Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1950

Vol. 119 No. 7

Land Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on 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.—(Deputy Moylan).

Mr. Timoney

When I moved to report progress last night, I was dealing with the argument which Deputy Moran had advanced in support of his amendment and of the amendment in the name of Deputy Moylan. I was endeavouring to show that Deputy Moran knew quite well that part of the argument which he was making had no foundation in fact, and particularly the examples which he had given as to the method adopted by the Revenue Commissioners in fixing the value of farms of land, both in cases of the death of the owner and of the transfer of lands where there was no monetary consideration mentioned. I have stated that, where the rule of thumb method was employed by the Revenue Commissioners, the commissioners did not pretend that the value which they found as a result of the calculation was "market value", and they call it, and practitioners call it, the artificial value.

I mentioned last night that I think it is regrettable that Deputy Moran adopted examples of that kind because, thinking over the matter, I am quite sure that Deputy Moran knew they had no relevance, and that he simply produced these examples to mislead Deputies who would not have the same advantage as he has and the same familiarity with the matters to which he was referring. I feel sure that if Deputy Moran does speak on these amendments again, he will, on consideration, admit that he was wrong.

Now, to try to clear the air and the confusion that has been created by all the talk that we have had on these two amendments, I think it would not be a waste of time if we just try to recall what the Minister is trying to do by passing into law Section 5 of this Bill which Deputies Moran and Moylan are endeavouring to amend by their two amendments. The position is, as I understand it, that under Section 39 of the Land Act of 1939, the Land Commission is bound to pay the market value for holdings which the Land Commission resumes, and this House, in 1939, when giving to the appeal tribunal a direction as to the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to the owner of a resumed holding, gave that direction in a very simple manner. The direction is contained in paragraph (a), sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the 1939 Land Act and it says:—

"The resumption price of such holding or part of a holding, that is to say, the compensation to be paid therefor by the Land Commission, shall be the market value of the holding or part of a holding so resumed."

There, in very simple and clear language, was the direction which this House gave to the appeal tribunal.

Mr. Allen

Read on the next two sub-sections.

Mr. Timoney

I have read paragraph (a).

Mr. Allen

Read on the next two for the benefit of the House. It is all the one section.

Mr. Timoney

The Deputy will have an opportunity of reading these paragraphs to the House if he wishes. For the purpose of my argument, paragraph (a) is sufficient, and I am satisfied to rely on it. The appeal tribunal has been operating under those provisions since the 1939 Land Act became law, and I take it that the Minister is quite satisfied with the manner in which the appeal tribunal has dealt with resumed holdings under that section. I gather that the Minister is now trying to get into line with resumed holdings, in the matter of compensation, those holdings which henceforth will be acquired by the Land Commission, and he, in dealing with the question of compensation, deals with it in just as simple a manner as this House dealt with it when passing the 1939 Land Act on this question of compensation for resumed holdings.

That is the object which the Minister has in mind. We have had experience in the last 11 years of the working of the appeal tribunal on the direction given to it contained in the words "market value". All that the Minister is now saying is that these are words which have been used time and again. They have, apparently, created no great confusion. The Minister says that the appeal tribunal has satisfied the owners of resumed holdings to a very great extent, and he asks us now to bring acquired holdings into line with resumed holdings.

I am quite convinced that the Minister is safe in leaving the section as it is, and that the House is safe in doing so, for the achievement of the purpose mentioned. Whether it is a good purpose or not is another matter, but for the achievement of that purpose the section is quite satisfactory and the amendments would only confuse the matter. As I said last night, they would be almost fatal to the usefulness of the section. They would be fatal to the proper working of the section as it is in the Bill. For these reasons I would oppose both amendments. I am quite satisfied that the section, as contained in the Bill, ought to stand.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Timoney wants to clear the air. Every Deputy on these benches wants to clear the air. Every Deputy in the House wants to clear the air except the Minister, who deliberately refuses to define what he means by the expression "market value". Nobody in this House knows better than Deputy Timoney that the appeal tribunal, when this House refuses to define the expression "market value", is open to any definition that appears in any statute passed by this House. The Deputy is well aware that it is open to anybody to go before the tribunal after this Bill is passed and to say: "This is an expression called ‘market value' which the Legislature, in its wisdom or ignorance, refuses to define. The same expression appears in other statutes and it is defined there", because this expression has certain definite meanings under Section 61 of the Finance Act, 1910, and Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1894. If any court or tribunal is left without any guidance as to an expression like this, the nearest they can get to it is to take one of the definitions already set out by law. Nobody knows better than Deputy Timoney that, if the Bill is passed leaving the expression "market value" in the air, it is open to anyone to argue that under the Act of 1894 it is 25 times the valuation, less the redemption value, or on the other hand, under later legislation, it is the value that appears for the purpose in a deed and to add to that the redemption value of the annuity.

Mr. Timoney

Has that happened since 1939?

Mr. Moran

I do not want to weary the House with what happened since 1939. I want to emphasise that, where lands are acquired and the owner is brought up before the appeal tribunal and produces his evidence as to what is the market value and the decision is deferred, some gentleman appointed by the tribunal whom nobody knows is sent down from Dublin and gives a private report to the tribunal to try to guide them; that the tribunal announce their decision subsequently after hearing this gentleman without any opportunity being given to the owner to cross-examine the gentleman as to what he knows about land, as to whether he is familiar with the value of land in the area or if, in fact, he knows anything about land.

Mr. S. Collins

That is not so. It is open to review.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must warn Deputy Moran against repetition. This is the third time.

Mr. Moran

I only said that in reply to interruptions from the other side, which, I presume, were out of order.

Mr. Timoney

The Deputy has not replied to an intelligent question asked.

Mr. Moran

I say that at the moment the courts are in difficulty in interpreting this question of market value; that there is no remedy from the courts because there may be no appeal on the question of fact from the appeal tribunal; that this matter has been left in the air and has been unsatisfactory since 1939. The people whom the Minister mentioned were being robbed are the very people who were the victims of this nebulous expression "market value" since 1939. According to the Minister, this matter is deliberately introduced into this Bill and he refuses to give an interpretation of it. I invite any Deputy to ask himself what he will think of himself if a piece of legislation of this kind goes through the House. If anybody asks him: "What do you mean by the expression ‘market value'?" all he can say is: "We do not know; we put it in."

