Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1950

Vol. 119 No. 5

Land Bill, 1950—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 4.

Mr. Moran

When the debate adjourned, I was explaining that this amendment in reality makes no difference whatsover as between the price paid to non-nationals and the price formerly paid under the existing law. The method of determining the price under the machinery we have is that the Land Commission court, commonly described as the appeal tribunal, hears evidence from auctioneers on behalf of the applicant. They then send other valuers to inspect the lands and, having heard both sides, they give a decision which is supposed to be equivalent to paying the market value of the land.

This amendment does not purport to deprive non-nationals of the value of their land under existing law. It is not suggested that they should be cut by 50 per cent, or 20 per cent. It is not suggested that they should be deprived of the value of their lands at all. So far as the amendment goes, it only goes to deprive the non-national of whatever doubtful benefits he might get under the provisions of this Bill. I heard the Minister state to-day that there will be a difference and that there is a difference between market value and market price. Unless some of the amendments tabled are passed, the question of market value will still be up in the air. If Deputy Commons is sincere in this amendment and if he wants to deprive non-nationals of the ordinary rights of compensation, there is no reason why he should not say so specifically in this amendment. He does not purport in this amendment to deny the right of non-nationals to the same compensation for their land, if that land is acquired by the State, as every Irish citizen got up to the passage of this Bill. I think there is some kind of shadow-boxing in connection with this matter. I would be interested in hearing the Minister elaborate on the methods he proposes to employ to deal with this problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

He would be out of order then because that would relate to the entire problem of the purchase of land by aliens. That does not arise under this section.

Mr. Moran

The acquisition of land from aliens does arise. I do want to point out that if the Minister has some special method, and he stated earlier to-day that he has, of dealing with this problem it would influence my mind in deciding whether to vote for or against this particular amendment. I submit I am entitled to ask the Minister if he has some special method for dealing with this problem. I think if the Minister elaborated what he has in mind——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have already stated that the Minister would not be in order in so doing because it would be tantamount to a discussion on the purchase of land here by aliens, and that does not arise under this Bill.

Mr. Moran

It has been stated by the Minister for Agriculture earlier to-day that if this section were accepted it would be unconstitutional.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy mean the amendment to the section?

Mr. Moran

If the amendment to the section were accepted it would be unconstitutional. If that were so, I do not think the amendment would appear on the Order Paper, if, on the face of it, it appeared to be unconstitutional.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has no function in that matter, if that is what the Deputy is suggesting. The Chair is not a judge of the unconstitutionality of an amendment. It might give an opinion.

Mr. Moran

The Chair has given an opinion on this matter before. My experience of the practice of this House is that if an amendment was unconstitutional and obviously so it would not find its way on to the table of amendments before us. However, we are dealing with a Government of lawyers and surely they would have no difficulty in finding somebody to define the rights or wrongs, as far as the Constitution is concerned, without having to call on Deputy Dillon, who is the Minister for Agriculture. I think there are many Front Bench men in the Coalition Government who could give us an opinion, to which some weight could be attached, as to whether this matter is unconstitutional or otherwise. I believe myself, in connection with the question of non-nationals, as Deputy Commons purports to deal with them under this amendment, that the House would be in order in dealing with this problem as far as land is concerned. If I may, I would advise Deputy Commons not to be at all awed by the oration which the Minister for Agriculture delivered in this House to-night in regard to the constitutional issue.

The point of view with which Deputy Commons wants to deal and, indeed, with which this House should deal, is quite apparent to everybody. I think that, in regard to the way in which Deputy Commons has put this matter, he is not in reality penalising anybody. I want to retiterate that if this becomes law and is written into the Statute Book of Dáil Éireann any non-national who comes to claim compensation before the courts after the passage of this Bill will be in the same position as every Irish tenant farmer was before the passage of it. There are grave doubts, both inside and outside this House, as to whether the terms of compensation, depending on their interpretation, will be a very big advance or very much of an advance on the terms of compensation that existed before this Bill ever saw Dáil Éireann.

