Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is important to make clear that under the current draft of the Bill, it is already possible for appropriately qualified persons to offer adjudication services even where they are not on a panel of adjudicators set up by the Minister. The purpose of the panel of adjudicators is to offer parties who cannot agree on an adjudicator the possibility of having an adjudicator appointed to resolve the dispute. This is an important provision as it provides a level and open playing field for both parties to a payment dispute and prevents either party from using the selection of an adjudicator as a means of delaying the adjudication process.

The Bill already provides the Minister with power to issue a code of practice on the required experience, role and functions of adjudicators and the adjudication process itself. Section 6(4) on page 9 states that the parties may, within five days, beginning with the day on which notice under section 6(4) is served, agree to the appointment of an adjudicator of their own choice or from the panel appointed. I understand Deputy McDonald’s point that concern exists. I have heard it said by existing panels of adjudicators. They are concerned that they might not be used or be open for use. There is nothing to prevent people agreeing to have their own adjudicator appointed. In the same way, section 6(18), which I highlighted previously, states that the parties to a dispute may at any time agree to revoke the appointment of an adjudicator and the parties shall be jointly liable.

If the parties agree to an adjudicator, they do not need to come near us for panels of adjudicators. We think the legislation is flexible enough to provide for that.

On the argument about a code of conduct, there are already powers for the Minister to do that. The Deputy's thinking is more appropriate to a statutory instrument, where we would set out all of the obligations for the adjudicators and how they are to be selected. The concern has been raised by some professional bodies, which I suspect is the motivation behind the amendment, that in some way they will be shut out of the new process. That is not the case, we need their experience and know how. They know the dispute resolution process and have the experience. In no way will they be shut out of the process.