Mr. Sweetman

Will the Deputy refer me to the two sections he quoted?

Mr. Moran

I will not be cross-examined by Deputy Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

I brought in the Acts in order to check whether the Deputy was right or not and now he is running away from it.

Mr. Moran

If the Deputy wants to check up on Section 16 (1) of the Finance Act of 1894 or on Section 61 (1) of the Finance Act, 1910, he is welcome to do it. I suggest to the House that there have been legal definitions under these Acts as to what we call "market value". There is no definition given here. It is open to every individual to consider what his interpretation might be at his own sweet will. Never in my experience of this House did I hear any Minister suggest that he was deliberately refraining from defining any matter in a Bill. As a matter of fact, it was generally accepted as a principle of legislation going through the House, if anybody suggested that there was any doubt about the interpretation of any phrase or section, that the Minister would undertake to set it right and try to define it so as to give guidance to the courts who will have to interpret the measure when it comes before them. This is the first time in my experience that we have had a Minister deliberately informing the House that he refuses to put in a definition of what he means by certain words.

I am again warning the Minister that if that is his attitude the people will accept his words and he will not get their co-operation. What is more important for western Deputies, he is not going to get land; because if any man is left without knowing what he will get for his land, he will not take the chance of allowing his land to go to the Land Commission. I know of no precedent for the Minister's attitude. During the years I have been in this House I know of no Bill being presented to the House and the Minister deliberately stating that he is going to leave the issue confused and refusing to define a particular expression.

We have had disagreements in this House about certain interpretations and, even if the Bill went to the Seanad, if we were doubtful when it came back about an expression we had a debate about it and when the Bill left this House we thought everybody understood the implications of it and knew the interpretation of it. This is the first time in my experience that a Minister deliberately wants to confuse the issue by putting in this expression that nobody understands. We want to be co-operative with the Minister. His suggestion that we want to delay the measure will not cut any ice with anybody. On the Second Reading, the Minister stated that he would give ample time to consider this. As a matter of fact, he told Deputy Moylan that, if necessary, he would give three days for its consideration. The old bogey of suggesting, if amendments are put down to try and improve a Bill, that that is obstruction is not going to cut any ice. The Minister played himself out on that issue in the Local Authorities (Works) Act. He accused the Opposition in general, and me in particular, of holding up that Act. I am not prepared to let this section through when nobody understands what this section means. I think it would be bad for the Minister and the House, and unfortunate for the people, if the courts have to face the task of interpreting an expression which the House refuses to determine. That is the issue before the House.

Mr. Sweetman

Knowing Deputy Moran, I did not take him at his word, and I went out and got the Acts myself. I challenge Deputy Moran now to read out of the Finance Act, 1884, any section in which market value is defined. Will he do the same with the Finance Act of 1910? We might then have some respect for his argument. But I cannot trace any reference whatsoever to the words "market value" in the sections from which he quoted. If he read the wrong sections, I shall accept his bona fides when he quotes the right ones, but not until then.

Sir John Esmonde

The object of this discussion is, I assume, two-fold. Firstly, its purpose is to find a phrase that will do justice to the person from whom the lands are being acquired; and, secondly, to find a phrase which, by doing justice, will permit of no ambiguity. Having listened to the discussion for some time, I feel impelled to speak. The Opposition is pressing for a definition. In doing that they appear to me to be losing sight of the fact that in constructing and putting together Acts of Parliament we are presumed to use both intelligible ordinary English and intelligible ordinary Irish. These words, therefore, must be construed in their natural and ordinary sense. Is there any person here or outside the House who, if he were asked the meaning of market value, would not immediately be able to say what it is? If the words "market value" were something invented or something put in for the purpose of causing discussion in court, there might be something to be said for the arguments that have been adduced here. But market value is defined in the dictionary. Market value is surely understood by all intelligent, sensible people. Half an hour ago, during Question Time, Deputy Moran cross-examined the Minister for Health as to why somebody did not receive market value for a plot in some town in the West of Ireland. Is there any difference now in the meaning that he would attach to market value and in his understanding of it when he questioned the Minister for Health? Market value is understood by any reasonable person or by any tribunal appointed to fix compensation in a matter of this kind.

Market value is defined in that well-known work, The Oxford Dictionary, as the current value in the market, saleable value.

Mr. Moylan

Market price.

Mr. Moran

The trouble is the Minisster will not have market price.

Sir John Esmonde

It is defined in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary in relation to property—what the property would fetch in the market under the state of things for the time being existing. Change one back to the other and you get to the stage where every valuer or auctioneer — and I think I have a colleague from County Wexford on the Opposition Benches who should appreciate this—will surely not admit that he does not know what market value means.

Mr. Timoney

He says he does not.

Sir John Esmonde

If any valuer was asked to give the Land Commission his view as to what the market value is of any particular holding at a particular time he would quite definitely know what it was. I can put the minds of those Deputies who have any doubt in this matter at rest. I can tell them that if they consult the 19252nd Irish Reports at page 240 they will find there where a judge of our High Court, on an appeal from the Circuit Court, definitely laid it down:—

"Market value is a fact well known to valuers, and definite methods of proof are always available."

In addition, therefore, to market value being capable of definition by means of the dictionary, it has also received judicial interpretation in our own courts.

It is right to say that market value has been defined in a number of statutes, but it has been so defined for a specific and particular reason. It has been defined in order to attach to the expression something more than the ordinary general public would attach thereto. It would only complicate the matter here if we were to lay it down that compensation would be assessed for these lands at market value and that market value is to be defined in a specific way. If you approach the subject from that point of view you must state that the lands will be assessed at a certain value based upon so-and-so. It is not a proper use of language to say, first of all, that you have market value and then proceed to whittle that down to something else. Let me give an example. In one particular statute market value was defined. I refer to the Damage to Property Act under which compensation was paid after 1923, and later on in a subsequent Act. It was defined in sub-section (13) of Section 10 as the price which the property could be expected to fetch if sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer at a price prevailing in a free market for such property at the time of the award. Will not any valuer, perhaps in not such precise legal language, have that in his mind?

