I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The object of this Bill is to remedy a defect in the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) (Amendment) Act, 1860, which, although it provided power to appoint a commissioner of valuation, did so in such restricted form that an appointment could be made only on the death, resignation or removal of the existing commissioner of valuation. The present commissioner of valuation having become seriously ill early this year, an immediate difficulty arose as to how the statutory duties imposed on the commissioner were to be fulfilled within the statutory times. Normally, the next senior officer would have taken on the duties of the commissioner, but he would have had no statutory authority for discharging the statutory functions required to be performed by the Commissioner. His actions, therefore, although they might in every other respect fulfil all the requirements, would be technically illegal. The legal advice which I received on the problem was to the effect that any appointment of a substitute would not be in strict accordance with the statutory provision, and it was recommended that legislation should be introduced at the very earliest opportunity to legalise the temporary appointment which, in the absence of the commissioner, it was essential to make. The present Bill gives effect to those recommendations, and also provides against a similar difficulty in future. In conclusion, I am happy to be able to say that the commissioner of valuation has now completely recovered, and is back in his office.
Committee on Finance. - Commissioner of Valuation (Substitute) Bill, 1937—Second Stage.
Then this Bill is purely to provide against a similar contingency arising in future? No difficulty will arise in regard to the security of a civil servant's employment? Could a situation arise in the light of this Bill which would enable some future Minister to say: "The commissioner of valuation is so ill that I propose to appoint a substitute, and get that substitute to discharge the statutory functions of the commissioner of valuation"? The reason I ask the question is that usually when you find that there are statutory restrictions on the appointment of a second commissioner, or on the termination of a judge's tenure, there was probably some good reason for those restrictions when they were first introduced. Very frequently the long practice of the restriction so completely abates the abuse which it was first directed against that we forget what that abuse was, and yet that abuse might manifest itself in ten, 20, or 30 years' time, when a Minister for Finance might avail of this Bill to appoint a substitute commissioner of valuation to make some return that he wanted made and which the existing commissioner had refused to make. I really do not know enough about the functions of a commissioner of valuation to say whether or not such a probability exists, but I should be glad to know if the Minister has considered that aspect of the question, and whether he is satisfied that it is best to have a permanent enactment dealing with a contingency which has arisen, or whether it might not be better to wait until the contingency arose again and have an ad hoc Act of Parliament to deal with the specific case rather than with the problem in general.
I have considered the aspect of the matter which the Deputy has put before me, and I do not think there is any probability that a Minister would abuse the powers which this Act gives him in the manner that the Deputy has suggested, because the commissioner of valuation is a person who is in frequent contact with the public by reason of the statutory duties which he performs. I think if the public felt that, in order to do something in a surreptitious way, the Minister had appointed temporarily another person to discharge the duties of the commissioner of valuation, they would speedily communicate with their representatives here in the House, and I am perfectly certain that the matter would be raised here in the House, when of course the whole question of the circumstances in which this substitute was appointed would naturally have to be discussed. It is clear from the Bill that the Minister has to be satisfied that the commissioner is temporarily unable, owing to physical or mental ill-health, or absence from Saorstát Eireann, or any other cause, to discharge the duties of his office.
Or any other cause?
It is a general omnibus clause, but remember that the emphasis is laid on the words "physical or mental ill-health or absence from Saorstát Eireann." I assume that, even if the general public did not feel aggrieved in this matter, the commissioner himself would feel aggrieved. I take it he would have the right to go to the court, and call on the Minister to show the court what reasons satisfied him that the commissioner was temporarily unable, owing to physical or mental ill-health, to discharge those duties, and I take it the court would be slow to concede that the Minister was, within the terms of this Act, properly satisfied in a case of the sort to which the Deputy referred.
Would the Minister say whether the commissioner of valuation has any pseudo judicial function to discharge?
I should say he has. He definitely is the final authority for fixing valuations. He may be appealed against on questions of law or questions of fact.
I take it that if there is any strong feeling in the House against the Bill the Minister would be prepared to abandon it in favour of ad hoc procedure?
I would certainly be prepared to consider any representations made to me in that regard, but I would ask that they should not be made lightly.
When will the Committee Stage be taken?
The Bill is antedated, so to speak. The last clause brings it into effect as from 15th July, 1937.
If the Minister says this day fortnight, so far as our Party are concerned we are prepared to give all the stages on that day, with the consent of the House.