Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Sweetman has been ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle.
Committee on Finance. - Property Values (Arbitrations and Appeals) Bill, 1960—Committee and Final Stages.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I had a letter from the Ceann Comhairle in that respect and I told him that I was going to make submissions in reference to it. The position can very well be that the arbitrator would be appointed by reference to the number of cases and that he can be paid per case. There is nothing in this amendment to suggest he cannot be paid per case. If that is so and if you have one or 20 arbitrators you would not be paying any more out because there would be only the same number of cases and, if there were one, twenty or even forty arbitrators, the cases would be spread over the lot and the same amount in fees would be paid out to one as to forty. Accordingly, my amendment would not involve any charge. It can make a charge only if after the provisions of the Bill are enacted the Minister tries to pay the single arbitrator a bulk fee. I suggest, with all respect, that my amendment does not necessarily mean there would be a charge on public funds if it were passed.
The Chair has considered the Deputy's amendment. The remuneration payable to a property arbitrator is, in fact, a fixed salary. This would seem to be borne out by a reference in subsection 4 of Section 2 to the annual salary of the present holder of the office of arbitrator and, in those circumstances, the Chair felt it would be a charge on public funds and the amendment was, therefore, ruled out.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".
May I have an assurance from the Minister on this section that if the Land Values Reference Committee consider it desirable to have more than one arbitrator, he will raise no point about the payment of the moneys concerned? I agree that it would be the total emoluments spread over the arbitration that he would have to consider but, as the Minister will not accept my line of argument in relation to the Bill itself, I want to have it clear beyond question that it is the Land Values Reference Committee which will have the right to decide whether the particular permanent arbitrator, if I may so describe him, is or is not suitable in a particular case, plus the right to appoint an ad hoc arbitrator, or a part-time arbitrator for any reason whatever, and that the Minister will smilingly sign the cheque the Committee may require for the particular ad hoc or part-time arbitrator.
I certainly would not object to the appointment of an additional arbitrator should the Committee consider that desirable, either generally or in a particular case, but the Deputy will, perhaps, sympathise with me in that I do not want to be accused afterwards of breaking an undertaking should a dispute arise with the Committee as to what I should pay him. The Minister has that power.
So long as the Minister says he will pay a reasonable fee, I should be quite satisfied with the Minister's interpretation of the word "reasonable."
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.