As regards the Finance Acts, there one has an artificial method of fixing the value of the property for the purpose of estate duty. Deputy Moran knows that very well. He knows that the market value fixed under those Acts is considerably less than what the holding would fetch in the open market. It is for the purpose of having just such an artificial assessment that the definition is put into the particular Act.

I want to point out to the House the danger of defining too fully "market value" for the purpose of assessment. As Deputies know very well, where either the State or local authorities acquire property compulsorily, there is imported into the particular Act under which they purport to exercise their functions the provisions of the Acquisition of Property Act, 1919, which has become part of our code. Any Deputy who has had experience of the assessment of compensation under that particular code must know that it militates absolutely against the person from whom the property is being acquired. That has always been a source of dissatisfaction because under Section 2 of that particular Act the value is fixed according to certain welldefined principles. I do not think the words "market value" are used. The Referee can assess the amount of the compensation with special regard to Section 2. In so far as it operates, it operates against the full compensation being paid to the person from whom the lands are being acquired. It seems to me that we have been rather running round in circles in this discussion. I am attributing to the Opposition a genuine desire to have this section made perfect. If for one moment I thought that the section was not perfect in what it sought to do I would have no hesitation whatsoever in saying so. Attributing to the two movers of these two amendments that desire, I can see, reading into their two amendments, nothing that puts the matter further. The only thing is that it will complicate the matter to a certain extent in so far as the valuer who comes up to give evidence—when he has to give evidence as to what is the guide in the section—will be obliged to take only into consideration the matters that are in the particular amendments whereas, if the use of the expression "market value" is left at large he will have no difficulty whatsoever as an auctioneer and valuer in arriving at that figure.

There is one point, however, to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. I take it the overriding desire on the Minister's part is that the person from whom the land is acquired will get full market value compensation. I know there is considerable delay between the time land is acquired and the time the whole matter is adjusted. When I use the term "fluctuating market value" everybody knows what "market value" means. Values on the market fluctuate from time to time. There might be a period of one to three years between the original taking over and the final completion of the matter. During that period market values might fluctuate. I think it might be important to define either in this section or in some other section or somewhere in the Bill the definite point of time at which the market value is to be gauged because there might be either a rise or a fall. In the period in which we are now living—with devaluation, world prices and so forth—values tend to change from time to time. The Minister might consider that suggestion from his point of view as to what he actually wishes to do—whether he wishes to give the market value actually at the date of the first service of the notice or at the date of the final adjustment or the date of the fixing of compensation. It may not seem of importance to us here now but I think it would be of extreme importance to the person from whom the land is being taken.

Mr. Moylan

I moved the amendment in the hope of getting some expression of the intention of the Minister in regard to the definition of "market value". The Minister might either explain his position fully or desist from half explaining it. In the Minister's Second Reading speech he said:—

"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 reference is Volume 118, No. 9, column 1311. In the 1923 Act the expression in regard to price was "fair to the owner and fair to the Land Commission". As a definition it meant nothing and as a definition, as expressed by the Minister on the Second Reading of this Bill, "I took very good care not to say in the Bill that we were giving market price but that we were giving market value" does not mean anything either. I know nothing of legal terms and the various Acts that might affect the matter. I cannot be an expert on those. But, after the long speech we had from Deputy Esmonde, the only thing that emerged clearly was that his definition of market value was according to the dictionary, and he proved to us that it was "market price". I read Section 39 of the Act of 1939. It was the only piece of legislation to which I referred. Deputy Timoney spoke at length on market value. Instead of hiding behind the various barriers of legislative quotation, why not let us all get down to brass tacks and answer one question? Deputy Timoney avoided it.

Mr. Timoney

What was that?

Mr. Moylan

I will tell you. I took very good care in reading the section last night to say that I was not capable of a legal interpretation of it and that I left it to the lawyers to interpret it. Deputy Timoney spoke. Deputy Sweetman spoke. Deputy Moran spoke. Deputy Esmonde spoke. All these men are well-known, efficient, well-trained lawyers.

Mr. McQuillan

Three of them are, anyhow.

Mr. Moylan

Sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the Act of 1939 says:—

"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 therefor by the Land Commission, shall be the market value of the holding or part of a holding so resumed."

Deputy Timoney read that for us. So did the Minister. I think it was Deputy Allen who suggested that he might read on. Why did he not do so?

Mr. Timoney

Because it is not relevant.

Mr. Moylan

Well, we shall see.

"(b) Section 43 of the Land Act of 1931, shall apply and have effect in relation to a resumptiom 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."

I do not suggest for a moment that that section says that market value is market price——

Mr. Sweetman

No.

Mr. Moylan

——but it seems to me that it does. What I want is an interpretation of it. If the Minister would leave that section alone—and if it can be interpreted as I have interpreted it —there would seem to be no point in messing up the matter on his Second Reading speech, which was responsible for our having to spend two days on it.

Amendment No. 5 put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 71.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.(Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheehan, Michael.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.

Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Moran

We discussed both amendments and I am now formally moving amendment No. 6 in order to have it put to the House:—

To add a new sub-section 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.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Sweetman splits hairs about the principal value, the market value or the market price. The definition of principal value is set out in various statutes. The particular sections which he has questioned specify clearly the method under which the value is arrived at; that happens under certain Acts of Parliament that are still in force in this country. I will quote from a publication issued by the estate duty authorities and known as Form A—2E. The principal value is there defined under paragraph 29, as follows:—

"Where the deceased died before the 30th April, 1909, the principal value of any property passing on that event is the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death. Provided that in the case of any agricultural property—i.e., agricultural land, pastures, and woodland and such cottages, farm buildings, farm houses, and mansion houses (together with the lands occupied therewith) as are of a character appropriate to the property — [see Section 22 (1) (g)]—where no part of the principal value is due to the expectation of an increased income from such property, the principal value shall not exceed 25 times the annual value, as assessed under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts, after making such deductions as have not been allowed in that assessment, and are allowed under the Succession Duty Act, 1853, and making a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding 5 per cent. of the annual value so assessed."

