Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are being discussed together, though two decisions may be required.
Land Bill, 1949—Committee (Amendment No. 5 resumed).
When we were discussing this matter on the last occasion, Deputies on this side of the House were endeavouring to get some indication from the Minister as to what he means by the expression "market value". I endeavoured to point out that unless the Government or the Minister makes some attempt at defining that expression it will lead to endless trouble for everybody who will be connected with the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. "Market value" has several different definitions as the law stands to-day. It has a different meaning, for instance, for the Revenue Commissioners than it has for the ordinary auctioneer throughout the country. It has a different meaning for the Land Registry compared with that which it has for the Revenue Commissioners and it has a different meaning for the income-tax code than it has for either of these other two bodies. Now the Minister boldly wants to shove through this expression of "market value" without making any attempt whatsoever at defining it. I think this would look a stupid piece of legislation if it were let go through as it is at the present time and without some attempt being made to define "market value". The Lay Commissioners, the Appeal Tribunal or the Land Commission Courts will be just as wise as all of us here now are unless some attempt is made to define this expression. For instance, if this section is let go through as it is at the moment it may be argued before the Lay Commissioners or before the Land Commission Court that the expression "market value" means what the Revenue Commissioners take it to mean for estate duty purposes—that is, that where the gross value of the estate does not exceed £500 the method is 25 times the poor law valuation minus the redemption value of the annuity. That method is regarded by the Revenue Commissioners under Section 16 (1) of the Finance Act of 1894 as being the method of arriving at the principal value, as they call it under the 1894 Act, and where the property is over £1,000 under Section 16 (1) of the Finance Act of 1894 they define the value they want as the "market value". Therefore we have one method—the Revenue Commissioners' method for estate duty purposes—of arriving at "market value" by a rule of thumb method prescribed under an Act of 1894.
The Deputy knows that that is wrong.
If, on the other hand, we take the procedure of the Land Registry where a deed is lodged for stamping we find that to ascertain the "market value" in the case of freehold lands they take the position to be ascertained by adding the redemption value to the annuity to the pecuniary consideration or the value set out in the deed. We have all these different methods including the method already practised by the Land Commission in vested cases of arriving at the "market value." You have still another method of arriving at it under the Compensation for Land (Compulsory Acquisition) Act of 1890 where you have these arbitration courts. The principle appears to be the price that would be arrived at between a willing seller and a willing purchaser. Here we have this extraordinary thing thrown into this Bill without any attempt being made to guide those people who will ultimately try to interpret it. The whole principle of the Bill, according to the Minister in his previous speeches, was to give a fair deal to the people from whom land is being taken. Why run away from the definition of "market value" now? Why not prescribe in this Bill the method under which "market value" is going to be ascertained? Why leave the position in the air? If the Minister is anxious that those from whom land is going to be acquired will get the "market value" of their lands surely he should specify in this House now what he means by this much abused expression "market value." Is he going to leave the expression capable of all these different interpretations or is he going to accept the amendments put down by Deputy Moylan and myself? Is he going to accept a reasonable interpretation and rule for courts to interpret the meaning of the expression? I think that the fairest method of arriving at what the market value should be is to take the average price in the immediate vicinity of the land being acquired.
Suppose no land had been sold in the vicinity for a period?
If that contingency should arise it is very easily remedied under Deputy Moylan's amendment which is as follows:—
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.
This is not a matter which is insoluble. There are, obviously, rules that can be laid down or interpretations that can be made of "market value". Surely the Minister realises that if he leaves the section as it is—and the expression "market value" in the air—neither he nor the Lay Commissioners nor the Appeal Tribunal would know what rules to apply in order to ascertain the "market value". The Minister knows that, for instance, in the case of lands in County Dublin where farms are being sold the average price per acre differs very widely from the average price per acre in the west of Ireland. The Minister knows, too, that in particular places—for instance, in his own constituency where there is land hunger —lands fetch an extremely high price and that even very small farms of £2 10s. to £5 valuation realise prices of from £700 to £800. The Minister knows that some rule of the type suggested in the amendments must be arrived at.
I am afraid the Deputy is defeating his own amendment.
I am pointing out to the Minister that, under different Finance Acts, under different legislation of this State there are different interpretations of the expression "market value". If the Minister is sincere in endeavouring to ensure that "market value" as it is commonly understood throughout the country should be paid to the owner of land from whom land is taken, surely he can see the force and effect of the amendments tabled by Deputy Moylan and by myself.
Is there any reason why the Minister should run away from the task of interpreting the term "market value"? Does the Minister not see the difficulties which will be created if he does not attempt to elucidate this expression? Do we not all know that this will lead to appeal upon appeal, and that when land is being acquired, nobody will be able to tell the Minister what "market value" means, and that eventually the matter will have to be brought to the Supreme Court in order to get an authoritative decision from the Supreme Court as to the meaning of the words "market value"? I appeal to the Minister to consider particularly the amendment that I myself have tabled in order that we may be able to get some sensible interpretation of the expression. I put it to the Minister if he wants co-operation throughout the country, if he is anxious to acquire land for the relief of congestion and if he has cases arising from day to day in which people cannot be assured they are going to get the "market value", the Minister is not going to get people to offer land for the relief of congestion.
Would it surprise the Deputy to know that quite an appreciable amount of land has been offered by people who were not aware that the Bill was not yet law?
I am quite well aware that there have been thousands of acres of snipe land offered to the Land Commission that has been of no use to the owners. I am quite sure that, even before the introduction of this Bill, people who wanted to get rid of such lands and had no use for them, offered them but it is an altogether different proposition where a man is living on his land and the Land Commission are anxious to take it over for the relief of congestion. That is the man I want to protect under the Bill. I want to ensure that if the land is taken from him, in spite of his teeth as it were, he will at least get as much for that land as if he were selling it in the open market as a free seller to a willing purchaser. The Minister expressed the hope in some of his previous speeches that he would be able to get over many of the difficulties he had experienced in acquiring land for the relief of congestion if the market value were paid. In my view, if the Minister does not elucidate what he means by "market value" he is simply going to dash the hopes of people who would normally be inclined to sell their lands to the Land Commission because if it goes out from this House that nobody knows what "market value" is and that the Minister is differentiating between what is known as market value and what he calls market price, there is going to be great uncertainty amongst those who are thinking of offering their land to the Land Commission. In these circumstances people will not take the risk of offering land to him if they can dispose of it otherwise to a willing purchaser in the open market because they at least know the price they will get from that purchaser. Even from the point of view of making this Bill a good and workable Bill, I again appeal to the Minister not to allow the Bill to pass this House in its present form containing an expression, the meaning of which nobody, not even the Minister, understands.