This amendment, I think, does not purport to deal effectively or otherwise with the problem which Deputy Commons has in mind. Speaking for myself, I for one am prepared to accept the Minister's solution, if he has a solution. He hinted at it to-night and, if it is more effective than the amendment moved by Deputy Commons, I would be prepared to accept it. If the Minister has a genuine method of dealing with this problem I am sure he will be heard sympathetically by every side of the House. I think that, having hinted that he had a solution, he should tell us what steps he proposes to take in connection with this problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has been informed that the Minister will not be allowed to do that. It would be out of order to enter into a discussion on the purchase of land by aliens on this Bill.

Mr. Moran

I am not talking about the purchase of land by aliens but about what is purported to be done under this section, namely, compensation to aliens for lands that may be taken from them. The Minister stated definitely to-night that he had a better way of dealing with that matter than that suggested by Deputy Commons. I ask the Minister to elaborate on that statement and to give us the information we are looking for. If the Minister's suggestion should prove to be better than that of Deputy Commons then Deputy Commons might withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Commons

Let me assure Deputy Moran that I am not overawed in any way by the lecture of the Minister for Agriculture nor do I feel in any way indebted to Deputy Moran and his colleagues for the kind words of advice they have given me in this matter. I am not in any way assured that the Minister is going to take any action. I decided to table the amendment and to allow it to be determined by a free vote of the House. We shall then see who is in favour of the amendment and who is not in favour of it. The new sub-section which I propose can be easily understood by anybody who reads it. It points out, in plain simple language, that we should not pay to non-nationals or aliens the same compensation for the land the Land Commission will acquire from them as we will pay to our own nationals and citizens.

Mr. Moran

That is what you are going to do under this section.

Mr. Commons

That is what we are not going to do under this section.

Question—"That the sub-section be added"—put.

The Committee divided:— Tá: 20; Níl: 81.

Tá

• Belton, John.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Larkin, James.
• McQuillan, John.
• Murphy, William J.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Spring, Daniel.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Moran, Michael.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Ormonde, John.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheehan, Michael.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Commons and McQuillan; Níl: Deputies Kyne and Sweetman.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Aiken

May I ask the Tánaiste before he leaves, what he proposes to do in a situation where one Minister has voted against the Government, although the Minister for Agriculture said the amendment was a breach of the Constitution?

Mr. Norton

In that respect, if I want any advice as to what foolish steps should be taken, I shall consult the Deputy.

Mr. MacEntee

Face the country; you are split from top to bottom.

Mr. Moylan

I move amendment No. 5:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The market value of land to be acquired by the Land Commission shall be determined by the average price paid for land of quality similar to that being acquired in the particular district where it is being acquired over the period of the preceding three years.

I put this amendment down principally for the purpose of getting a definition of market value. The Minister has, in the views which he has expressed so far, been rather nebulous as to what exactly he means by "market value". When we were discussing the question of market value on a previous occasion it was pointed out to me that I had on several occasions opposed the idea of paying market value for land and that is true. It is only by way of consideration that I did come round to the view that it would be an injustice to property owners to pay anything other than the actual market value. Reforms do not come quickly and before any man introduces a reform, he must have convinced himself. Not merely that, but he must convince others who are acting with him. While the Minister and I are, I think, in agreement that market value should be paid to property holders, yet there is something to be said on the other side and it has been said by Deputies, not merely on this side, but on the Government Benches.

Old tradition is not bad and old custom is not easily got over. The general idea in regard to the non-payment of market value arises out of the belief that property has its duties as well as its rights, and that when property did not carry out its duties there should be a penalty inherent in any transaction between property owners and the State. That is why people have opposed market value and many are still opposed to it and are not convinced that it should be paid.

