Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power. I compliment the advisers in the Department on their very extensive and difficult work. Much work has gone into the Bill. It has been very slow coming and Senator Ross and I have been shouting for it for the past five or six years. The Cathaoirleach spoke on this issue on a number of occasions.

It is important to consider the genesis of the Bill. It has been produced at a time in which auctioneers probably have a worse reputation than trade unionists or politicians, which is pretty bad. I grew up in an area in which every family had what it described as its solicitor and undertaker. If a member of the family died, one knew which undertaker would be looking after the burial. Similarly, families had their own auctioneer. Those were the times in which auctioneers were part of and served the community. Unfortunately, these auctioneers were replaced by new business-minded auctioneers who were looking at the bottom line such that when one wanted to sell one's house they suggested a value well above the market value in order to grab the work. Then the issue of gazumping arose, in addition to all the other issues that reduced the tolerance for and trust in auctioneers and estate agents.

I recall one occasion on which I spoke about this in the House. When I finished speaking, two Fianna Fáil Senators on the Government side approached me. There are many auctioneers on that side of the House, as Senator Ross stated. The Senators who approached me shared my views and told me how they themselves had been treated appallingly in that some of the estates of relations had been bought by relatives of auctioneers and appeared to have been sold for less than the market value.

I very much welcome certain provisions in the Bill, some of which are really important. I appeal to the Minister and his advisors to be flexible. There are provisions that need to be tightened up and others that are superb. I have a background in regulation and governance and have been involved with a number of boards in this area. I can see what is very good in the Bill and can also recognise problems that need to be dealt with.

Section 63, on investigations, is the best I have seen. Having considered legislation on the Medical Council, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority and the Teaching Council, I believe this section is comprehensive and clear. The legislation describes information as confidential. Rather than having the section deal with the general issue of confidentiality, it deals with information and refers to confidential information. This causes a considerable problem very often for boards. Many people believe every bit of information they receive is confidential if they receive it from a board. Section 63 focuses on this, which is important.

I have a query on the requirement in Schedule 3 that investigations be held at all times in private, or "otherwise than in public". This should be re-examined. Some discretion should be allowed to the inspector on occasions where the public good would clearly warrant it. Many people are asking what investigations are being conducted into the banks but the fact of the matter is that the groups carrying out investigations dare not say publicly they are doing so because they might be in breach of legislation. In some cases, the public good would be served by at least saying such investigations are taking place. The provisions in the Bill are very solid in this area.

The weakest area of the Bill concerns membership of the authority. I could easily track how the discussion on membership evolved. The first membership requirement is that one have "knowledge or experience". This is a very low bar. If it were "knowledge and experience", it would be better. Reference is made to "matters relevant to the functions of the Authority". These matters should be spelled out. Reference should be made to one's consumer background, education or qualifications and to one's background in governance or ethics. I am not proposing these requirements specifically but arguing we should not give a Minister unfettered discretion to appoint anybody he likes. Appointees should be invited before the appropriate committee of the Houses, but not the Supreme Court as in Washington, to explain why they will do a good job. It would not be a beauty contest or involve marking out of ten but would allow one to determine whether the nominees are okay.

I invite the Minister of State and others to consider the membership of the Teaching Council, the accountancy oversight body, the Medical Council and the various legal boards in this regard. The worst thing one could do with the new body is fill it with auctioneers; it would inspire no trust or confidence. I do not speak for auctioneers because I have been their constant critic but believe the second worst thing one could do is not appoint any auctioneers. The only way one can fulfil both criteria is by requiring that there be a certain percentage of auctioneers that should not exceed a specified level, be it 30%, 40% or 50%. That is crucial. I cannot accept the regulation of any profession if the regulators are not required to include some members of the profession. That can be done.

I accept Senator Regan's point that the work of another body could be done by the one proposed in this Bill to prevent the setting up of another. Regardless of which approach we take, I ask that there be some auctioneers or estate agents on the board. We must trust them in this regard. A board should have members with on-the-ground experience but who are not entitled to overwhelm it. This issue should be considered.