If there is one solid reason why the Minister should not accept these amendments it is the confused argument advanced by the last speaker. He has indicated in no uncertain way to the House that it would be fatal for the Minister to endeavour to define this particular term. I am quite certain that Deputy Moran, from his experience as a legal practitioner, knows that many of the difficulties which he has mentioned in connection with this Bill are so many empty vapours. The Deputy is making a mountain out of a molehill and he is doing that deliberately to try and impair what might ultimately be the good work achieved by this Bill. I know perfectly well that there has been difficulty under different codes in regard to the interpretation of "market value", and I am warning the Minister here and now that if he endeavours to tie this up within a definition clause or within a rigid definition, he is going to heap confusion on confusion.
I do not know whether the Opposition think, as apparently their attitude would suggest, that for some unknown reason people experienced in dealing with land are not going to be able to arrive, in the light of that experience, at what is a reasonable market value in the circumstances of each purchase. A very simple argument suggests itself to my mind. If you were to take Deputy Moylan's amendment on its merits, who would then tell the Minister how long the period of years would be? If you were to take a period of years that might include the lunatic period of the Fianna Fáil economic war, the value of land would be practically nil. On the other hand, if you were to take the period of years covering the panic foreign buying, the price of land might be completely exorbitant, whereas if you leave it to be interpreted reasonably and intelligently by the Minister himself, you will have a better yardstick by which you can arrive at something practicable.
I do not think that Deputy Moylan or Deputy Moran are in earnest about their amendments. I think Deputy Moylan still remains the able politician, making confusion out of a situation that presents no real confusion to himself. He was an experienced and an efficient Minister for Lands and he knows perfectly well in his own good judgment that if there were not so many restrictive definitions in the land code, he might have been able to do a more effective job when he desired to do it. I think, and I am putting it to the House, that this is a new principle here. It is an effort, an experiment, something that will be tried out in all its circumstances. Possibly, in the development of the system, many of the imperfections that might now be envisaged by the Opposition will clear themselves up in practice, or at least they will have some chance of clearing themselves up in practice and it will not be, as it might well be if this section is too well defined, a lawyers' paradise.
There is one of the real kernels and the really new principles of this legislation evolved in this section. I say to the Minister, in all earnestness: "Have a good try, see how this works, and if you do find that you are forced into the situation that you must be more explanatory about it, or that you have to define it in a more rigid way, come back and test the co-operation that Fianna Fáil allege they want to give you."
On the last night this Bill was before the House, I clearly intimated that I could not accept either of these two amendments. I would be anxious to see a definition of market value placed in this particular Bill, but either Deputy Moran's or Deputy Moylan's proposed definitions is absolute nonsense and definitely would give no pointer whatever to the Land Commission in finding the true market value of any particular farm they were acquiring. The reason this principle has been installed in this Bill is because of the difference that exists in the method of determining the price of unvested land and the price of vested land up to the present. It would appear, from Deputy Moran's speech and other speeches on that side of the House, that this is the first time the term "market value" has ever appeared in a Bill. It has appeared in the 1933, 1936 and 1939 Acts. It is appearing again here. The 1939 Act is the one I am most concerned with, as Section 39 of that Act determines that a price equal to market value shall be paid for all resumed land or unvested land. I have brought in that here exactly word for word, to determine how the price of vested land or acquired land will be paid in the future.
One thing I must admit I am completely puzzled about is the sudden blast of worry that has come down on the Opposition to safeguard the farmer whose land is being acquired. The particular four or five words that have caused all the trouble in this Bill are contained in paragraph (a) of Section 5, which says:
"(a) 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'..."
If we turn to Section 39 of the 1939 Act, we find that the wording runs:
"(a) the resumption price of such holding or part of a holding, that is to say, the compensation to be paid therefore by the Land Commission, shall be the market value of the holding or part of a holding so resumed."
In the 1936 Act, in Section 28, the Land Commission are expressly commanded to have regard to the market value of the land—and there is no definition of market value in the 1936 Act. In the 1933 Act, Section 29 gives a certain amount of protection to people from whom the Land Commission propose to acquire land. There also they are told they shall make an exchange of land of "not less market value"—and again there is no attempt at definition.
If a proper definition of market value can be worded by any Deputy from any side of the House, I will accept it. Take Deputy Moylan's amendment. His attempted definition is the following and I wonder if he is satisfied. I believe that Deputy Moylan wants to see market value paid for all land. He does not want the system of robbery or confiscation that has obtained up to the present time. I am sure he wants market value, but I wonder again how it was when he was four, five or six years as Minister for Lands he could not do anything about it. He says:
"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."
Suppose we take that one and set down that as part of a statute within which the Land Commission must determine the price of acquired land. We all know that the price of land in every county and district constantly fluctuates: it is either rising or falling for various reasons. The price of agricultural produce influences the price of land enormously. If the price is rising, it means we have to pay a lesser price than the man is entitled to, because if we take the average of all the land sold in the locality for three years and strike a mean or average from the present-day price and go back three years, if means a lesser price than we should pay at the moment. On the other hand, if values are falling, we are bound by that average, if it is taken, to pay a man more than the land is worth.
There is no account taken of the different qualities of land, for instance. As I said the last night, no account is taken of the fact that land is more valuable if it is located near a town than if it is ten miles out in the country. It is more valuable if it is beside a country village than if it is three or four miles out in the hinterland. Land running along a main road is always of more value than land only within half a mile of a bad byroad where no one wants to buy a farm if he can help it or unless it goes at a cheap price. The question of disease enters into it. We know there is some land infected with blackleg in cattle. We know some types of land are excellent for root crops but have all sorts of diseases for main crops, and vice versa. Local farmers know that and it is known by the person buying the land. We know that there is a type of rock or stone land which makes excellent fattening land if there is a wet summer but that, in a dry summer, burns up and turns red. No two fields of any farmer's land, even with only a fence dividing them, could be said to be of the same quality or value. Similarly, no two holdings are the same value.
Deputy Moran words his amendment as follows:—
"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."
Who is to judge the quality? Is the best expert in the Department of Agriculture able to judge quality as finely as we would all like to see? Deputy Moran says "of similar quality to that being acquired in the immediate vicinity of the district." He does not say that the price obtaining in the district is to determine it, but in the immediate vicinity of the district. He draws a ring, which he does not define and which may be of two, three or four miles, and then takes all the land outside that ring, but he does not say where it is.
I want to set right an evil that the State has been doing in the past and which is no credit to the State, that was making land owners bear a share of the burden of the relief of congestion, for which those land owners had no responsibility and which was a liability of the State which the State should own up to and shoulder the burden. I want to leave the definition open.
Perhaps the Opposition may not trust the Appeal Tribunal or trust the lay commissioners in determining a fair price. So far, my experience has been that, in fixing the price of resumed land, they have been fair and there has been little or no complaint. It was about the method of determining the price of acquired or vested land that all the complaints were coming in. I think the system that has worked since 1939 for unvested land would, under the same men with the same integrity and knowledge, result in a very satisfactory method of fixing the price for acquired land in the future under this section.
