The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, be taken together.
Auctioneers and House Agents Bill, 1966: Report and Final Stages.
On Committee Stage, Senator McDonald raised a question as to whether the terms of the Bill applied to transactions such as conacre lettings. The question was raised on what is now subsection (10) of section 5 but it arises also in a few other provisions in the Bill as a consequence.
I am advised that the Bill as it stands does in fact cover such transactions. However, this is because the word "property" in the legal sense is wider than the word as used in its conventional sense and I agree with what Senator McDonald suggested; that the matter should be made more precise. It would make for a more ready understanding of the Bill if it included explicit references to renting and letting.
This is the object of amendment 1, and amendments 3 and 4 are to the same effect. Amendments 2, 5 and 6 are associated drafting amendments.
I agree with the amendment and I thank the Minister for meeting us on these points. It will make it easier for all concerned and it removes any margin of doubt.
The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, be taken together.
On Committee Stage, I undertook to look again at the definition of "accountant".
I should like to say, for the record, that the existing provision did not envisage my certifying, or refusing to certify, any individual accountant for the purposes of this Bill. What was involved was a question of specifying the professional organisations to be recognised for this purpose—just as is done, for instance, in the Solicitors Regulations.
Since that is so, however, I see no objection to, and indeed I accept that there are advantages in, the proposal by Senators McDonald and Garret FitzGerald, and incorporated in amendment No. 8, that we should omit this procedure and simply accept the qualifications that are laid down under the Companies Act for auditors of companies.
The reason I arranged for the drafting of the two Government amendments, rather than accept the amendment put down by the two Senators was that there is a minor omission in their amendment in that it does not cover the question of disqualifications. I think my amendments Nos. 7 and 9 may satisfy amendment No. 8 put down by Senator McDonald and Senator FitzGerald.
I accept the Minister's amendment. While, perhaps, some may feel this amendment was not altogether necessary, at the same time I feel, where statute imposes an obligation on individuals to furnish auditors' certificates, it is obviously desirable to ensure the auditors involved are qualified persons. This brings us to the Companies Act of 1963 which, for the first time, imposed the obligation on limited companies to employ qualified auditors. Under section 162 of the 1963 Act the Minister for Industry and Commerce recognises certain persons as qualified auditors. It seems quite anomalous that another Minister, acting in a similar capacity to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, should keep a separate register. For this reason I was anxious, if at all possible, we should get over this difficulty. It was for that reason also I put down this amendment, even though the Minister did say that would not happen. Under the section, as proposed to be amended, it would make the position even clearer. If all other Government Departments who wish to bring in similar legislation—if they were all to specify auditors—it would make the procedure rather cumbersome. I think this streamlining of the section will, in the long run, standardise the procedure under the Companies Act.