170 / 364
lapses if the Corporation's conditions are not ful
filled within three months. Since the recent credit
squeeze
the Corporation have been
insisting
strictly on the time limit and they withdraw the
loan when the time limit expires. The result is that
some clients have been unable to get credit which
is sometimes due to the solicitor's delay. In one
case which has come
to
the attention of
the
Society the Corporation offered to grant the loan
after the term of three months lapsed but at a
new rate of interest to wit
1\
per cent instead of
6 per cent. Members ought to be aware of these
circumstances as there is the danger of negligence
actions arising out of cases such as that referred
to.
PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
The following is the text of a letter of 27th
October, 1965 addressed by the Society to the
Department of Local Government in connection
with provision of Section 4 of the Housing Bill
1965.
"The Council of
this Society are somewhat
concerned at the provisions of Section 4 of the
Housing Bill 1965. This section would apparently
enable the Housing Authority to require a solicitor
to furnish confidential information regarding
a.
client's affairs without that client's consent. This
is contrary to the accepted law and the recognized
right of clients
to professional secrecy on
the
part of their solicitors. The Council wish to sub
mit that the section should be amended to protect
that right. If necessary,
they are prepared
to
attend on the Ministers to supply further inform
ation." The Society received the following letter
in reply from the Department of Local Govern
ment on the 22nd November, 1965 :—
"I am directed by
the Minister for Local
Government to refer to your letters (EAP. L/5/65)
of 27th October, and 5th November about section
4 of the Housing Bill, 1965, which enables a
housing authority to require certain information
and to point out that the section is similar to
section 30 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Pro
visions) Act, 1931, which was,
in
turn, made
applicable by section 10 of the Local Government
(No. 2) Act, 1960, to the compulsory acquisition
of land by a local authority for the purpose of
any of their powers and duties. It is also similar
to section 9 of the Local Government (Planning
and Development) Act, 1963, about which you
wrote to the Department on 2nd January, 1963.
The section as included in the Bill does not
propose any serious modification in
these
long
established precedents and it will,
further, be
used in more or less the same way and for the
same purposes as
the earlier sections.
In
the
circumstances,
it would not appear
that an
amendment of section 4 on the lines suggested
in your letters is necessary."
PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE
IN LAND BONDS
Solicitors acting for owners whose
lands are
compulsorily acquired by the Land Commission
are expressing increasing concern at the fact that
clients are finding difficulty
in
realising
their
security on the Stock Exchange. It is an accepted
consitiutional and legal principle that where the
State compulsorily acquires property of the citizen
it should be on terms of full compensation in
money or money's worth. The principle under
lying the land purchase scheme since its incep
tion has been that the owner of the land on
making title receives payment in Land Bonds
instead of cash. Payment by bonds applies to the
price of the land as fixed or agreed and the
owner's
legal costs of
the
transaction. By an
agreement made between the Minister for Lands
and the Auctioneers' Association some years ago
auctioneers who are instrumental in negotiating
a sale between the owner and the Land Com
mission receive their commission in cash instead
of Land Bonds.
The amount of 6 per cent Land Bonds now in
issue is £5,168,000. During the years 1958-60 the
price varied between 101£ and 102. Between 1961
and 1962 the price varied between 99 and 93^.
Market value recovered
to around par in
the
year 1964 but for the last twelve months the price
has been steadily dropping and now stands at
87£. Market values are no doubt affected by the
recent Government 6f per cent Loan which has
tended to depreciate the value of stocks bearing
a lower rate of interest.
The present position is that an owner whose
lands are compulsorily acquired for say £10,000
is
receiving payment in bonds depreciated by
almost 13 per cent of the purchase price. The
bonds are not redeemable on any fixed date, re
demption depending upon drawings for payment
at par in cash on the lottery principle.
An even more serious aspect of the present
system is that there is a very small and unsatis
factory market for the sale of these bonds on the
Stock Exchange and owners whose
lands have
been acquired for payment in bonds have found
64