On this section, I want to put certain facts on record in relation to sub-section (8) of it. I understand that in regard to this Bill, the question that arises under sub-section (8) is only a theoretical one. As, apparently, that is the framework of sub-section (8) and is one that there has been some tendency in recent years to use as a precedent, I think it might be just as well if the implications of it were put on record. The sub-section as I understand it, is based and framed on the provisions incorporated in the Land Reclamation Act of 1949 and in the Local Authorities (Works) Act of 1949. The point that I want to make on this sub-section is that the reference to the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, is, in fact, taken by at least one arbitrator sitting under that Act as being a reference different from what is intended.
Whenever any question is mentioned in this House about the costs of solicitors there is always a wail, particularly from certain farmer Deputies. This does affect the question of the costs of solicitors, but it does not affect the amount of the costs that solicitors will get. It affects the question as to who is going to pay those costs. As I understand the position, what is intended is that there shall be given effect to in these provisions the principle that, where the State acquires property belonging to any person it shall indemnify that person in respect of all expenses which such a person has properly incurred. Obviously, the State is not going to indemnify a person against expenses that have been improvidently incurred, but the State should, I think, indemnify any person whose property is being acquired against any expenses that he has properly incurred.
One point of view holds that the reference to the 1919 Act means that the arbitrator is entitled to award against the acquiring body, and in favour of the person whose land is being acquired, all the costs and expenses which have been properly incurred up to the date of the arbitration. I think that is the principle that is intended by the Parliamentary Secretary so far as this Bill is concerned. It is the principle that was intended in the two earlier Bills upon which this section is framed. But, in fact, however, what occurs in respect of one particular arbitrator is that he is interpreting the reference to arbitration under the 1919 Act as being a reference that the costs incurred by the person whose property is being acquired are to be paid only in so far as such costs are referable to the actual appearance of such person before him at the arbitration.
I quite appreciate that this is a somewhat technical matter, and that the Parliamentary Secretary may have some difficulty in dealing with it unless he has dealt with arbitrations himself. Let us consider, for example, that land is being acquired. Obviously, the person whose land is being acquired consults a valuer, an auctioneer or some person like that. The valuer, before he can give any opinion, has to go out and make an inspection of the land and when he has made that inspection he has to give his report. Then, if that report is to be of any use, he has to go before the arbitrator and give his estimate of value to him. One arbitrator, in fact, only allows the actual expenses of the valuer in coming before him. He does not allow anything for the expenses which the valuer has incurred in going out to look at the land.
A valuer's bill is made up of three items: (1), his fee for his inspection; (2), his fee for making his report, and (3), his fee for attendance in court. One arbitrator, as I say, does not allow anything in respect of items (1) and (2). He only allows item No. (3).
I do not think that is the principle that is intended in the reference that is here, but it is a fact and is the practice at present. Similarly, in respect of all other expenses which are incurred by the person before he goes to arbitration. I think the principle is accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary, and by all the Departments of State, that where a person's property is being acquired he is entitled, under the Land Clauses Act to be indemnified against all costs and expenses properly incurred by him. As I have said, so far as this sub-section is concerned, I understand that this is a theoretical question. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, just for the sake of the record, to confirm that it is only a theoretical question. All interests are being dealt with by the Irish Society and, therefore, no question of outside interests can arise. If that is a correct interpretation, then it would be only a theoretical question. If it is not a theoretical question it is a practical question. In that case, not merely should the matter he considered as a bad precedent for the future but, on the Report Stage of this Bill, I would like to suggest by way of amendment, that the proper reference is not merely the reference to the 1919 Arbitration Act, but also the reference to the Land Clauses Act under which there are certain most specific terms in regard to property when it is being acquired by local or public authorities.