As the Minister for Agriculture pointed out to-night, there are conditions about the world now, however, very much opposed to the system of property holding in any form, and we should be very careful in our views in regard to property. I take the view that once an allottee has entered into a contract with the State the State cannot override that contract and, if it does resume or acquire the land originally got for him by Land Commission action, it is right that he should be paid market value. I doubt—and I think the Minister doubts, in view of what he has already said—that the acceptance of the view that market value should be paid will make a tremendous difference in the price paid for land. While the Minister and many other people were at one time rather indignant at the attitude of the Land Commission towards property holders, he has admitted, and I know it is so, that only in very few cases has there been any injustice. The Land Commission have been reasonably fair with all property owners and have been most sympathetic towards them and I doubt if acceptance of this principle would mean any appreciable addition to the cost. I think the only difference that could possibly be made would be in regard to the redemption of land annuities. Since that is taken care of in Section 7, I see no reason why the Minister should not, in accepting this amendment, give us a very clear difinition—his own definition, anyhow—of what is meant by market value. That is the point on which I would like some elucidation given.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 could be discussed together. Deputy Moran might raise his amendment now and have one debate on this question of market value, with two separate divisions.

Mr. Moran

If you so rule.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is only a suggestion. I am not ruling definitely.

Mr. Moran

Very well. I move——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not necessary to move the amendment, as technically there should be only one amendment at a time before the House. The Deputy may discuss his amendment in full, without actually moving it.

Mr. Moran

Then, taking the amendment as if it were moved, I again seek to get some concrete idea from the Minister or from the Government on this nebulous question of market value. As I have pointed out to the House on the last amendment, it was stated by some people that we already had the basis of market value. It was contended that when the Land Commission courts were directed that, in fixing a sum, regard should be had to the fair value of land to the Land Commission, the best interpretation of those words was that they should get something approaching market value.

An earlier intervention of the Minister in this debate to-night makes me gravely doubt as to what is the official intention in regard to this matter. I have heard him trying to draw fine hairs between market value and market price. If someone in the House will clearly explain to me the difference between market price and market value, I would be very much obliged to him. I consider that the market value of any land is the market price it would fetch in its own locality.

You cannot have a market value to apply to the whole of this country, as a lot would depend on the local circumstances. Land per acre may fetch a certain price in County Meath, while in areas where there is land hunger, as in the area I represent, land may fetch a very different price. That is why I have tabled this amendment, that

the market value of land to be purchased or acquired by the Land Commission shall be determined by the average current price paid for land of similar quality to that being acquired in the immediate vicinity of the district where it is being acquired.

The value of land varies not alone from county to county but from district to district and from parish to parish.

Mr. Blowick

And from townland to townland.

Mr. Moran

I have tried to tie the Minister and his Department down as nearly as I could by the definition I have put here. I have tried to get it as close as possible to indicate the area in which the land is being acquired. Taking a farm in one particular district, even in a county where there is no congestion or land hunger, the price paid for that land is no criterion in respect to a price which should prevail over the whole district. As every rural Deputy knows, there are areas in different districts, in different counties throughout the country, that differ in price very widely. It is in an attempt to get the Government or the Minister to say what will be the rule in connection with this matter that this amendment is tabled.

There is another point, which we will be discussing further later on, but which is relevant here. It arises out of the manner in which the price is determined. The procedure, as we know it at the moment, is that the owner produces evidence from his auctioneers as to the amount they say his land would fetch; the Land Commission then send valuers, who report back. Whatever they report nobody knows, but ultimately the Commissioners, the Land Commission Court or the Appeal Tribunal fix the price, presumably having had the benefit of hearing both sides of the question. It is a matter we can fruitfully discuss later on in the Bill. I think both sides should be heard together and that the question should be decided in open court.

In arriving at market value, we should not leave it as some rule of thumb, the sending down of some city auctioneer or valuer to an area in the West where he never saw or sold land before, as he would have as much idea of the value of land down there as a pig has about aviation. Such people, ex-officials of the Land Commission in Dublin and valuers from Dublin, accustomed to dealing with city properties, have been sent down to congested areas. It is a completely stupid idea to ask these people to determine the market value of land in congested areas.

Mr. Blowick

When does that happen?

Mr. Moran

The Minister must know quite well, and it is not my business to tell him, that the Land Commission courts, day in, day out, are sending inspectors down the country to value land.

Mr. Blowick

Yes.

Mr. Moran

If the Minister does not know that, he should know it because it is one of the matters about which I am complaining. I am suggesting to the Minister that in arriving at the market value in a particular area regard should be had by the body that is to determine the question to the evidence of men who are familiar with the particular area and who are familiar with prices in that area and that the decision will not be taken, as I think it is taken at present, on the evidence of somebody from outside the area who is unacquainted with conditions and prices in the area.