Mr. de Valera
Is it the position that this phrase "market value" cannot be defined? Are we going to use in legislation a phrase which, according to the Minister's exposition, cannot be defined?
The Minister did not say that. The Minister said he would accept a definition of "market value" if it were coming forward.
Mr. de Valera
Very often when the Opposition puts in an amendment the Minister may accept the principle and say "I do not think you worked out the idea. We accept the idea but we have experts who will improve on your draft. Your definition is faulty but, if a definition is wanted, here is one for you." Surely, it is the Minister's duty to assist the House in doing that. It seems to me that the Minister cannot define the phrase.
Do you define a definition itself?
Mr. de Valera
I am talking now to the Minister and I say the position apparently is that this phrase "market value" cannot be defined. Have we any idea at all in our minds, when we use the phrase, as to what it means? Is it going to be any direction to the lay commissioners or the appeal commissioners in determining the value? If it is set down in cold blood to be a rule for them then we who are passing the law ought to know what we mean by it. Apparently, nobody in this House, although this phrase is put down, is able to give even a fair idea of what is intended.
Is the Deputy satisfied with these two definitions?
Mr. de Valera
This was an attempt by the members of the Opposition to clear up a difficulty. The Minister's duty, with his staff, ought to be to meet that difficulty fairly and squarely and not to run away from it. If his position is that it has to be left completely at the discretion of the lay commissioners or the appeal commissioners, then let it be said. We had an amendment the other day and, after all the powwow about it, the end was that the Minister had to admit that it had to be left completely to the discretion of the commissioners. Is that the position? Is this all window dressing about market value that we cannot determine?
Is the Deputy satisfied with the two definitions in the amendments?
Mr. de Valera
What do you mean by market value? The first thing that would occur to me is the value a person would be likely to get if he sold on the market. It would be an estimate by some valuer who, from his knowledge of the prices at which a particular thing was being sold, would be able to determine in advance, without putting it to a test, what it was likely to fetch. Is that what the Minister means— that the guiding rule for the lay commissioners is to be the price which, in their opinion or the opinion of their valuers, would be given for that particular plot of land if it were put up on the open market? If it is not that, what is it? There are two or three Acts. I went to the trouble of looking at the sections. I was hoping we had a definition there. I do not care who passed it, the fact that we ruled it so was bad from the legislative point of view and there is no reason why we should follow bad examples.
So that the 1939 Act is a bad example?
Mr. de Valera
If it is not defined, to that extent. Everybody in the House was responsible as well as the Government. I am not going to defend a thing if it were wrong at any time. If we had a phrase which was not understood, then it was the duty of the House, if they were attending to legislation properly, to seek a definition. Every member of the House who passed it and who agreed to it was equally responsible.
If the position is that we only want to make one particular type of land to follow the same rule, why not say so? If the position is that we are to determine market value by the methods that have been used in practice by the Land Commission, why not say so? Why not ask the Land Commission to tell us by what rules they have determined market value in the past and tell us: "This is what we mean by it. These are the rules we have applied"—if they have applied any rules at all. If they say that they have not been able to get any rules to apply, that they have had to take each individual case and trust the opinion of the people asked to do it, without any guiding rule other than their intelligence, why not say, straight and fair: "The value is to be determined simply at the discretion of the lay commissioners." What I object to is to have words in legislation which we do not understand and do not pretend to understand, when there is a clear way out. If we cannot define definitely, get a phrase which can be defined and, if you want to bring the two parallel and bring them under the same rule, say that that is what you are doing and, if you want to apply the rules that have been applied by the Land Commission up to the present, ask the commissioners what are the rules they have applied and put them down in form, if possible and, if not, say: "All we can do in this matter is simply to say that it is to be at such price as the lay commissioners may consider equitable." You have the word "equitable"—what would be fairer? We are using a phrase which we all think we understand until we come to define it and try to say exactly what we understand by it. Then we find we do not understand it at all. I think that is a most unsatisfactory position in legislation.
It has long been puzzling me why it was that the affairs of the Land Commission were so badly messed up by the last Government. Daylight is breaking in on me at last. What is the difficulty the Leader of the Opposition now finds himself in? He says this is a difficulty. I say it is not a difficulty. That is a direction to the Land Commissioners how to arrive at the price of land.
How is it?
The market value. There is a very clear distinction between that and the other method which directed them to fix a price being a price which was fair to the seller and fair to the Land Commission—if such a thing could be.
That is a better definition than this one.
It is. It was a very clear definition. I wonder will the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputies on the other side of the House stand over some of the open robbery that was carried on and they stood calmly by. The commissioners had to follow the letter of the law, as laid down in this House, in finding the price of land. I wonder do they stand over some of the cases where, after the purchase money was redeemed out of the price paid and after a few pounds of arrears of rent were paid, the owner of the land got nothing at all.
Mr. de Valera
That is a different case altogether.
It is not. It is that type of case that I am trying to set right. Deputy de Valera is a bit peeved——
Mr. de Valera
I am not a bit.
——because something is being set right that he should have set right. There is an attempt to define market value here on the part of two Deputies. Does Deputy de Valera stand over these two definitions? Does Deputy de Valera ask me to accept either of these definitions as a fair method of arriving at the market value?
Mr. de Valera
I ask the Minister to put down a definition.
This is a very important matter. I do not want heat to develop. I am asking Deputy de Valera does he want one or other of these amendments to go into the Bill?
Mr. de Valera
I told the Minister, from an early stage, that I wanted the Minister to tell us what he meant by that phrase and to define it for us.
I am not defining market value in this Bill. If I were, I would not be waiting until the amendment stage. I am asking Deputy de Valera does he expect me to accept Deputy Moran's or Deputy Moylan's amendment?
Mr. de Valera
In default of a better one by the Minister, certainly.
Did Deputy de Valera ever sell a holding of land? Did he ever sell a house?
That has nothing to do with this Bill.
I respectfully submit that the term "market value" must be left fairly loose if we are to arrive at justice and fair play in the administration of this Bill. That is the secret of the whole thing. I do not know if Deputy Moylan is an auctioneer. I know Deputy Moran is a conveyancer and he should have a fair knowledge of this business. I wonder does Deputy Moran seriously ask me to insert this amendment as part of the Bill?
I assure the Minister I do—that is why I have put it down.
That is what the Deputy asks. He wants a new sub-section in the following terms:
"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."