I have a question in which nobody other than me will be the slightest bit interested and to which I want a comprehensive answer. Section 12 states membership is not allowed in respect of Members of the Dáil, Seanad and European Parliament and members of local authorities. This inflames me. At a time when we are trying to defend our public image, I want to know why this is the case. This kind of provision arose at a time when many boards were answerable, in cash terms, to a House of the Oireachtas, for example. One could not be responsible to the House and be a Member thereof at the same time.

The Minister of State will not be allowed to answer my question but if he traces the history of the provision, he will find that nobody in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform asked that it be included. That Department submitted the heads of the Bill and sent them to the draughtsman, after which a draft was returned. It was at this point the provision was included. I know this and could write the script on it. The provision should not be included unless there is an absolutely sound argument to the contrary. The membership provisions are vague and flawed. They may be deliberately vague but that is not acceptable. That day is gone now and I ask the advisers to talk sternly to the Minister about this. People should be there on their merit and know why they are there, just as if they were on the Medical Council, in which case they might be representing consumers, patients, or medical professionals.

Other provisions I strongly welcome are section 18, which refers to a code of practice, and section 10 which refers, among other things, to ethical standards. These are important. It is also important to underline the fact that they are not written into the Bill, which is as it should be. They should not be spelled out in the Bill as they will grow through experience and will be built upon over time by the authority. I am in favour of that.

I am appalled to find that old chestnut, in section 23(2), that the chief executive of the authority shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any Government policy before a committee of the House. The authority is required to appear before a committee of the House, and if I ask the chief executive a question, he or she cannot give a view that includes an opinion or question about Government policy in the area. What kind of accountability is that? We are saying we will not allow TDs, Senators, councillors or MEPs to have anything to do with it, but when the members of the authority appear before us they cannot answer questions in any way that is critical. When did we get so sensitive in ourselves? Do we not take hassle every time we go in front of a camera or behind a microphone? Is it not part of our game plan to cope with such things? It is not good enough.

I am pleased with the section dealing with advised market value, which is important. This value is required under the section to be reasonable. I defended the word "reasonable" yesterday during our discussion of another Bill. I like the word because judges know what it means when they hear the context. With the way things are at the moment it is impossible to value a house. I asked ten or 20 people how this could be done. The business of valuing has changed. In any small town in Ireland, when I was a youngster, it was easy enough to put a value on a house. A bungalow is on a half-acre site, which in this area is worth X. The cost of the materials to build the bungalow is Y, and the cost of profit and wages in building the house is Z. Thus, the value is X plus Y plus Z, or at least that was the broad thrust of it. However, all that has gone out the window. For the last 20 years one's house was valued by the auctioneer's comparison with what the house next door or down the road sold for last year or will sell for next week. This section is important and I welcome it and commend the Department on bringing it in.

I do not know whether anyone has referred thus far to section 58 dealing with financial services. This is an important provision and the one that will hurt auctioneers and estate agents the most. Under this section, an auctioneer or estate agent who is selling me a property is not allowed to provide me with a financial service attaching to it, such as a loan, mortgage or insurance. I used to have a thick file on this whole business. In many cases a house was sold to the underbidder because - I knew this but could not prove it - the underbidder was given a mortgage or similar supports.

This is a good Bill which fills an important gap. It needs to be tightened up and I ask that the Minister be open to this. The Minister of State, Deputy Curran, will admit that when he was taking the Charities Bill 2007 it was strengthened immeasurably during the long debates we had in the House. We can do the same with this Bill. I am not approaching this - nor will anybody else - in a party political way. It is a question of making the legislation work. Senator Feeney, who is sitting opposite, served on a professional board in the past and she may share my view that we need to have some members of the profession on the regulatory body, while ensuring they do not overwhelm it, and that everyone else should be there to perform some function, perhaps because of an ex officio position.

I could go on at some length about the generality of the Bill but we will deal with aspects of it as we go along. I welcome the legislation and will support it in general. However, like Senator Regan, I express the hope that the Minister of State will be open to amendments as we go along.