I am narrowing the definition of market value even more than my colleague Deputy Moylan has done. I am suggesting in the amendment that it shall be determined by the average current price paid for land of similar quality to that being acquired in the "immediate vicinity of the district" where it is being acquired because "district" is a word that can be extended to a very large degree. If the House decided to give the market value, that market value should be based on the market price of land in the area in which the holding is situate. That is the principle I am trying to secure and I would like to know from the Minister whether he is accepting the principle of both these amendments, which aim at the same object.

Mr. Ruttledge

May I ask the Minister if he can state at once what he means by the market value? Let us be clear about the situation. Let it be clear once and for all because this will raise questions that will be disputed in the law courts for many years ahead. Will the Minister state now what is the market value? Let him give a clear definition now, as the law stands and as he knows and understands it. That is the only thing I am concerned about.

Mr. Cogan

I wish to reply to a point that was made by Deputy Moylan. Deputy Moylan said that in his opinion the provisions of this section will not add very much to the price that may be paid for land acquired. That raises one point. The Chair ruled an amendment of mine out of order on the ground that it would add to the cost of this Bill. Deputy Moylan claims that there is no additional cost involved.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy himself mentioned the cost in the amendment. It was unfortunate.

Mr. Cogan

I assumed that there would be additional cost. Deputy Moylan appears to have a different point of view. I do not think that he really believes that when he says it because everybody knows that land has been acquired during the last ten years, and perhaps before that, at considerably below the market value and, therefore, if this section is made operative, it will add to the cost. Another point made by Deputy Moylan was that he doubts very much the equity of this particular section. He suggests that property has its duties as well as its rights and that, since land is acquired as a sort of penalty on the owners, it ought to be acquired at less than its value. I do not agree with that point of view. I do not agree that it should be a recognised function of the Land Commission to impose sanctions or penalties on the owners of land in regard to the use of that land. In the case of land that is still the property of the Land Commission, and in which the tenants are not yet the vested owners, there should be supervision in regard to the use that is made of it but in the case of land that is the property of the farmer the Land Commission ought not to have the power which Deputy Moylan suggests they should have. I think everybody will agree that the Land Commission is not qualified to exercise that function. If somebody must perform the function of supervising the use of land, it should be the Department of Agriculture, which is more closely associated with agricultural practices.

Certainly, the Land Commission should not have that power. I maintain that ownership should be absolute and that the owner of land should be free from unnecessary supervision. We have had it stated by the Minister for Agriculture that inspectors are to be kept outside the farmer's fences. If that is Government policy, we ought to stand by it.

There is certainly a very distinct difference between market value and market price. My idea of market value is the estimated value of land in the particular area where the land is situate.

Mr. Blowick

The estimated value?

Mr. Cogan

It must be estimated.

Mr. Moran

By whom?

Mr. Blowick

The Minister for Agriculture?

Mr. Cogan

It must be estimated by somebody. Otherwise how can you ascertain the price? Somebody must value the land and come to a decision as to its value. You cannot value land by putting it up for auction and seeing how much it will fetch. That is hardly a reasonable way of solving the problem. This problem ought not to present any difficulty to the Land Commission, because as I understand it, the Land Commission have been acquiring land or resuming land for a long period under another Act at the market value and they must have, therefore, the machinery for ascertaining, if that is a better word than estimating, what market value is. If the machinery is there in regard to land resumed, land which is not vested in the tenant, that machinery can be put into operation under the section and I do not see that any difficulty can arise.

Mr. Blowick

I do not know where all the solicitude for the protection of those from whom the Land Commission are acquiring land has suddenly come amongst those on the opposite benches.

Mr. Moran

It comes from the Minister under Section 5.

