I am in a slight difficulty. The Minister has argued against my amendment but unless I press an amendment, I cannot argue back. I should like to argue the proposed amendment.
Private Business. - Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1965: Committee and Final Stages.
Will the Chair agree to accept an amendment from Senator Sheldon and the House can then consider it?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SCHEDULE
I move my amendment:
In article 6 (5) after line 63 to add at the end the words "the matter then shall be made the subject of arbitration provided that if either party shall object to this procedure."
As I said on Second Reading, the change over is a bit sudden — we suddenly go from this agreement to the Minister's intervention. The Minister said very fairly that in more material matters he has arbitrated. I can visualise a case in which one party was anxious to go to the Minister but the other was not. The second one would, so to speak, be led screaming into this compulsory adjustment. It would seem fair and equitable that an ordinary arbitrator should come in at that point, with the proviso that the Minister can come in. For the Minister to say there are precedents leading in the other way is superfluous: every time we pass legislation, we open up new precedents. If one allowed oneself to be influenced by precedents, no legislation would be needed at all. I am not unduly worried by that. I cannot see the point that an ordinary arbitrator would be in a worse position than the Minister because the Minister was more amenable to public opinion. I would think that all the more reason why a public arbitrator should come in is because he could not care less about public opinion.
It has been difficult to draft an amendment on this matter. It appears to me that it would put the party who wanted to go directly to the Minister in a more awkward position in any bargaining with the other party. It seems to be a bit sudden to have to go straight from a disagreement to a compulsory adjustment by the Minister and I should have thought the Minister would welcome some cushioning in between. He is not famous for being humorous in face of every situation that crops up. I can visualise a disagreement and the Minister being forced to make an adjustment that would be very annoying to one of the parties.
What kind of arbitrator has the Senator in mind?
Another Corkman.
I should have added one thing. It would probably have given Senator Sheldon an answer to his amendment. As it stands, there could be arbitration by agreement. If it is not agreed, there would be arbitration anyway. Entered as mutual agreement, arbitration could in fact form part of that mutual agreement. Neither the Minister nor anybody else really has to come into it which is the ideal thing. In fact, this can be done if you have agreement. Where they might wish to have an arbitrator, they can do so by mutual agreement. I think that probably is the ideal way out of this, if they have a mind to approach it in that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.