In regard to Section 2, I notice that there is no appeal to the courts. Surely the Minister is not afraid to face a situation in which a person, thinking that an unreasonable demand has been made for the acquisition of a site, should be able to uphold his rights in the court. In this situation the Government apparently are judge, jury and hangman.
Committee on Finance. - Garda Síochána (Acquisition of Sites and Retention of Premises) Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I do not think that that is correct. When the State acquires property or sites, the general provision in default of agreement with the owner with regard to compensation is that the matter is referred to an independent arbitrator and if the Deputy looks at Section 2, sub-section (3), he will see that an Order under this section may incorporate any of the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the Land Clauses Act, so far as they are not inconsistent with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. They will be used appropriately to secure final arbitration in these questions of compensation. I do not know whether the Deputy thinks it necessary to go to the court, having regard to the fact that the method of arbitration is precisely similar in these cases as where the Government or the local authority acquire land for public purposes.
Is the procedure identical? Can the individual object?
Yes, the individual can object.
And can he go to the court on the objection?
The arbitrator is appointed by the court. That is the usual procedure and I am sure the Deputy is familiar with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question —"That the Bill be received for final consideration"— put and agreed to.
Question —"That the Bill do now pass"— put and agreed to.