Mr. Blowick

I am giving the market value. I do not mind Deputy Moran putting down such an amendment as this, but I am candidly surprised that Deputy Moylan should have slipped so badly as to do this. Deputy Moylan must know that two methods of determining the price were laid down by statute in respect of land held under two different types of ownership, vested and unvested land. Unvested land was resumed and the price fixed was fixed satisfactorily in nearly all cases under the very same system as that which I am proposing here which was laid down in the 1939 Act. Incidentally, I should like to have time to go through the Dáil debates to see whether Deputy Moran tabled such an amendment as this, when Section 39 of that Act was going through. In the determination of market value, do Deputy Moran and Deputy Moylan, both of whom know a little about rural Ireland, seriously propose that either of these amendments should go in as part of a statute and part of the direction or guidance for the Land Commission in determining the price?

Deputy Moran mentioned that the price of land varies from one parish and from one townland to another. Two holdings of exactly the same acreage, the same poor law valuation and very nearly the same quality, so far as the eye can see, side by side in the same townland, will go two different prices. He knows well that there is no such thing as pinning down. These amendments would have the effect of reverting to the position which this Bill seeks to get away from, and in some cases I have no doubt this system would give an enhanced price to some farmers and a reduced price, or a price much below what would be fair, to others.

One of the principal things affecting the sale of land is its location with regard to a public road or a good road. Does every Deputy not know that a 50-acre farm at the end of a mile-long boreen, particularly if the boreen is in pretty bad condition, would not go any more than half the price it would go if it adjoined a main road and particularly a good steam-rolled road?

The condition of out-offices is not taken into account or whether some of the land would be subject to periodic flooding in the winter or water-logging in wet weather all the year round. All I am doing is giving the very same freedom to the Land Commission. I am asking the House to enable them to determine the price of acquired land by the very same method as that by which they have determined the price of resumed land up to this. It has worked satisfactorily and, as the black said about the watch: "I do not know anything about it, but it works".

Mr. de Valera

We would like to know something about it.

Mr. Blowick

I do not mind the Leader of the Opposition because I know well what is wrong is that this Bill does things which he knows in his heart he should have done, in honesty and fair play, years ago.

Mr. de Valera

I do not want lectures like that. I want information as to what "market value" means.

Mr. Blowick

And you will get it.

Mr. de Valera

Give us the information.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy de Valera knows quite well that, if either of these amendments was accepted, it would play havoc with the work of the Land Commission in trying to arrive at a fair price for farms being taken over. I have not got the slightest notion of accepting either.

Mr. de Valera

I am looking for information from the Minister as to how he proposes to do it.

Mr. McGrath

He said he knew nothing about it except that it works.

Mr. Blowick

I did not. I said: "As the black said about the watch: ‘I do not know anything about it, but it works.'" The Deputy's hearing is out of order. I have not the slightest notion of accepting these, for the reason that it would be a reversion to the old position. I feel that these amendments have been tabled thoughtlessly. I would accept an amendment that would be of assistance to the Land Commission in determining the fair market value. My own private opinion is that no two can determine the market value of anything better than the buyer and the seller.

Mr. Moran

Why not accept the amendment then?

Mr. Blowick

This amendment does not mention one or the other.

Mr. Moran

Will you tell us how the court is to arrive at market value?

Mr. Blowick

Will the Deputy tell me why it is that section 39 of the 1939 Act was left there for the past 11 years?

Mr. Moran

We are dealing here with Section 5 of this Bill.

Mr. Blowick

And why no anxiety was expressed about it during all that time, although half the Land Commission's takings during that time consisted of resumed land. The method provided by that section, credit for which goes, I think, to Deputy Aiken, who was Minister at that time, produced satisfactory results, while the other method of determining the price of acquired land was nothing more or less than a pickpocket's method.

As I said on the Second Reading, as regards fixation of the price of land, the relief of congestion is a responsibility which the State should shoulder and the method employed up to this was definitely not one that aimed at speeding up a solution of that problem, and any section or sub-section of a statute which delayed the work of the Land Commission in that regard could not be said to aim at finality in the matter, could not be said to aim at bringing the problem of congestion to an end, a problem which Deputies on all sides are anxious to see finished. I said that it was exactly like asking a man to run a race after tying his feet. That is exactly what was happening. The Land Commission were told to go out and get land and every person in the country from whom land was being acquired threw every possible obstacle in their path, because word had gone round that the Land Commission were practically stealing the land. The Party opposite operated that for 16 years and they acquired a reasonable amount of land during their first four or five years. I am asking the House to agree with me in doing away with it. The method of fixing the price of resumed land has proved satisfactory and I am quite satisfied that it will prove satisfactory in relation to acquired land.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister has introduced this term "market value" and he made the pretence that there was some difference between market value and market price. We want to know, before we accept this, exactly what he means by that phrase and how it is that market value is to be determined. That is a simple question which the Minister ought to be able to answer.

