This Bill arises, I think the Minister will agree, following consideration by the Attorney-General of a question I raised in this House some couple of years ago. The question I raised then was that the appointment of one person to be an official arbitrator, or referee as he was then called, was not complying with the law, which said there should be a panel. The Minister has accepted that the point I raised at that time was correct, and it is for that reason that the Bill is being introduced. However, I regret very much that the Minister, in introducing the Bill, has completely departed from the panel system.
I have tried to trace the exact method by which the person was selected from the panel of referees but unfortunately it appears to have been done by means of rules made under Section 33 subsection (2) of the Finance Act, 1910 and under a similar type of section in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. Those rules, unfortunately, are not available in the Library. Therefore, apart from certain knowledge that I may have in certain other places, I am not quite clear as to the manner in which the selection was supposed to be made under those Acts.
Let me say at once that I agree with the Minister that it is highly desirable that we would have a similar method of administration for appeals under the 1910 Act, under the 1919 Act and under the 1945 Drainage Act. The basis and method by which appeals are taken on either of these procedures should be the same. That does not mean at all to say that the arbitrator should be the same person. In fact, it would be quite nonsensical to suggest that the arbitrator who would adjudicate on the value of profit rents arising in an estate duty case would necessarily be the best person to adjudicate on the improvement to the value of land arising under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The two types of skill required are quite different and, to a greater degree, the two types of experience required are different.
I want to make it perfectly clear that in anything I may say in this respect there is no reflection whatever on the person who is covered in subsection (4) of Section 2 but it is quite impossible for any one man to be adequately skilled in every aspect. Apart from that, no one can get along in this world without occasionally crossing swords with another. I am trying to discuss this without reference to the man to whom I have referred and who has been carrying on satisfactorily over the years. One may cross swords with a person and on that account may feel one will not get a reasonable deal from him. The person selected as arbitrator might perhaps have some interest in the property over which he is asked to arbitrate. There are so many facets and aspects of particular interest that it is highly desirable not to restrict this to one person but to go back to the old panel system and to operate the panel system properly.
I can see that it was highly desirable to have a different arbitrator for drainage. I am not quite clear whether it was necessary to have three drainage arbitrators. If it was, that can be cut down to one. I do not at all see that it helps anyone to believe that he is getting a fair deal by having only one person appointed to deal with all the various matters and the Minister should agree on Committee Stage to change Section 2 and to ensure that at least the very minimum of choice remains by having at least two arbitrators.
As the Minister has said, there have been very few estate duty appeals in recent years. One of the reasons for that is that the Estate Duty Office of the Revenue Commissioners knew what they were in for under Section 6 and they made it their business to settle cases if they got half a chance. On that account many cases were settled over recent years that otherwise perhaps might have gone to a more full hearing. That is all to the good for the individuals concerned. Perhaps the people who were affected, who were going to have to pay, did not realise why their solicitors had been able to effect a settlement so simply. I hope the Minister will not now see a reversal of the procedure that has operated in the Estate Duty Office, after reference to the Valuation Office, over several years, to settle cases rather than have them thrown at an early stage to the referee, or arbitrator as he will now be called.
Up to this, the position has been that every reasonable effort has been made by the Valuation Office to agree to estate duty valuations. I hope that will continue. I thought I detected in the last three or four months a slight change in the practice there. I hope it was just that I happened to run across a series of cases which were out of the ordinary run and that the practice that there was there for years will not be departed from.
I want, therefore, to urge the Minister very strongly indeed to retain the panel system, to retain it, if he likes, by having two arbitrators only, not any more, so that there can be a selection, so that a person, if he has had some difference of opinion—as we all have differences of opinion from time to time—with one arbitrator can select the other to hear his case. I do not want to be trite in relation to these land acquisition cases but the Minister will agree with me that it is not a question of justice being done; it is a question or justice seeming also to be done. If a person has had some difference of opinion with a man and knows that his claim must go before that man, that there is no possible choice and no chance of having anybody else to determine the compensation he will get, he will not feel that he has had a fair run for his money. He will feel that there has been an element of confiscation in relation to his property, an element which perhaps has not been there at all.
We want to ensure as far as possible, while making absolutely certain that there is complete fairness as between the Revenue, on one hand, and the individual on the other in estate duty matters, as between the local authority on the one hand in 1919 cases and the individual on the other and as between the Commissioners of Public Works on the one hand and the individual on the other in 1945 Act cases, that people really believe that they have got a fair crack of the whip. If there is only one single arbitrator they will not so believe.
Apart from that, the Bill deals with what I would call the rationalisation of proceedings under the three previous Acts and a provision that is in Section 6. I want the Minister categorically to assure the House that he has no knowledge of any case which has already commenced, or the commencement of which has been threatened, against the appropriate authority by reason of the fact that there was not a panel in existence in earlier years.
I have no objection to a retrospective clause in this but that is only provided we know that we are not depriving somebody of a right of action which he has already commenced or has given notice that he intends commencing. The Minister is the only person in a position categorically to assure the House on the matter and I think it is very important it should go on the records of the House. If that assurance were not forthcoming I would have very different views on this Section.