Under the 1894 Act you call it the principal value; you certainly call it the market price here. The Minister says the market price is different from market value and he has split hairs on that issue. However you approach this question, the finance people define it under different Finance Acts in this country. The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, provided a definite method whereby an arbitrator sitting down the country on the question of land being acquired is directed to assess compensation. The definition, if my memory serves me correctly, under the 1919 Act, is the price that a willing purchaser would pay a willing vendor. Under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, there are certain directions and an attempt to define what the legislators then thought was the market value. There is another method under the Finance Acts as to how market value should be defined. There is a definition under the Compensation Act where compensation was paid to people who suffered loss during the war period. They made an attempt to define what they called market value. Every time the expression was used there was some attempt to define what they called market value.

Mr. Sweetman

It was not used in the two examples the Deputy gave.

Mr. Moran

I make a present to the Deputy of the difference to be arrived at in what in his opinion is the market price and the market value. I call the market price the market value, whatever the Deputy might call it. In every Act there has been some attempt at definition, but we are leaving it up in the air. If the Minister wants to stop endless litigation, if he wants to get the land he says he is looking for in order to relieve congestion, I urge him not to leave this question up in the air. He should introduce before the Report Stage another section, even giving his own expression to what the Land Commission call market value. Then we in this House, the courts in the country and the people from whom the land is being taken will know where they stand.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy is endeavouring to mislead the House.

Mr. Allen

There is one thing the lay members of the House must agree on, and that is God help the acquisition of land if it is left to the lawyers. It certainly would be a slow process, especially under this section as amended by the Dáil.

Mr. Sweetman

If it was amended, I agree, but it was not.

Mr. Allen

There was one amendment that the Minister introduced on the question of market value and he replaced certain words by other words that were in the 1923 Act. Does the Minister believe that the Land Commission can pay more for land under his amendment, under the words "market value", than under the definition in the 1923 Act? Does he honestly believe that?

Mr. Blowick

I do, and I am sure of it.

Mr. Allen

That has led to all the confusion here. It has led to this, that for the first time in my experience a Minister introducing a section is unable to define the meaning of the words he is putting into it and he cannot say what the effect will be.

Mr. Blowick

Not at all.

Mr. Allen

He has no hope of doing it, and if the Minister was honest he would admit that. On the Second Reading he deliberately said that market value did not mean market price. Why was he deceiving himself or trying to deceive the House? Everybody knows that market value means market price. I have one fear and it is a very serious one. The State is setting out to acquire land and the Minister has expressed his determination to get land at all costs.

Mr. Blowick

Oh, no, not at all costs.

Mr. Allen

It must be got—the problem of the congests in the West must be solved at all costs. I want to suggest to the Minister that, under the operation of the section as he has made it now, the market price of land can rocket to the sky so long as the State has a long purse and is prepared to pay the difference between what is a fair price to the allottee and to the person who owns the land. If the Minister is able to get from the Minister for Finance an unlimited amount of money, then, under this section, he can get any amount of land. But market value or market price will vary from day to day and from week to week. We saw that in the case of cigarettes during the emergency even though there was a fixed price on them.

Mr. Davin

It depends in some cases on the number of puffers you have.

Mr. Allen

No. It depends on the market which you create. Everybody knows how farms of land in the same townland of the same intrinsic value will realise quite different prices. Values change from day to day and from week to week. If it is known that the Land Commission are setting out to purchase land, and that they must get it at all costs whether by auction or by private treaty or otherwise, then the market value, or the market price, will go up and up. That is a danger that I want to point out to the Minister. It may prove a very serious one in the future and you may have an abuse of the whole principle of land acquisition and division under this section.

Mr. Blowick

I do not think the Deputy should be so severe on the officials of the Land Commission.

Mr. Allen

I am not severe on anybody. It will depend, in the main, on Government policy. If the Government in office say to the Land Commission: "Get us a pool of land," without reference to anything else, well, the market value will go up from day to day. The Minister should be most careful in this matter.

Mr. Blowick

There is no need to caution me.

Mr. Cogan

I must say that I do not share many of the fears which Deputy Allen has expressed in regard to this section. I do not think there is anything in them unless the Land Commission were utterly reckless. The Land Commission have not given much indication of recklessness in the past. I do not think there is any need to worry about the value of land being forced up to the sky.

I am, however, worried about another aspect of this question. The Minister, on a number of occasions, has expressed the view that persons from whom land was acquired in the past were unjustly treated. This section seeks to remedy that injustice. In so far as it does, it is very welcome and desirable. If the Minister is convinced that an injustice has been done even to only one, two or three citizens, then I think he should be more than anxious to rectify it. As I have said on other occasions, the Minister can hardly be held responsible for anything wrong that was done before he took office. He, however, should take responsibility for anything that has happened since 18th February, 1948, when he took office. In my opinion, it is from that date that this section should operate. I am not in a position at the moment to say, although I think I asked a question about it last year, how many holdings were acquired by the Land Commission during the year 1948 and the year 1949.

Mr. Timoney

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Deputy to make that speech now? Could he not have put down an amendment?

Mr. Cogan

As a matter of fact I did, but it was ruled out as it would have the effect of adding to the cost of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment was outside the scope of the Bill. What is before the House is Section 5.

Mr. Cogan

I think that my amendment was to Section 5.

Mr. Blowick

It was, and it was amendment No. 3. It was ruled out of order.

Mr. Cogan

As I cannot move my amendment, I can request that the Minister should, at a later stage, bring in a somewhat similar amendment of his own. As I have suggested, the provisions of this section should in my opinion date back to the 18th February, 1948. The Minister has taken a very strong stand on this question. He has been very definite in his assertion that people from whom land was acquired were unjustly treated. I have plenty of evidence at my disposal to support that. I think that both the Minister and myself are in agreement on that. I want to say again that I think it is only fair and just that this section should take effect from the date on which the Minister took office as Minister for Lands.