Mr. Blowick

Does the Leader of the Opposition mean to say that he was Head of the Government and Prime Minister over a Minister of Lands who was operating the same principle in the case of resumed land from 1939 to the 18th February, 1948, and that he did not know the first thing about it?

Mr. de Valera

I want to know from the Minister, if he knows—and the House is entitled to get it from the Minister—what he means by the phrase he has introduced here and how the market price is going to be determined? Has this phrase been inserted for publicity purposes?

Mr. Blowick

It has not.

Mr. de Valera

If it has not he should explain it here and now and not use his position for abuse. He is not there for abuse, he was put there by the House to work and he should be able to explain the terms that come into his own Bill.

Mr. Blowick

The Leader of the Opposition is quite free to describe my explanation of the Bill as abuse or anything else he likes. He is perfectly free to do so. It leaves me absolutely unperturbed. The Leader of the Opposition is apparently a bit nettled by the fact that something was installed in the 1939 Land Act——

Mr. de Valera

No, but I am a bit nettled by the fact that the Minister cannot give us an explanation.

Mr. Blowick

The Leader of the Opposition is asking me for an explanation of something which has existed for 11 years and which his own Minister installed. He could get the information from the third man from him on his right.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister is there to give the House information so that we may be able to form a judgment. It does not matter what was done in the past.

Mr. Blowick

It does matter.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister is bringing in an Act of Parliament. He can make as much propaganda as he likes about the past, but what we want to know here and now is what he means by a phrase which he puts into this Bill.

Mr. Corry

I do not think there is any necessity for any heat on this matter. We are entitled to know what will be the price paid to farmers for their land, for ordinary land, not ranches or anything else but the land of ordinary farmers. You are taking something from a farmer for which he is entitled to get at least the price he would get elsewhere for it. How is that to be determined? That is what we want to know. Is it to be in the same way as for resumed land? I have seen some amazing results in our own land courts. One holding in my own district was valued by the Land Commission valuers at £900. It went up before the Appeal Tribunal, who sent down another set of valuers and they valued it at £1,450. I can quote another case and give it to the Minister— I would not like to give the details here in the House, but I would give them elsewhere—where the value fixed by the Land Commission was £1,200 and the value fixed by the Appeal Tribunal was £2,380.

Those are facts in regard to resumed land. We are entitled to know who is going to fix market value and on what basis that market value is going to be fixed. Is it going to be fixed by either of those two bodies, by the official valuers of the Land Commission or by the official valuers of the Appeal Tribunal or is it going to be fixed by a valuer of the Department of Social Welfare like the one who down in my country valued a half-acre of beet at £45? Is any new authority going to come in and have a go at it? We are entitled to know who is going to fix the market value and what the market value is going to be. I for one would prefer Deputy Moran's amendment:—

"The market value of land to be purchased or acquired by the Land Commission shall be determined by the average current price paid for land of similar quality to that being acquired in the immediate vicinity of the district where it is being acquired."

That would mean that if a farm was sold within a couple of years in that district and so much per acre was fixed, the man whose land is being taken would have that as a basis of the price he would get. The value of the house and out-offices would of course be taken into consideration if one had a dilapidated house and out-offices and the other a good house and out-offices that would be taken into account in determining the value Deputy Moran's amendment, however, gives some basis which has not yet appeared in the section by which we could judge. I for one, with 23 years' experience in this House and experience of the actual working of those Land Acts in the country, would not accept the manner in which it has been done in the case of resumed land up to the moment as the right manner to determine market value to-day.

