It seems to me that the Minister for Agriculture when speaking to this Bill on Wednesday last misunderstood its purpose. I do not say that he did so deliberately, because he took the Bill as drafted, literally, and interpreted it according to the strict letter of the law. He stressed all the complex and convoluted consequences that would follow from putting this Bill into law. I should like to make it clear that the purpose of the movers of this Bill is two-fold. If that is not clear to the Minister from the exact wording of the Bill it should have been clear from the explanatory speech made by the introducer. Stress was laid on the consequences of vesting. I must admit that if you take all the consequences of passing this Bill into law as understood under the Act of 1923 then evils might follow. But I should like to know how far the Minister would meet us on the principle of the Bill; for the real aim, I maintain, is to expedite land settlement, to achieve the purposes the Minister had in mind in 1923. We would not by this Bill achieve that purpose in full. But we would bring satisfaction to the tenants and put many of them on an equal footing with their neighbours. The amendments necessary might be introduced in Committee. Such amendments might entail giving a new interpretation to the term "appointed day."
The Minister feared that giving effect to this Bill would necessitate the quadrupling of the staff of the Land Commission. I would like to examine that for a moment. Take the two classes of tenants, the judicial and the non-judicial. I fail to see any difficulty in fixing the annuity for the judicial tenants. That is a matter of calculation, not a very abstruse calculation. It could be done in a month by half a dozen men with a ready reckoner. No inspection is required. As regards the non-judicial tenants the question is more difficult. If there were fair rent tribunals in existence such tenants would avail of them. They have not got those. Of course, therefore, they cannot avail of them. They can get it done through the Land Commission but that is very slow, much slower than the Courts. The Minister referred to the all-round reduction given by the 1923 Act. A reduction was given, I will admit, but more reduction is required. The tenants are entitled to a further reduction. It has been suggested to me that this Bill would hit the non-judicial tenants, actually hit them financially, and that it would be bad for them. I do not think it would if the method in which we propose to proceed is understood. The precise procedure in dealing with the non-judicial land is not laid down explicitly in the 1923 Act. In actual fact much the same steps are taken as were taken in fixing judicial rents long ago. It entails examination, inquiry, inspection and various other things. Our proposal would be that the average of the judicial rents in the neighbourhood would be taken. In this matter it might be wise to proceed by townlands and strike an average of the judicial rents of the neighbourhood and then fix the rent for the non-judicial holdings provisionally and leave a margin. That might or might not be favourable to the tenant later on. Having done that you give the necessary reduction and fix that average as his annuity, say, five per cent. or ten per cent. of a reduction, whatever it is. In that way you would allow him, what is very important, to begin to pay for his land now instead of paying interest in lieu of rent for another ten years or whatever time it might be.
On the last day here there was an interjection from somebody that we were hitting the landlords and that we might as well give them nothing at all. Such an interjection as that is rather amazing to me, because if the Department of Lands had sufficient staff all that land would have been fixed by now. It was the hope of the Minister himself in 1923 that it would have been fixed, and I fail to see what grievance the landlord has. If there had been fair rent tribunals all along the tenants would have got that reduction. Apart from that this Act of 1923 was passed for the benefit of the tenant and not for the benefit of the landlord, I hope. So that I do not see what grievance they have. We do not want, by delaying the operation of fixing the land problem, to benefit the landlord at the expense of the tenant. I do not suppose any Deputy would tell his constituents that such was his desire. Therefore, we hold that it is just and feasible to interpret the appointed day as follows: Let two consequences take effect at once on the date mentioned in the Bill (1) as to the reduction. (2) the purchase begins to date from such date. Suppose all details were complete in 1935. What would happen? By that date you would have fixed the boundaries, the questions of title, turbary, grazing would all have been examined. Then the folio would be issued. I suggested on Wednesday that you might issue the folio with an endorsement, a sort of qualified folio. It might be better not to issue the folio until you had all the things completed, say in 1935 or after. The date would not matter, if the tenant got the benefit of the reduction and was paying towards the purchase of his land. Having issued the folio in 1935, it could be dated retrospectively, redated back to the date mentioned in the Bill—deemed to have been issued, at the date mentioned in the Bill. As regards the margin, I suggest making an average of the rents in the neighbouring townland to fix the annuities on non-judicial holdings would beyond doubt give a margin. Suppose it was discovered that the tenant had been paying a little too much, an allowance could be made from that date on. Suppose he had paid too little. At present you compound arrears of rent and add them to the annuity. Why not do the same with that margin and add it to the annuity from that date? I think there would be no difficulty in that.
The Minister for Agriculture visioned a mighty field of litigation if such a Bill became an Act, but I fail to see it. The tenants on these holdings now understand the limits of their holdings, and their neighbours understand them, as well as the grazing rights and so on. We are not fixing these definitely, say, until 1935. All we are doing is fixing the annuities and giving the reduction. Tenants die and their sons and daughters succeed them. The land is exchanged and there is no trouble. Why should there be more trouble because we give these tenants the bare justice of the reduction that the Minister intended to give in 1923, and of letting them begin now to pay for the land? So that, even if it is necessary to give the appointed day a new significance, and, as it were, to dam up for the present some of the consequences that flow from it, I do not see that that is a very difficult matter or that this Dáil could not do it by an amendment to the Act of 1923. If you like, of course, to go on the strict literal interpretation of this Bill as drafted, you might say it is impossible to carry out. We say, amend it in the sense that I have suggested. That is one way it could be done. Give that new interpretation to the appointed day, and give effect to the two things to which we want to give effect—give the reduction immediately and let the tenants begin at once to pay for their lands. It is only common justice to do that. It might be done best by townlands, but that is a matter to be considered later.