Mr. Blowick

May I say that my own amendment No. 2 will practically go back to the date that the Deputy has in mind?

Mr. Aiken

I would ask the Minister to take into consideration what has been said by the various Deputies on this section between now and the Report Stage. I suggest to him that he should consult his officials and the parliamentary draftsman and bring forward an amendment which will in some way clear up the confusion that his various statements on the section have created.

Mr. Blowick

It is the section when passed that will count much more than the Minister's statements.

Mr. Aiken

That is perfectly right.

Mr. Blowick

I do not agree that any confusion has been caused by my statements. I think they were remarkably clear.

Mr. Aiken

We all thought that we knew what market value was until the Minister started to talk. Deputy Sweetman appeals to us not to define a definition, but the Minister has given a negative definition of a definition. He said on the Second Reading, and in the debate on the amendments to this section, that market value was not market price.

Mr. Sweetman

I did not appeal to Deputies not to define market value in their speeches, but I did appeal to them not to define it in the Bill which is a very different thing.

Mr. Aiken

Market value was defined in the 1939 Act in the Irish version by reference because marga-luach is the translation into Irish of both market value and market price. The Minister comes along to-day and he says that marga-luach is not marga-luach. Surely, we should have that cleared up.

Mr. Sweetman

It will be interesting to see what the translation staff will do about it.

Mr. Aiken

This whole business of the acquisition and resumption of land has gone on for a long time, and surely we should clear this up. In the 1923 Act you had a definition, or a provision for the fixation of price which the Minister now proposes to delete, and to put in his own provision in regard to all land acquired.

Under the 1923 Act you had the situation that the Land Commission could resume land. They could acquire untenanted land, but they could not acquire land which was vested in the tenants. As the years went on, you had a situation in which the Land Commission were resuming small parcels of land and leaving, side by side with these, large tracts of land which had been vested in the tenant and which they could not touch. Under the 1933 Act the Dáil decided to give as much protection to the person whose land was resumed as the person in whom the land had been vested. Under the 1939 Act the Dáil decided that, where holdings were resumed, the person from whom the land was being taken should get the market value or the market price. Under this section the Minister says, on the one hand, that he proposes to increase the price for land acquired and, again, he says that there will not be very much difference between the price fixed for land hereafter and the price given for land up to the present.

It is really the Minister who has created the confusion. It is up to him to try to clear the air. If what he says at one time is true, that this is going to give an increased price for land, somebody will have to pay it, either the State or the incoming tenant. When I saw this section, I thought the Minister had been persuaded by some remnants of the old landlords who still have certain portions of land to increase the price. A very small amount of vested land has been taken over by the Land Commission, but a fair amount of land has been resumed. Under the 1939 Act the market value or market price was to be paid for resumed holdings.

Mr. Sweetman

Did the Deputy say that very little vested land has been taken over?

Mr. Aiken

Very little. It could not be touched up to 1933.

Mr. Blowick

We shall have a little more to say about that.

Mr. Aiken

If the Minister has something more to say, he has been as quiet as a mouse all day, although he had been very vocal.

Mr. Blowick

Your Leader said I was abusive when I was telling him the truth.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister goes from absolute quiet to squealing whenever he is asked a question. We want him to take an interest in the proceedings.

Mr. Blowick

I did not know that either Deputies or Ministers squealed.

Mr. Aiken

That is the only way I can describe the high-pitched note which comes into the Minister's voice whenever he gets excited.

Mr. Blowick

Therefore, all the members of the House are animals, in your opinion?

Mr. Aiken

We want the Minister to clear up the confusion and we are entitled to an answer to this question. What does the Minister mean when he says that market value is not market price? The Minister proposes to set up a single individual to interpret this section in the Bill. That situation in which a single individual fixes the price of land obtained from 1923 to 1933. It was not very satisfactory, to the knowledge of a number of Deputies. The Minister proposes again to set up a single individual to determine the price, a price which must affect either the State Exchequer or the annuity payable by the incoming tenant. Under the old definition "what is fair to the Land Commission and fair to the tenant" there were grave allegations up to 1933 that land was taken at a price which was unfair to the incoming tenant and over-generous to the person from whom the land was taken.

Mr. Blowick

An unsustained allegation.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister says that prior to 1933 that did not happen. I should like him to look up the debates in the Dáil on that question. It was thought in 1933 that the State could pursue the policy agreed to by all Parties in the House, that wherever land was not being worked in a reasonable way having regard to the necessity for production and the desirability of increasing the productivity of the land, the State should have the right to take land from people who were abusing their ownership of it. The Minister is now changing the system in regard to the price of land being acquired from the remnants of the landlords in the country, and he will not give the Dáil any indication as to what this new price is to be. Is it right that the owners of land from whom the land may be acquired should be informed as to what the Dáil is proposing to do under this Bill? People who are hoping to get portions of land should also know what price they will have to pay under this new definition in the Bill. Will they, as a result of it, have to pay an increased annuity or will they not?

The Dáil is entitled to an answer to that question also. Again, I urge upon the Minister, between now and the Report Stage, to get his officials and the parliamentary draftsman together and clear up some of the confusion he has created during the course of the two debates on this measure.

Mr. Timoney

Evidently Deputy Aiken was not listening to Deputy Moran and Deputy Allen, because they would have solved his difficulties for him as to the effect of Section 5 on the price of land. Deputy Allen told us that the effect of the section would be to drive the price of land up very high.

Mr. Allen

Might be.

Mr. Timoney

If the Deputy now says "might be" I shall accept that. But I certainly understood him to say that it would; and I gathered from the whole tenor of his speech that that was a very real fear in his mind. I take it I am right in that.

Mr. Allen

Yes.

