Amendments Nos. 71, 78 and 79 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
SECTION 61.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 60, subsection (1), line 40, after "Act" to insert "or by the Bank under section 64 of this Act".
Section 61 allows the High Court to direct that the expenses of an inspector appointed by the court be paid by any person dealt with in the inspector's report. Section 64, which provides for the appointment of inspectors by the Central Bank does not provide that the expenses of an inspector appointed by the bank can be paid by any person dealt with in the inspector's report. This would mean, therefore, that the cost of a bank appointed inspector would fall on the bank and so, indirectly, on the taxpayer. The amendments I propose here will allow the bank to apply to the High Court for an order that a person dealt with in the report of a bank appointed inspector must pay the inspector's costs. This involves three amendments, amendment No. 71 which amends section 61 to allow a High Court to order that the expenses of an inspector appointed by the Central Bank be defrayed by any person dealt with in the report. Amendment No. 78 amends sections 64 (5) to ensure that section 61 (1) and 61 (2) will apply to the investigation by an inspector appointed by the Central Bank. Amendment No. 79 amends section 64 (5) (b) to ensure that a decision on whether the costs in respect of an inspector appointed by the Central Bank are to be defrayed by a person dealt with in the inspector's report will be made by the High Court.
It is certainly important, given recent experiences, that the taxpayer does not become liable for what can be very costly and lengthy proceedings. I commend the Minister in this regard. Where at all possible in any form of legislation where there are financial implications, the taxpayer should be the last person that the burden should lie upon. Those who are directly involved should fund and pay for the costs involved. In this section it is clear that the recourse is there and available for the bank to pursue those who should rightly be found liable for the costs involved.
What does it mean where it says that the court may not order the payment of more than 10 per cent of the damages awarded?
That is in the event of an investigation and the finding determined in favour of the plaintiff. In that situation it is pitched at 10 per cent which is regarded as a reasonable take from the reward.
That is 10 per cent of the damages?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.