Why did the Deputy go outside the district in which the land is being acquired? Why not take the district itself? I cannot accept either one or other of these amendments, because it would mean negativing the intention and the spirit of this Bill, which is nothing more or less than asking the State to carry a responsibility that it should have carried for years, and that is to pay a fair price, the fair market value for the land, not an exorbitant price on the one hand, and not a thieves' price on the other hand. A fair market price—that is all that is asked. We expect to get land as it would go in the open market.
Why not say so in the Bill?
I am saying so, and I refuse to accept the amendments, as they would negative the spirit in which I have framed the section.
I think the Minister is right in not accepting these amendments. It is much better the way it is in the Bill, defining market value. The Land Commission and the owner have their valuers and they come before the board. The Land Commissioners take the evidence of the valuer for the owner and the valuers for the Land Commission and it is left open in the Bill to do that. If you insert these amendments you will upset that arrangement and the result will not be so satisfactory.
And well these tulips know that.
The Bill sets out that "in fixing such sum regard shall be had to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and the owner respectively".
That is being repealed.
That means that the Land Commission valuers value the farm, and so do the valuers for the owner. Anyone knows that where farms are sold privately the price is usually arrived at in that way by valuers. If you put the amendments in you will have the owner trying to get around them in order to get a bigger price. In my opinion it is better the way it is in the Bill and it means that the owner will get the value of the land. Is that not plain enough to anyone?
This is an important section, probably the most important in the Bill. Any confusion that has been created in connection with it has been created by the Minister, largely in bringing in the section in the manner in which it has been brought in. He has told us repeatedly that so far as the price for resumed land, unvested land, was concerned, it was fair and reasonable. In every case he went that far and the only objection he had was where vested land was being acquired and the redemption portion of the annuity was deducted from the price. If that is so, I think he could have simply brought in a sub-section or even amended the section and that would have got us out of the confusion. But he has not done that. He has stated here that market value is to be distinct from market price. I wonder how that will read to the people in the country? Where can the distinction be drawn between market value and market price?
The Deputy knows quite well.
On both sides of the House there seems to be a very strong feeling in favour of justice and equity to the people who own the land.
Thank God.
I do not object to that, save that it might recreate a position we already have had experience of and this undefined market value would work out in a way that I will now explain. If the Land Commission propose to acquire a holding and, as in cases that I know of in the past, they receive a suitability and price report from the inspector and accordingly fix the price, the owner may appeal against the price and then the Prices Tribunal may fix a price on the land that is 80 per cent. higher than the value of the inspector in his suitability and price report. What had the Land Commission to do then? What they did then was, to make application to the Land Commission court for permission to withdraw the proceedings.
And rightly so.
That can happen in this case. What was created by that position? According to some section in the Land Act of 1923 the Land Commission could not reinstitute proceedings for the acquisition of the land for seven years. That can happen here too, because of this undefined market value. I believe the best of all was the section in the 1923 Act and that was a fair price to the owner and to the Land Commission, because in that case the Land Commission was acting on behalf of the incoming tenants.
Would the Deputy like to sell a beast at a fair on that principle?
It is generally on that principle that I do sell them; it is generally on that basis that they are sold.
Indeed it is not.
The bargainer comes into it to make the bargain. Any confusion that has been brought into this has been brought in by the reference to market value and we know well why that has been brought in. It has been brought in because of the propaganda carried on against the activities of the Land Commission in the past and against the legislation enacted by the Fianna Fáil Government. You are merely playing up to catch-cries—that is why this section has been inserted.
It must be hurting you badly.
You are merely playing up to catch-cries from certain people and that is not good legislation. I say that if the Land Act of 1923 was allowed to stand and to apply equally to the vested holding as well as the unvested one, we would not have half the length of time spent debating this section in the House. The Minister is the cause of all the great confusion about this section, and he cannot get away from that.
I only want to ask the Deputy one question. In the method under the 1923 Act and which obtains up to the present time in determining the price of acquired land, is the price which is fair to the Land Commission fair to the vendor? Did the Deputy ever sell a beast at a fair on that footing? Did he ever go to the fair with a beast worth £30, which he thought was worth £30. But when the buyer came along and thought it was only worth £20, what happened? The market price was arrived at between the two of you. But remember that it was not the buyer's price, which was the Land Commission's price most of the time—because they had to obey the statute—that caused the trouble.
The Deputy said that this is a new principle and that he is a bit nonplussed by it and that he does not understand it too well. Does the Deputy tell me that, when he was here during the past 11 years as a member of the House when a Department of State administered by a Minister who was a member of his own Party effected the resumption of land under the 1939 Act in the same way. The Deputy knows quite well that the method of paying for acquired land was a scandal to a civilised country. He is ashamed of it and what he is sorry for is that his own Minister did not settle the question before he went out of office. I would ask the Opposition to stop this nonsense, this foolish obstruction to the section and let it through for the benefit of the people of the country.
Mr. de Valera
That is not a good headline to set. Most of the Minister's arguments in dealing with this question have been abuse. If the Minister wants co-operation he will get it. I came in to try to do my part in getting this legislation understood. I was most interested to know what the Minister and his Department meant by market value when they introduced it. The first real light I got was when he said that it was the same phrase as is in certain other Acts. If he had said that in the first place instead of abuse we would have made more progress.
So the truth is abuse.
Mr. de Valera
Suppose that this phrase was not defined in them—as I believe it should have been—but was defined by practice, why does the Minister not help us and say that the practice and the methods are the same as such-and-such methods and that he is prepared to put them into this Bill if the methods are capable of being explained? If you want the position that this, in the nature of things, must largely be left to the discretion of the commissioners, why not have a phrase like "the price shall be such a price as in the opinion of the commissioners shall be equitable having regard to certain things"? There are ways by which difficulties of definition are avoided in legislation and the Minister should know these ways, but no attempt whatsoever is being made by him to meet these difficulties. He finds fault with the amendments that have been given. That is all right. He can find fault with them, but if this principle is not right he should play his part in setting it right. If he wants co-operation we are as anxious as he is not to waste time if he will try to approach it in the proper spirit.
I tried to ask Deputy de Valera an honest question a few minutes ago but he got rather excited and did not answer. The question was this: Why should you define a definition?
This is not a definition.
I asked why should you define a definition. If you attempt to do it is going to be very pleasant for Deputy Moran, Deputy Timoney and myself, and for all the lawyers because once you try to define what in fact is a definition you always get endless law. When the Deputy did not like answering the question I gave it to him. You always get endless trouble if you try to make your definitions much too close, if you try to define a definition. As far as market value is concerned, even before the 1923 Act or the 1939 Act there have been over the years cases in the courts in reference to which it was necessary to refer to the term market value. I think it would be accepted by the courts and I think that was the reason why it was accepted by the draftsmen who were advising Deputy de Valera's Minister for Lands—I forget who he was—in 1939 when it was being put in the 1939 Land Act. The term market value was considered to be in itself a definition. It was considered a definition, a wide definition if you like, but a definition which it would be very undesirable to attempt to narrow or define still further because if you did so you would get completely bogged. I think that that was the reason why Deputy de Valera's Minister of the day, whoever he was, accepted the use of the words in 1939 and I think it is for the same reason that the words should be accepted now.
