exactly know what to infer from that. The Bill really means that the landlords should suffer, not a reduction of 25 per cent. but some unnamed figure, and I am suggesting, for the sake of argument, that it is a sum approximately between 35 and 40 per cent. That is what the Bill means if it is read intelligibly. I suggest it is illogical. The Deputy has not given any good reason why a 25 per cent. reduction is wrong and 35 per cent. is right. He has not shown that the landlords are getting too much by taking rents reduced by 25 per cent. and that it would be just right if they were reduced by 35 per cent. I am suggesting to Deputies opposite, as I am constantly doing, to be logical. Let them go the whole hog and introduce a Bill to say that the landlords should be expropriated and that nothing should be paid to them. That is what it comes to. That is all I have to say, except that I would like an answer to the question: what do Deputies mean by this Bill? Do they mean that a folio shall be opened, that the fee-simple shall be vested in the tenant, or do they mean simply that a reduction shall be made immediately or should have been made on the date of the passing of the Act, not of 25 per cent., but of 30 to 40 per cent. instead? Let Deputies say what they mean. I say that if you could look at the thing in the abstract, apart altogether from popular demand, it seems that there is a real need for spending more time and devoting more attention on the vesting of tenanted land than on the acquisition of untenanted land.

Mr. Fahy

The Minister for Agriculture has given us a disquisition on law, and he is much perturbed as to what exactly we mean. He represents, as I do, an agricultural constituency, and I think that he was not quite fair in stating that we wanted a reduction of thirty-two and a half per cent. straight off. He is aware, as I am, that there are estates side by side in our county on which some people have got the land vested while their neighbours have not. He will admit that on vesting there is a reduction of five or ten per cent., that some tenants feel the injustice when their neighbours have got that reduction, and that what we mean is to try to get for as many tenants as possible, not only a reduction of five or ten per cent., but that they begin from the appointed day to purchase their land. Further, there are a lot of people who are paying interest in lieu of rent for five or ten years and who still only begin to pay for the land when it is vested. These are two points with which the Minister omitted to deal.

Mr. Hogan

No. I am obliged to the Deputy for the information that this Bill means what it purports to mean, namely, vesting. I think that I dealt with that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Fahy

Yes, the legal aspect of it, and the Minister stated that the Bill would inevitably provide a lot of work for the legal fraternity. That, however, is not our intention. Deputy Derrig suggested that the land might be vested provisionally. According to the Minister's statement one would imagine that there is in every case a dispute about the ownership, about who is to be the tenant, about the area, the easements, turbary, grazing and other rights, but it is only in exceptional cases that that occurs.

Mr. Hogan

Agreed.

Mr. Fahy

Would it not be possible, without doing violence to the Local Registration of Title Act, to endorse the folio, to make it, not he perfect legal instrument that the present folio is, but to endorse it to the effect that it is given under a certain Act? It would not be such an excellent instrument in law as the folio is now, but would it not be possible to have that endorsement, which could be removed on the appointed day or when the land is vested? Such notice or endorsement would limit the tenant's right to transfer. We would agree to that. He need not be in a position to transfer with the same facility as if he had a folio under the Local Registration of Title Act. In most cases there will not be difficulty as to the area or as to who is to be the tenant. The Minister knows that very well. In nine cases out of ten the area is fixed, and, in any case, the Land Commission can ascertain it. If such endorsement were on the folio it need not run counter to the Local Registration of Title Act.

Mr. Hogan

Assume that only twenty per cent. or, if the Deputy likes, only ten per cent. of cases are wrong. Imagine for the next thirty or forty years cases constantly cropping up—people with rights which they have lost and others with rights which they should not have—and all sorts of litigation, and consider the amount of injustice that would be done. What sense of security would there be?

Mr. Fahy

I do not know if the Minister is suggesting that it will take forty years to complete vesting.

Mr. Hogan

No, but as lawsuits occur.

Mr. Fahy

This would only mean a provisional title. I do not think that lawsuits will arise when there is a notice to the effect that it does not give them as perfect title as the folio would—I do not know if the Minister would call it fee-simple. That endorsement on the folio might prevent much litigation instead of encouraging or entailing it. At any rate the Minister talks of uncertainty but there is great uncertainty at present and a great feeling of injustice, as any Deputy who represents an agricultural constituency knows. Many of us on these benches, and on the benches opposite, who do not call ourselves farmers' representatives know that representations have been made weekly by these tenants. Some of them have for fifteen years been paying interest in lieu of rent. There is no finality and we think that this would bring finality much sooner. I do not think that it would mean increasing the staff of the Land Commission four or five times, not even doubling it. They have great experience already and there would not be all the difficulty which the Minister thinks there would. I have great appreciation of the ability of the present staff to do this work. We believe that it could be done without increasing the staff at all. The Minister speaks of the three steps to be taken under the Act of 1903 and the two steps under the Act of 1923. I do not know whether it matters much whether there are two steps or three steps or whether it is a matter of one step. We hear much talk of the number of years. It is six years since the Act of 1923 was passed and we do not know how many more years it is going to take. The Minister then thought five years. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned accordingly.