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.