There are two questions here, the question of the definition of the term and the question of the alteration of the previous phrase, "a price which shall be fair to the Land Commission and to the owner respectively". As far as I am aware, the first argument by which the term market value was defined was somewhere just before the turn of the century when the Court of Appeal made a dictum as to the basis upon which they would interpret the definition of market value, the basis and the decision being that market value was a term to mean the price, or rather the value—I think the price is what you pay and the value is what you estimate the price should be—which an ordinary prudent person who was reasonably solvent, who was not trying to go out of his depth on the one hand and who was not niggardly on the other, would put on a particular place whether it was a farm, a shop in the city or a private house in the town in which to live, hoping to get a just, fair and reasonable return over and above the outgoings he would have to pay. They laid that down many many years ago and, following those lines of precedent, market value has been interpreted by the Appeal tribunal under the Land Acts in respect of resumed land. The reason why it was not defined in any more strict sense was because the draftsmen of that day found that it was a definition in itself and to try to define the definition would only make confusion worse confounded.
Deputy Beegan discussed the other question as to whether it was desirable to alter the 1923 Act in this way or not. His view was that it was not desirable to amend the 1923 Act, which contained the words, "fair to the Land Commission and owner respectively". I want the Deputy to remember that the occasions on which a price has to be computed are not the same as the occasions on which there is the sale of a farm in the open market. If the Deputy has a farm which he wishes to sell and the price that he is offered for it is not adequate, the answer is that he will not sell. If the Deputy thinks the farm is worth £3,000 and someone comes along and only bids him £2,000 he is not going to sell. If I make that bid to him he will not sell to me. If I bid him £2,500 merely because that happens to be the half-way house between us he will not sell either and will take his farm off the market until such time as someone comes along and offers him what he believes to be the value of the farm.
That is not the sort of case that we are dealing with here. Here the Land Commission compulsorily steps in. The land is being taken regardless of whether Deputy Beegan wants to sell it or not. It means, therefore, that the Deputy is not in the position of being able to withdraw the sale and say: "That is not my idea of the value to me and I am going to hold back until someone comes along with a bid that is nearer to my value of the farm." The Land Commission steps in and takes it. Let us suppose that the Deputy has two farms. They are both the same size, the land is more or less the same quality and they are more or less of the same value. Through one of the farms an internal road runs which is not of very much value to the farm as one unit. There is no such road through the other farm. On the second farm there is plenty of water for use as one unit. The Deputy is in the position that the Land Commission comes along and compulsorily says that both these farms must be taken. The market value of both would be approximately the same for use by a person as one unit. Under the definition in the 1923 Land Act, the Land Commission are bound to look not at the value of the farm as a unit but the value of the farm when it is divided. In one case it will be easy to divide it. There is going to be very little money spent on it because there will be no necessity to run a road through it to divide it. The road is there already. In the other case there will necessarily have to be a great deal of money spent on the holding for division purposes though, in fact, it is perfectly good for use as a unit. Money will have to be spent on it in the sinking of additional wells and so forth. According to the law as it was under the 1923 Act, all the money spent on that farm for Land Commission purposes must be deducted from the value of the farm to the owner when the Land Commission are fixing the price. That is the law as it stands at the present.
It seems to me that when all that has to be done in the public interest, and it is in the public interest that land has to be acquired for the remedy of social evils, it is the public who should pay rather than the particular person who happens to own the land. That is the whole basis of the change in this particular section. You are going to arrive at a situation in which Deputy Moran and everybody else will find that when the Land Commission courts come to consider the matter they are going to do so along exactly the same lines as they have considered this phrase right down since it was used first. You are going to get it assessed in exactly the same way as it is assessed and has been assessed for a resumed holding; that is, what a reasonable person who is solvent and is not covetous of a particular holding but is anxious to get a fair return but not an exorbitant return would assess the holding as being valued for, as being the amount which he would pay if he had to consider whether he would buy it or not. To try and define that any more would only cause more trouble. It might be pleasant for Deputy Moran, Deputy Timoney and myself, but this House does not want to create work for lawyers.
Mr. de Valera
If the Minister had taken the line of Deputy Sweetman in trying to explain what he at least understood by it we would have started on a very different basis.
I take that as a threat.
Mr. de Valera
We would have started on quite a different basis because there would be an indication on the part of the person speaking like that, that he had some idea of what he was aiming at. If the Minister had made that statement we could have asked him if it was not possible for him to reduce that explanation to a simple form and put it in as a definition clause. Everyone in this House knows that in Bill after Bill terms occur in legislation which are defined in the definition clause. These definitions are intended to do what we are trying to get done here, that is to get a term which is used in common parlance—to get it interpreted legally may be difficult—and give it some precise meaning, or at least a meaning as close to precision as we can get, leaving to the courts the freedom which they will have of determining afterwards its exact meaning and how it is to be applied.
If the Land Commission has been using a certain method for determining market price, why should it not be put down here if the idea is that the price that is intended is to be the price used in another connection: the price that might be expected to be paid by a willing purchaser to a willing seller? Why not put that down? As was pointed out, there have been definitions of market value in other cases. Why should we run away from it here? If the position really comes to this that it cannot be defined, why can we not say that it shall be such as, in the opinion of the Land Commission, is fair, considering the price of land generally? Our only anxiety is to try and get the thing made clear. As regards price, it should not be beyond the wit of the Minister, or of his staff, to get something that would be acceptable. If the Minister thinks that our amendments are not satisfactory there is a duty on him to try and produce one that would be more acceptable.
Let me say that I was fully alive to the fact that there was no definition of "market value" in this Bill. I intended that there would not be because I wanted to see a fair price paid to those from whom land would be acquired. I did not put in a definition. I do know that it might be possible to define "market value" if one were to put in a definition that would fill a volume. I have no intention of doing that. I think that Deputy Sweetman has covered the ground fairly well in that regard. Let me say that the definitions of Deputy Moran and Deputy Moylan are, to my mind, just empty formulae.
I cannot understand why there should be such a long-winded discussion on this particular amendment to the section. I was one of those who had been pressing for the market value to be paid for land acquired, just the same as it is paid in the case of resumed land. So far as I can see, the definition in this Bill is fair and reasonable. It is a wide definition and, although I have not a legal mind, I am inclined to agree that any attempt to narrow down the definition might only weaken the position from the point of view of the farmer whose land is being acquired.