Mr. Commons

The question of market value is one which is pretty difficult to answer because there is no doubt that the market value can go up and down in small districts as well as throughout the country. That we must all admit and to find a method of determining the market value of any holding is difficult. There are Deputies in this House, farmers by profession and occupation, who claim they know land and market value as well as any Land Commission valuer. I know I would not play second to any Land Commission valuer who ever went out to value a holding of land. Like Deputy Corry or anyone else who has lived on a holding I would be a very poor master of my occupation if I could not tell the difference between good land and bad as well as, or better than, any official of the Department. In this section paragraph (a) reads:—

"The said sub-section shall have effect with the substitution of the words ‘the amount to be so fixed shall be an amount equal to the market value of the land' for the words ‘in fixing such sum regard shall be had to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and the owner respectively.'"

The difference between market value and a value which is fair to the owner and the Land Commission, respectively, is very little. If the Land Commission decide to give the value which is fair to the owner and to themselves they are first going to get as close as they can to the market value. In some cases they have been doing that and in other cases they have not. The Land Commission valuer can certain price on a holding of land. The person from whom the land is to be taken over then appeals to the Appeal Tribunal and in most cases there is a revaluation and the price is increased. Anybody who takes an interest in land knows that that has happened from time to time, but who is to determine market value and how is it to be fixed? The determination of the price to be paid for any land for a number of years past has rested with the commissioners of the Land Commission and it still rests with them. They act presumably on the reports they get from the valuers of the Land Commission. The valuer submits a report of what he thinks is the value of the land and leave is given to the owner to appeal. The whole thing is heard by the Appeal Tribunal and a bargain is struck between the two. I would be very cautious about giving the market value of land, especially if I thought it was going to fleece the Government, the Land Commission and the taxpayers in general in order to satisfy a whim or fancy of some individual from whom land will be taken over.

I have always said that I am not a great lover of the principle of market value. I am simply supporting it now as an experiment to see if it will bring more land into the pool to enable the Land Commission to help to relieve congestion. There is an effort being made now to arrive at market value, but if we carry on the system which has been carried on with regard to resumed land, I do not think that we will be far out. That will not be a perfect system and let nobody think that it will. The best valuer that you can get may be out £50 or £60 in valuation. What the Bill proposes may help to speed up the procedure with regard to the acquisition of land. There may be an easing up, and that will be all to the good. That is the only way in which I can imagine market value being arrived at.

Deputy Moylan, in his amendment, is urging that market value should be arrived at by taking the price paid for land in a locality in the preceding three years I do not know why he introduced such an amendment, because we all know that land values can vary very much in a year or two years. They may fall or they may rise.

I suppose it would be correct to say that over the past few years land values have risen considerably, but they may fall during the next three years. Therefore, would it not be wrong if the Land Commission had to carry on its work based on the inflated prices that have prevailed during the last three years? I think that we should give a discretion to the Land Commission and try, so to speak, to grade out prices. Let us be as hard as we can on the owner of land without being unjust to him. Let us try and strike a figure that will be reasonable. I want to repeat that market value is a very hard thing to define. I do not think it is a thing that can be arrived accurately at by anybody.

Mr. Blowick

And the Deputies opposite know that quite well.

Mr. Ruttledge

Like Deputy Commons, I know something about the West of Ireland and of the problem that is there so far as the land position is concerned. It is the desire of all of us to do the best we can for the people who are there. There is a problem there, and it is one that is going to take time. What I am anxious to get from the Minister is a definition of what he means by market value.

Mr. Fagan

My opinion is that the amendments we are discussing are not going to help us to define what market value is. Heretofore, the land annuity had to be redeemed. On behalf of the people I represent I want to say I am glad that we are getting away from that. I do not think there is anyone who can define what the value of land is. I think that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong in pressing the Minister about that. If the Minister could do something to save landowners from having to go before the tribunal it would, I think, be a good thing. We all know from experience that if, say, ten people go to an auction of land each one will have a different idea about the value of that land. I do not think you will ever change that. I think that these two amendments should be withdrawn. Their acceptance, in my own opinion, would only lead to endless trouble. I move to report progress.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 28th February, 1950.