Mr. Timoney

He does fear that the price of land will be driven up to astronomical heights. On the other hand, Deputy Moran is in considerable anxiety by reason of his fear that the section as it stands will so depress the value of land that people will not be willing to sell it at all and that there will not be a sufficient pool of land for acquisition and redistribution purposes. It would probably solve the problem if Deputy Allen and Deputy Moran would get together, with Deputy Aiken acting as arbitrator. They could then work out which way the balance would go. As a matter of fact, the two usually cancel each other.

Mr. Moran

If the Minister would define "market value" it would save us a lot of trouble.

Mr. Timoney

The Minister has taken up a perfectly sensible attitude, just as sensible as was the attitude adopted by the Minister in charge when the 1939 Land Act was introduced. He used the phrase "market value". There has been no trouble about that since. A perfectly competent tribunal has interpreted the phrase ever since. That tribunal consists of reasonably sensible people with a high standard of intelligence. The more I listen to the debate the more convinced I am that the section, as it stands, will attain the object the Minister has in mind which, as has been stated ad nauseam, is to put land being acquired by the Land Commission on the same basis as land being resumed.

It was very ingenious of Deputy Aiken to haul out of the Irish version of the 1939 Act the Irish word for market price. I think it appears only once. In paragraph (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 39 the Irish word used is "marga-luach". In all other cases where the word price is mentioned you find "resumption price" and where price is defined you find the Irish word "praghas". In view of that I do not think one should be coerced into accepting the view that market price and market value are one and the same thing. I think Deputy Moylan mentioned the price of cigarettes.

Mr. Moylan

Would the Deputy, as a lawyer, explain to us the meaning of the expression market price in sub-section (5) (b) of Section 39 of the 1939 Act?

Mr. Timoney

It bears the meaning which has been attributed to it by the appeal tribunal ever since the Act was passed.

Mr. Moylan

Does market price mean market value in that section, or what does it mean?

Mr. Timoney

How is that relevant to Section 5?

Mr. Moran

What is more relevant?

Mr. Moylan

Surely, an explanation of the expression "market price" is relevant.

Mr. Timoney

I do not agree that it is relevant. What we are discussing is the meaning of the words "market value".

Mr. Moylan

Is market value market price?

Mr. Timoney

I say it is not. I say we are not concerned with market price.

Mr. Moylan

We are concerned with market value and market price.

Mr. Sweetman

We are concerned with market value.

Mr. Moylan

And market price.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Timoney must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Timoney

I am dealing with the effect of the section on the price which the owners of land will henceforth get where that land is resumed. I have no intention of trying to define market price. I do not think I could do that. Neither have I any intention of trying to differentiate between market value and market price. It seems to me that a rather good analogy is the difference in the price of a packet of cigarettes in the Twenty-Six Counties and in the occupied part of Ireland.

Mr. Moylan

One is market value and the other is market price.

Mr. Timoney

Up there the packet of cigarettes costs 3/6. It surely has the same market value in the Twenty-Six Counties and in the occupied part of Ireland, but there is a difference in the price. I think that is a fair illustration of the difference between market value and market price, but I certainly do not feel obliged to define market price for the purpose of the debate on this section. I am perfectly satisfied with the section as it stands.

Mr. Little

The attempt made by Deputy Timoney to knock the heads together of two Deputies on this side of the House brings out exactly what our concern is. On the Second Stage I mentioned the sweeping fluctuations which had taken place in the price of land because of different factors operating. At one time there was a downward trend which helped to bankrupt a lot of farmers. We are trying to get some stabilising factor into a definition of market value in order to check fluctuations in either direction. I think the Minister should get away from a mere technical discussion of the difference between market price and market value and consider that factor to which he himself referred in his concluding speech on the Second Reading. He pointed out the fluctuations in price over a number of years and he gave the House the impression that he was going to take that factor into consideration in the subsequent stages of this measure so that there would be some stabilising factor introduced into the fixing-up price. What is in the mind of the Minister is practice. We know that the practice of the Land Commission has been that the inspectors go very conscientiously into all the details of the value of property and that then the matter is considered by the commissioners and so on and ultimately by the court. That is the practice. It is not good public policy to leave a clause in a Bill that will lead to doubt. I suggest it would make very little difference, from the Minister's point of view, if he would at least add the words "in the view of the commissioners what would be an equitable price having regard to market value" or something like that.

Mr. Blowick

What could be more equitable than market value?

Mr. Little

Market value is subject to fluctuations. I am trying to get away from the controversy as between market value and market price. Deputies on the benches behind the Minister have proved conclusively that the two were the same. The Minister holds otherwise. I am not going to attempt to word it myself but the idea is that you should get the factor of equity into the definition as a yardstick and help to the commissioners in forming their opinion and in trying to check fluctuations which take place from time to time in market price.

Mr. Aiken

Is the Minister not going to answer the question as to whether he will attempt between now and the Fourth Stage to clear up the confusion he has caused and particularly so when he said that he did not mean to give market price for land and that there was practically no injustice up to the present time and that there was going to be very little difference in the price hereafter?

Mr. McQuillan

I cannot understand how it is that we have three ex-Ministers for Lands sitting on the Opposition Benches at the present moment, because some one or other of them was responsible for the 1939 Act. A discussion has ranged round the difference between market value and market price here all day and yesterday as well. Surely the responsible Minister in 1939 who brought in that Act realises what market value means. That leaves us on this side of the House under the impression that the remainder of his colleagues over there are not serious about the main idea behind this Bill, which is the solution of the problem of congestion.

I should like to make a few remarks on the question of market value and market price. I do not want to see anyone getting an inflated price for land. Where I would mention market price would be, for instance, in relation to the purchase of a farm of land in this country by a non-national who would be in a position to pay a huge sum of money for it. What he would pay would be market price. But does anyone suggest that the Land Commission should turn round and pay him market price—the same as he gave for that land—when they are acquiring it from him? He should only get what we have in this Bill—market value. That, to my mind, is the difference between market value and market price. I think it should be borne in mind.

Section 5, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Moran

Would the Minister say what he means by this section and, in particular, the improvements he has in mind and the particular lands affected by Emergency Powers (No. 310) Order, 1944? Does he mean lands that have been taken over by county councils for the purpose of turf production during the emergency or what does he mean? I shall ask for a division if the Minister does not answer.