If, for example, the suggestion made by Deputy de Valera was adopted, I think it would be detrimental to the value of land, inasmuch as it would give certain powers to the Land Commission which they would not have under this particular definition. This is a broad definition that the price to be paid shall be the market value of the land, and it seems to me that that would be defined in any court as the price which that land would make if it were sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer.
One of the reasons why I feel that this definition is satisfactory is that it is the same definition as is in the 1939 Act in regard to the resumption of land. When I introduced a Land Bill last year which sought to achieve the object which will be achieved by this section, I received several hundred letters from farmers in various parts of the country. In these letters I received many complaints with regard to the injustice done to farmers, but I did not receive even one complaint from a person whose land was resumed under the terms of the 1939 Act.
Mr. de Valera
That is the point. Everybody can take his own meaning out of it.
The point I am making is that the same provision in the 1939 Act with regard to resumption of land has worked satisfactorily so far as I know and there has not been much complaint about it. Deputy Moylan could probably tell us if any difficulty arose in interpreting that section so far as resumption of land was concerned. So far as I know, that particular provision has worked satisfactorily in regard to non-vested land, and I do not see any reason why it should not work satisfactorily in connection with this Bill. I was hoping that the Minister would explain the administrative machinery in regard to the resumption of non-vested land. The Dáil would be interested to know how the actual value is fixed administratively under that Act. So far as I know, at any rate, there has not been any serious complaint. As there has not been any serious complaint, why should we not let well enough alone? If we find later on that something is being done under this section which should not be done, we may be able to amend it. But, as the same provision as is in this section has worked satisfactorily under the other Act, there is no reason why it should not work under this.
I think the Minister let the cat out of the bag in regard to this when he said that it was deliberately intended that there should be no definition of market value. If that is deliberately intended by the Minister and the Government, it means that it is intended to throw over the whole principle upon which we were told this Bill was being introduced, namely, for the purpose of getting more land, particularly for the relief of congestion, at a fair price to those from whom it will be acquired. I wonder does the House realise the position in connection with a man living in a congested area who is working a farm which is being acquired by the Land Commission. What happens is this. Notice is published in Iris Oifigiúil and the man comes along to the Appeal Tribunal to fix the price of his land. I am talking about a case to which the expression “market value” applies since the 1939 Act. He produces valuers to give evidence as to the value of his holding. The Appeal Tribunal reserve their decision. There is no land legislation prior to the passing of this Bill to guide the Appeal Tribunal as to what is meant by market value. After the case has been heard in open court and evidence has been given on behalf of the owner as to market value, some valuer from the vicinity of Dublin appointed by the court, who may or may not be familiar with the location of the land or the value of land in the particular area, is sent down to inspect the holding. That valuer reports to the Appeal Tribunal behind closed doors. There is no opportunity of cross-examining him on behalf of the owner. Ultimately, again behind closed doors, the Appeal Tribunal deliver judgment setting out what, in their opinion, is the market value of the land.
There are no closed doors.
Evidently the Minister was not aware on the last night that the Land Commission court sends down valuers to inspect the land. That was evidently news to the Minister when I was speaking on this section at that time. He had to question one of his officials as to whether it was a fact that the Land Commission sent out these gentlement from Dublin to report on the market value of land. I want to emphasise that where land is being acquired from an owner and he has produced his evidence of value in open court a valuer is sent down to his holding by the Land Commission, the owner not knowing who he is, that he reports back to the Land Commission without the owner's counsel having a chance to cross-examine him, and that the court, on that basis, comes to some conclusion as to what the market value is. I also want to point out to the House that there is no appeal from that finding except on the question of law to the Supreme Court. Obviously, the question of market value is not a question of law.
How long has that been the case?
It is none of my business to point out that. The Minister should be aware of it. He should be well aware that there is no appeal except on a question of law from the Appeal Tribunal to the Supreme Court. It may interest the House to know that I am personally aware of one case to which this definition of market value applied. It was the case of a small holding purchased in 1925 for £250. In 1949, some gentleman from Dublin appointed by this tribunal decided that the value of that holding was £142, although everybody knows that the value of land has increased out of all proportion since 1925.
The reason why I attempted to put down this definition here is that this method of working is unsatisfactory, and that nobody is satisfied with it. The man from whom land is acquired —I am not speaking of people whose lands may be taken compulsory because they have been letting them or have not been working them but of people in a congested area where, even though land is being worked, it may be taken for the purpose of relieving congestion—should be entitled to the full market value of that land. For the reasons I have stated, I have made my own attempt to define market value in this amendment.
And a bad job you made of it.
The Minister talks round and about it, but he made no attempt whatever, and deliberately made no attempt, to define it. I wonder what the Minister would think if, for instance, the Land Commission court decided to arrive at market value in the way in which the Land Registry does it, that is in the case of a farm of land which is sold, paying the purchase price and adding the redemption value of the annuity on to it for the purpose of arriving at the value. There are several different definitions under different Finance Acts and surely it is not beyond the power of the Minister or his officials to indicate to the House, and to the country particularly, what they intend to provide under this heading of "market value."
It was common talk throughout the country prior to the introduction of this Bill that, if the Land Commission decided to take your land, you would get nothing for it, which, in itself, was a deterrent in the case of people who might otherwise offer their lands to the Land Commission or who might be prepared to sell their lands to them if they got a reasonable price. Everybody knew that, in practice, it worked out that, if the Land Commission stepped in and took your land, you would get only half or two-third its value. The Minister said quite clearly that he intended to remedy that situation, and if he now defines this expression and brings it home to the people that, if the Land Commission take their land, they will get at least as much as they would get for it in the open market, he may have many people offering him land for the purpose of relieving congestion, and he will not have the farmers terrified lest the Land Commission should step in and deciding to sell their lands by private treaty to get rid of them in case the Land Commission should do so.
If he is prepared to face up to defining this expression, he may be able to get what he is looking for in order to relieve congestion, but what are the people to expect if he merely tells us blandly that he has deliberately refrained from defining "market value". Will every person not say: "This is simply another method of getting our lands. We do not know what this phrase means and we will get the same old price which the Land Commission will decide behind closed doors as we always did." I appeal to the House to support one or the other of these amendments because they make at least some attempt to define what the man in the street understands as market value.
The two amendments are very different in character. They are document No. 1 and document No. 2. They are both empty formulae and I do not propose to accept either, but let Deputy Moran and Deputy Moylan pin their faith on one or the other, bad as they are.
Let the Minister give us some definition.
There has been a lot of confusion in connection with both these amendments and the people are anxious to know what the Minister means by this expression. In view of the fact that this phrase "market value" has been operated since 1939 in relation to resumed land, it is extraordinary that at this stage of their careers Opposition Deputies should be asking the Minister for a definition of "market value"— something which they introduced themselves. Listening to some of the Deputies reminded me of a classic statement made not very long ago: "We do not know whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, this market value." That is the impression I got from listening to Deputy de Valera and Deputy Moran.
