Vol. 40 No. 20
I move:
In sub-section (1), page 2, lines 23 and 24, to delete the words "or residence" and substitute the words "residence, town office or town receiving depôt."
The amendment is inserted to make sure that residences, town offices, or town receiving depôts should not have the advantage of the provisions of the Bill.
I move amendment 2:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, line 59, to delete the words "be bound to give effect" and substitute the words "have regard."
This strengthens the Bill and although the actual wording was, as a matter of fact, taken from the British legislation of a year or two ago, we think it better to put in words more definite. Instead of having it stated that the Commissioner or a court "shall not be bound to give effect to any custom or practice affecting the valuation of railway hereditaments," it is proposed to say that the Commissioner or the court "shall not be bound to have regard to any custom or practice affecting the valuation of railway hereditaments."
I move amendment 3:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, line 1, to delete the word "all" where the same occurs secondly.
This amendment is introduced on the suggestion of the draftsman. I think the purpose is to cause the word "relevant" to apply both to "circumstances" and "material considerations."
There might be material circumstances which, in the opinion of some people, might not be strictly relevant. As the sub-section stood originally, it meant that the valuer himself would determine what all the material considerations were and might keep them in mind when fixing the valuation. It will now be a question of interpretation by the court as to whether some material considerations are relevant or not. As the section stood originally, I think the valuer would be the sole judge in the matter. Now some other person will be called upon to determine whether material considerations which he has taken into account in preparing the valuation are relevant.
This is a matter about which I do not feel strongly. The draftsman recommended the change that is proposed.
With regard to clause (c) of this section, do I understand that the apportionment of receipts as between the two parts of the Great Northern Railway line is to be brought out to a fine point, or is it only an approximate apportionment? I think the clause would require the railway company to do more than it could possibly do if the apportionment is to be a scientific one. If it is only to be an approximate apportionment it could be done.
I think the Commissioner would have to exercise some discretion here. The Commissioner will have to make the apportionment himself. He has to decide what proportion of the profits relate to the Saorstát and what proportion of the profits relate to Northern Ireland. In order that he may do so he must ask the railway company to make their own apportionment, which he will test and examine. I take it that we cannot expect the apportionment to an exact fraction of a penny, but that the Commissioner will exercise reasonable discretion, and will only expect the railway company to do what can be done without undue expense. They have to say that so many pounds of their revenue has relation to the Saorstát and so much to Northern Ireland. It is really a case of expecting the Commissioner to be reasonable in his demands on the railway company.
I expect there will be difficulties, and the chief difficulty will arise on such questions as the general manager's salary and directors' fees. So long as the Commissioner cannot compel the railway company to work out a strictly scientific statement I am satisfied.
He can compel them to work out a statement, and he can examine all the figures on which it is based and reject any of it if he chooses.