Mr. Blowick

The purpose of the section is clearly set out in the section. We do not want the State to be mulcted on the double in relation to certain expenditure which the State has already undergone—in other words, that the State, having gone to certain expenditure on, say, bogs or other types of land, will not be asked to pay again for improvements which it has carried out.

Mr. Moran

Do I take it from the Minister that the idea of introducing this section is to deal with bogs which have been improved by being taken over by county councils, and that have been drained, during the emergency? Is that what is behind the section?

Mr. Blowick

Principally, yes, but it must be borne in mind that each case will have to be examined on its own merits.

Mr. Moran

That is the intention behind the section?

Mr. Blowick

Yes. The idea is that where the State has improved something, particularly during the emergency, and thereby enhanced the value, the State, acting through the Land Commission, will not be asked to pay an enhanced price for the enhancement which the State brought about by previous expenditure.

Mr. Moylan

I have no objection to the section. It is quite possible that a good deal of State money has been spent on a particular farm and that amenities have been provided as a result of that expenditure to meet a national emergency and to serve a great number of people—amenities which are altogether beyond the needs of the farm as a farm. Is it the intention, in this section, when the price is fixed—market price or market value— to deduct the cost of the expenditure and to make an assessment of the value of the work done to the farm? Are you going to deduct from the price fixed the full State expenditure or are you going merely to allow that the result of the State expenditure has been a certain benefit to the farm as a farm and not consider it as a bog which supplied a great number of people during the emergency? There is a big difference.

Mr. Moran

I think the section is unfair. I suspected that it was—this matter of improvement work done on bogs—on reading the section, but I was not quite sure until the Minister informed the House. Deputies, and particularly Deputies from the West, will remember that where bogs were compulsorily taken over under Emergency Powers (No. 310) Order, 1944, the tenants' rates were increased, and their valuations were increased, ranging from a rate of 5/- increase in some cases to £25, depending upon the increased letting value as a result of the county council taking over these bogs. These unfortunate people, in many instances where they had bogs——

Mr. Blowick

Not the increased letting value, but the increased income, as proved by the county council, from such bogs.

Mr. Moran

I beg the Minister's pardon. I doubt that he will find, on consulting his officials, that he is correct. The valuation is based on the letting value. Their valuations have been increased throughout the length and breadth of this land as a result of their bogs being taken over and of their getting money out of the bogs during the war.

Mr. Blowick

That is the point— getting money out of the bogs.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They could appeal against it.

Mr. Moran

I realise that they could appeal against their valuations, but this is a section which says that they are going to be deprived—that is, if these farms are taken over with bogs that have been developed during the emergency—of the increased market value.

I am telling the Minister that these people have been paying in their rates for that increased value. They have been paying, if their bogs had been improved, in increased taxation since the bogs were taken over. It is quite true that if the bogs are not let they can appeal against the valuation put upon them during the emergency, and it will probably be reduced but what is the principle of depriving these people of whatever benefits of developments there were, because these people have been paying for it as the Minister well knows, particularly in County Mayo? It is true, of course, that under the last section the Minister has left the question of market value in the air, but surely if a man has a bog that is a valuable asset to him he should be entitled to compensation for it under whatever definition the Land Commission will now give market value. The tenant has been paying in rates for this development.

Mr. Blowick

The tenant has not been paying for the development.

Mr. Moran

The development was the result of some drainage done where the county council entered and cut more turf on his bog. They were paying him so much on the amount of turf they cut out of his bog. In addition to developing his bog, they took quite a lot of his turf away. In many cases, as a matter of fact, they went too far. Again I would point out to the Minister, and the Minister should know it himself, that where county councils took over bogs they were trying to carry out a particular job at the moment. They were not doing it in a methodical or planned way. They went into that portion of the bog which was most accessible and in a number of cases they destroyed the bog because their object was to produce as much as they possibly could within a limited time.

I am asking the Minister to reconsider the section. As a result of the county council going in on these bogs the owners had to pay increased rates and, if there was some drainage done, they should not be deprived of the benefit of that now. I do not want the Land Commission to go on the principle, when a price is being determined, however it is going to be determined, that they can deduct from the purchase price to be paid to the unfortunate farmer, the amount of money expended by the State five, six, seven or eight years ago on the development of that bog. I think it would be grossly unfair if that were done and I should like the Minister between now and the Report Stage to consider inserting some safeguard against such a possibility. There may be some other matters which the Minister's advisers have in mind in connection with this section but the first thing that strikes me is the question of the bogs in the county from which both the Minister and I come. If it applies to this section only the Minister would be well advised to withdraw it. Otherwise it may create a hardship on people from whom land, including bog, is being acquired.

Mr. Blowick

Unfortunately the bogs in Mayo are practically non-existent at the moment as the Deputy must be well aware, at least bogs available for Land Commission purposes. He must be well aware of the clamour that exists in that county for bogs from which turf can be produced for household purposes. The whole area from Cong to some miles north of Castlebar has been for the past few years practically without any plot from which a farmer could get his annual supply of turf. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware that this section merely converts into permanent legislation an Emergency Powers Order passed by his own Government.

Mr. Moran

It is not doing any such thing.