I am no lover of giving what we call market value to people in certain parts of the country. Like other western Deputies on both sides of the House, I want to see this problem of congestion finished once and for all. I want to see the solution of that problem speeded up and it was for the purpose of relieving that congestion and providing economic holdings that the Minister introduced this section. The method of determining the value of land prior to the introduction of this section was that provided by Section 25 of the 1923 Act, the provision being that regard should be had to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and the owner respectively. It has been found from experience that there is not sufficient scope in that provision to enable the Land Commission to acquire enough land and to acquire it quickly enough to bring the problem of congestion to an end and the Miniister in this section substitutes a number of words to the effect that the amount fixed shall be an amount equal to the market value of the land.
The machinery in operation up to date could be described as a cart horse in action but now the Minister has introduced, if you like, a racehorse for the job. The two amendments would have the effect of tying up that racehorse and leaving the situation still worse. They fulfil no useful purpose and I cannot see why the Deputies are so persistent in putting them forward. One of the amendments says that the market value 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, but, as some Deputy asked, how will that amendment work out if no land has been acquired in that area? If the Deputies opposite still have, as they profess, an interest in relieving congestion and solving a great social evil, as it has been described, they will withdraw these amendments and give the Minister that extra power to deal quickly with the acquisition of land which is provided in the sub-section.
The lawyers are often talked about, but after this debate I think we can regard ourselves as having our own back. The Minister's sub-section says that the amount to be so fixed shall be an amount equal to the market value of the land, but if I were drawing that sub-section I would say: "The amount to be fixed shall be the market value of the land." Why it must be an amount equal to the market value and not the market value, I do not know.
Neither do I. I wish that both lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen would be as economical in the use of words as the Deputy would like them to be.
I do not think there is any harm in being economical. Let us look at it from this point of view. What is the purpose of the section? What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it the purpose of the Bill to compensate people generously whose lands will be acquired? Is it the purpose of the Bill to acquire land for people who need it? I think it would be of assistance if we knew the answers to those questions. Therein lies my principal difficulty in regard to the matter. In so far as the Bill is an attempt to acquire land and divide it, giving it to those people who need land, then I am in favour of the Bill.
That is its purpose.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of the Bill is to pay too high a price to people who have land and whose lands will be acquired, then I am not in favour of it.
Neither are we in favour of paying too high a price for it.
Possibly by a reconstitution of the Land Commission, the section as it stands in the Bill can be operated with advantage to the community as a whole. To that extent and in the hope that the Land Commission will be reconstituted in order to ensure that land will be acquired and divided amongst those people who want to work it, I am in favour of the section rather than of the two amendments standing in the names of Deputy Moylan and Deputy Moran. I think it is just as well to leave it loose. If we tie it up in the way suggested in these amendments we might put obstacles in the way of the Land Commission acquiring land or dividing it. I agree the definition is not a satisfactory definition. How can we improve it?
Land is a peculiar commodity. It has different characteristics and different values. Will the same price be paid per acre for a farm running into thousands of acres as will be paid for a small farm? That is one of the difficulties inherent in the amendments tabled by both Deputy Moylan and Deputy Moran. I have made my position clear. I want a rather loose arrangement in regard to the value to be put upon land and the price paid to those from whom land is acquired for division. I want the power to fix the price to rest in the Land Commission. I do not want any prospect of an appeal to any court. I hope Deputy Moran is right when he says that there can be no appeal to the Supreme Court on the question of market value.
That is so.
Deputy Moran said it is a question of fact and, as such, there can be no appeal from it. On the basis on which the Land Commission may decide, however, it might be more than a question of fact. It might be a question of law. To that extent, this definition might involve us in litigation, but I am prepared to take a chance on that. There are very substantial tracts of land that ought to be acquired by the Land Commission and divided amongst the people. For years past people have been crying out for land. I think we are mainly concerned here with that particular problem. The Minister says that he is held up in his work of acquiring and dividing land because he has not got the powers that are contained in this measure. I appeal to the House to give the Minister these powers as quickly as possible. If the Minister does not then carry out his duty of acquiring and dividing land, we shall deal with him.
There has been so much said by so many that I doubt if, even as the mover of the amendment, I can add anything new. But I am tempted into speaking to-night because the Minister is in such a mild and benign mood. I am a timid individual and I confess that on the last occasion the Minister spoke he positively terrified me when he yelled across the floor of the House at me, beat the table with his first and shouted "Fee, fo, fum". I began to wonder whether he was a giant or a stuffed shirt. Now the Minister has been complaining of obstruction. I think there has been as much irrelevancy on the Government Benches as there has been on the Opposition Benches.
The Minister for Agriculture told us all about the American Constitution and its bearing on the amendment. The Minister for Lands chased a pig to China to prove he was master in the Land Commission. He told us about the ignorance of coloured men, I take it from the point of view of the Herrenvolk of the Land Commission. I put down this amendment purely for the purpose of getting a definition from the Minister. I have not got that definition. There ought to be some definition. If the Minister would leave well enough alone everybody would be satisfied and there would be no difficulty. But the Minister wants to be too obliging to his friends by times. When Deputy Commons produced his famous amendment a few nights ago, the Minister was all assurances that what Deputy Commons said was the perfect end to all his efforts until the Minister for Agriculture came along and threw a brick instead of a bouquet. Then the Minister for Lands changed his tune.
To-night he has been just as indefinite in regard to this particular amendment as he was in relation to Deputy Commons' amendment. He expatiated at length on the different values of land in different parts of the country. He said land beside a road was much more valuable than land on a mountain. He said land beside a town was more valuable still. We all know that. If the Minister, on perhaps the request of Deputy Fitzpatrick, decided to take over College Park for a car park, a proposition that has been mooted, then the price of College Park per acre would be far greater than the price of a piece of land on a mountainside in County Mayo. Deputy Cogan has a great belief and a great liking for the sound of his own voice—he is in a minority of one. He is inclined to say anything that comes into his mind and he does not care how he misinterprets any particular statement of an opponent. "Another point," Deputy Cogan says, "made by Deputy Moylan was that he doubts very much the equity of the particular section."
Will the Deputy please give the reference?
Volume 119, No. 5, column 774. I do not doubt the equity at all of paying a fair price. I have been most anxious that people should get adequate value for their property and I am trying to get a definition of that particular price. The Minister, when he gets on his feet, loses his temper and is apt to say very peculiar things which give us cause for definite concern. "We are not prepared to give a price which is unfair to ourselves for land." This, Sir, is from Volume 118, No. 9, column 1311. If that is the position with the Minister, why get away from the famous definition of the Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Hogan— a price fair to the owner and fair to the Land Commission. But this is what the present Minister says: "We are not prepared to give a price which is unfair to ourselves for land and for that reason I took very good care not to say in the Bill that we were giving market price but that we were giving market value." The Minister has talked a good deal about robbery and confiscation. Yet, on the other hand, he pointed out in his Second Reading speech that there was very little inequity in the operations of the Land Commission and hardly any person was adversely affected. That was in the Second Reading speech. I want to repeat again what the Minister said: "I took very good care to say in the Bill that we were giving market value, not market price." Well, I am not a lawyer and maybe I am all wrong——
You are seldom right.