Mr. Blowick

I am not putting it in here because it is something that is convenient and handy but, mind you, the Deputy, when his Party was in power, was not quite so vocal on this matter as he is to-day. I want to be fair and just to the taxpayers and on the other hand to the people from whom we are acquiring land. In cases where the Land Commission will be acquiring bogs, on which huge sums of money were expended, and where these bogs are allowed to go back again into the position where they are not being used, I do not know what about the justice of spending a huge sum of money in development by the State and then asking the State to pay an enhanced value for them. I cannot see any justice in that. The Deputy has not convinced me that the insertion of this section in the Bill is wrong. I shall certainly consider between now and the Report Stage if something can be done about it but at the moment he has not convinced me that it is wrong to adopt this line of action. I think the Emergency Powers Order was right in the first instance. I do not want to say anything now that would be unfair or injurious to any group of persons in the State but we must remember that the State consists of a number of citizens, such as the Deputy and myself upon whom taxes are leviable in various forms and we are entrusted with the responsibility of seeing that these moneys are expended for the public good. Deputies certainly are not empowered to squander these moneys by any means. They must observe common justice and common sense in dealing with them. Most of these bogs were improved and the rates were increased on them during the emergency under the Valuation Acts. The valuation was increased according to the income of the owner, not according to the amount of improvement carried out. The increased valuation was based on the income of the owner. If the valuation was unfair, the owner of the bog could get a reduction if he could prove that his total income from the bog was less than that assessed by the Commissioners of Valuation. It was not on account of the improvement work carried out on the bog that the valuation was increased; it was based on the actual income or the assessed income. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong in the section.

Mr. Moylan

There was a complaint that certain people from whom land was acquired by the Land Commission actually owed money to the Land Commission when the transaction was completed. That complaint was made about one farm in County Meath. The Land Commission purports to take over a farm with a bog attached on which certain moneys have been spent by the State during the emergency. Are all the moneys expended by the State to be deducted from the price of that land when the Land Commission enters into a discussion for acquisition with the owner? Are you going to deduct all the State expenditure on that farm from the price you will give the farmer when you are taking it? Remember, that will bring up a situation such as existed in County Meath. It is a simple question and we should get an answer.

Mr. Moran

I think the Minister misunderstood the whole point of my argument. I did say that the valuation of these bogs would be increased on the basis of their increased letting value during the emergency, but that is not the point. The point is that these people paid increased rates for the bogs while they were so let. Since they were so let, Bord na Móna did not continue with the lettings and the people are back to where they were before turf production was taken on as a national project. Many of these bogs are vacant now. My difficulty is that the Minister deliberately refused to define market value and here we have a section which says:—

"in fixing the price or compensation on the acquisition or resumption under those Acts and notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other Act, no account shall be taken of, or compensation allowed in respect of, any such increase in value."

The position will be that the Land Commission inspector or auctioneer or valuer will come down, because, I take it, the system is going to be the same. This gentleman whom nobody knows will come down and examine the land to be acquired by the Minister. He will get his figures cut and dry from the county council office or Bord na Móna, whoever was operating the bog, and they will say that the development of the bog cost £2,000 or £3,000 and his compensation will accordingly be reduced in proportion to the capital expenditure laid out by Bord na Móna or the county council during the emergency.

That is the difficulty under this section and I do not see why the section should be here at all. I questioned the Minister if it referred only to bogs. If it does refer only to bogs and deals with bogs taken by county councils during the emergency, then I suggest the Minister should reconsider the matter before the Report Stage. It would be absolutely unfair to an owner in 1950 or 1951, the man who is now back on his bog since Bord na Móna gave it up, if his land is being acquired, that some such sum should be deducted as will represent the amount expended from the point of view of expediency in the main during the emergency by Bord na Móna or the county council.

If this section remains that amount will have to be taken into consideration by the Land Commission valuer and the definition of market value being left in the air, we will be back to the practice of the Land Commission valuer being sent down and this is one of the matters he will have to inquire into when inspecting holdings. He will have to ask was this bog taken over during the emergency, were there roads made and was there drainage carried out. He will have to find out the capital expenditure and he will promptly deduct a proportionate share of that from the figure which he will report to the Land Commission.

Mr. Blowick

That is pure humbug.

Mr. Moran

Then why is this section here? If this section deals only with land acquired under the Emergency Powers Order of 1944, if it deals solely with bogs, will the Minister justify this section being in the Bill? By whom will these matters be taken into consideration unless by Land Commission inspectors for the purpose of deducting from the owner some portion of what would be otherwise given as value? I do not see any justification for the section. If the Minister says it deals with other matters, I am prepared to accept that, but if it deals with bogs taken by county councils during the emergency then that section should not in justice and equity be in the Bill.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I wish to correct the impression that I think Deputy Moylan has wrongly drawn from the section. As I understand it, its purpose is, with regard to any land or bog acquired under the particular Emergency Powers Order mentioned, if any public moneys have been spent on that property during the period covered by the Order and if, as a result of the expenditure, the value of the land has gone up by X. pounds, when the land is acquired now under this Bill no account will be taken of the enhanced value of the X. pounds. It does not mean, as Deputy Moylan seems to think, that from the compensation price there shall be deducted the entire money spent.

Mr. Moylan

Why does the Minister not say so?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It does not mean that. The section sets out—

"in fixing the price or compensation on the acquisition or resumption under those Acts and notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other Act, no account shall be taken of, or compensation allowed in respect of, any such increase in value."

The increase in value would be represented by the cost to the State. That increase in value shall not be taken into consideration in fixing compensation.

Mr. Moylan

I think Deputy O'Higgins has got my point. I want to ensure that whatever consideration is taken of the enhanced value of the farm or bog, the owner will not be put in the position that we have had in some cases recently, where the owner of the bog, when the Land Commission acquired it, owed money to the Land Commission. If all the expenditure was deducted from the compensation that might well be so.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

As I read the section, if, on a particular plot, in carrying out certain works there was a sum of £200 spent, and that as a result of spending it the market value of the land is increased by £20 or £30, in fixing the acquisition price no account will be taken of the £20 or £30.

Mr. Moylan

Quite reasonable.

Mr. Moran

Is the Minister going to tell us if anything else is contemplated except bogs? Is there anything else contemplated by the Land Commission in this section except bogs acquired during the emergency?

Mr. Blowick

I cannot see any others; we do not envisage any others.

Mr. Moran

If it applies only to bogs, having heard the arguments put forward, the Minister should reconsider this matter before the Report Stage.

Mr. Blowick

We do not envisage anything but bogs.

Mr. Moran

Will you reconsider it? Can you not see the danger to the owner if this section is allowed to stand?

Mr. Blowick

I cannot see one iota of danger.

Mr. Aiken

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-day.