——but I think a number of people to-night have missed the point in regard to the whole argument. This is the Land Act of 1939. The Minister read the section, or portion of it, and if I am wrong let me know it. The section is Section 39 (5) and it reads as follows:—
"(5) It is hereby declared and enacted that whenever the Land Commission resumes a holding or part of a holding, the following provisions apply and shall apply and have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the resumption price of such holding or part of a holding, that is to say, the compensation to be paid therefore by the Land Commission, shall be the market value of the holding or part of a holding so resumed."
The Minister read that portion. But there is a further portion and maybe I am wrong but, if I am, tell me so.
"Section 43 of the Land Act, 1931, shall apply and have effect in relation to a resumption price fixed under the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section and, for the purpose of such application the words ‘basis on which resumption prices have heretofore been fixed' in the said Section 43 shall be deemed to mean the market price of the holding or part of a holding so resumed;".
The Deputy was not Minister when that was being framed.
That is in the Land Act of 1939. The Minister said that while he was prepared to pay market value he was not prepared to pay market price. I presume that if that is true we are repealing the section of the Act of 1939 and not making any real change in the price offered by the Land Commission. I admit that, not being a lawyer, I may have read the thing wrongly but as a layman it seems quite clear to me that the section says market value is market price. Perhaps I need not say any more. I think it is up to the Minister to answer that particular point in the Land Act, 1939, as I read it—that the definition of "market value" is "market price".
It is no such thing.
On the amendment and on the section in so far as it has been discussed in relation to both these amendments, first, might I say that I can see a considerable danger in endeavouring to define in any sort of a direct way the meaning of the term "market value". It has been tried on previous occasions in respect of Acts passed by the Oireachtas and the very defining caused considerable confusion in the practical application of the section. I think it is wiser to leave the section very much as it stands now with no definition added of what "market value" might be.
After all, we must appreciate, despite what has been urged by Deputy Moylan, that those who are going to fix the price of land acquired by the Land Commission under this section are not going to be living in balloons. They are practical men with a practical knowledge of the countryside and a very real knowledge of land. When a case comes before them for the fixing of the price of land to be acquired they are going to be bound by a section of an Act of Parliament which says that it is their duty—that it is a "shall" on them—to pay and fix a price equal to the market value of that land.
Might I say that the proposal in the Bill apparently is to apply the method and price now paid for resumption to acquisition? That is correct I think. If that is so, does this Section 39 of the Act of 1939 not say that "market value" at a further resumption shall be "market price?"
I can appreciate the point the Deputy has made and I shall deal with that particular aspect of the matter in a moment. But might I first of all say with regard to the question of defining "market value" generally that I see a danger in it and that I think it can safely be left to the tribunal itself to apply its commonsense on the evidence before it, knowing that it is bound to give the market value of land. I do not want to discuss any legal questions arising out of that, as this is not the place for so doing, but I think anyone can appreciate that when a statutory duty is imposed by a section of an Act of this Parliament that statutory duty is mandatory on the person or bodies to whom it applies.
Where the duty is imposed to apply the market value test to the purchase price of any land, that duty will have to be carried out. I can see in the two amendments suggested here, the very difficulties involved in trying to define the obvious. I notice that in Deputy Moylan's amendment he suggests that the test should be the average price paid for land of a quality similar to that being acquired in the particular district where it is being acquired over the period of the preceding three years. If that test were applied, then the value of the land becomes merely a mathematical problem dependent on whether proper information is available as to the varying prices over a certain period. If that were applied all over the country, I can see that considerable problems and difficulties would arise in trying to apply the test contained in Deputy Moylan's amendment and which is contained in a varying degree in the amendment suggested by Deputy Moran. I do not appreciate the sense behind both of these amendments but I do see this force in what has been urged by Deputy Moylan, that certainly it is very hard to understand the distinction made by the Minister between market value and market price. I shall say to the Minister, that if he is going to insert in the Bill the term "market value" as contained in this section, certainly anybody endeavouring to interpret that section later must consider that he means "market price". I certainly cannot see the distinction which he seeks to draw between "market value" and "market price". If there is a distinction, I can see a different test being applied in respect to the provisions with regard to the price to be paid for the resumption of land and what it is proposed to pay now for the acquisition of land. I am certain that the matter will be examined further by the Minister but I should like to express my opposition to any further attempt to define "market value". I think it would lead to countless difficulties.
May I say in conclusion that the proposal to give the market value for land acquired, irrespective of what Deputy Moylan may have said, certainly marks an important advance and from my point of view and the point of people outside this House is a very welcome change in the land code? There has undoubtedly been in some cases what can only be described as a process of literal confiscation in the acquisition of land. I think this is a welcome change and if it leads to speedier acquisition of land that should be acquired, it is doubly welcome. I do not think we should try, even with well-intentioned definitions, to impose any hampering restrictions on the powers which the Minister seeks under this section. For these reasons I think neither of these amendments should be accepted by the House.
I think that the mathematical precision asked for, by the Leader of the Opposition particularly, would be fatal to the usefulness of the section, the provisions of which these two amendments seek to clarify. That seems to be the general opinion on this side of the House. I regret that that view is confined to this side because I am accepting that the amendments put down by Deputy Moylan and Deputy Moran were tabled in perfectly good faith, with the object of trying to make improvements in the section as presented in this Bill. I thought it rather regrettable that Deputy Moran spoiled my view of his bona fides by making a case which I think he must have appreciated had no foundation in fact. He tried to draw an analogy between the term “market value” as used in this Bill and the “market value” which is used by the Revenue Commissioners when assessing the value of land for estate duty purposes. While he was speaking on that matter I intervened, but he passed over my intervention and that is really the reason I have risen to speak now. First of all, he knows that the value of land for estate duty purposes where it is under £1,000 is ascertained by a rule of thumb method—by multiplying the poor law valuation by 25 and subtracting the redemption value from the product.
That is a method.
I deny it is a method of ascertaining the real market value. It is a method of ascertining the artificial value for the benefit of small estates, so that there will be an easy method of calculation and to save expense. This particular method is weighted in favour of the small taxpayer and it is very misleading of Deputy Moran to come in and produce that method of calculation as an argument in this debate. The Deputy then went on to deal with the question of "market value" in a case where a deed is lodged for assesment of stamp duty. I move to report progress.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.