Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 5

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - STREET TRADING BILL, 1925—FOURTH STAGE.

Major COOPER

I move:—

In page 3, Section 2 (4), line 10, after the words "five pounds" to insert the words "or to imprisonment for not more than seven days."

In the Bill it is laid down that the penalty in the case of a first offence shall be a fine not exceeding five pounds, and there is no alternative. I suggest that there should be an alternative because the street trader, particularly a street trader on a small scale, is not a very easy person to levy a fine from. He, or she, is evasive. The street trader who is breaking the law of street trading is difficult to catch; in some respects they resemble fleas; they hop about from one street to another, and when you do catch them, it is difficult to get them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. So that I think the Bill would be strengthened very much if it were possible to add a penalty of imprisonment to the penalty of a fine. You are not dealing with a person in an established business; you are not dealing with a person who pays rent and rates, and whose goods might be distrained. The street trader may live in a tenement, may be a lodger, may have no real legal existence. Although I do not say that a fine should be levied in every case, or that a fine should be levied in any case, except where there is obvious defiance of the law, I do think in a case where it is obvious that the offender has no goods to pay a fine, that there should be some penalty besides the fine. Seven days' imprisonment is not a very serious penalty, comparatively. It is, on the whole, below the five pounds scale. I do not know what the code is now, but some years ago if you levied a fine of five pounds you would probably have a month's imprisonment as an alternative. But still street trading against the law, though a crime, is not a serioús crime, and I am suggesting a moderate penalty. It is optional; it can only be inflicted at the discretion of the Justice, if he is satisfied that a fine would not be a suitable penalty. Therefore I suggest that the Minister might take this amendment.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

I propose to ask the Dáil not to accept this amendment. Deputy Cooper's rôle frequently is that of moderator of my undue rigidity. In this case he is pressing for a penalty which, to my mind, is unnecessarily severe. I am satisfied to leave it to the discretion of the District Justice to impose a fine within the range of the five pounds' limit. There is a scale of imprisonment in the event of the non-payment of a fine. If a fine of £2, for instance, is imposed, the person convicted would, under the existing law, render himself liable to a month's imprisonment in default of payment. If the fine were fixed at a sum anywhere between £2 and £5, there could be two months' imprisonment. I think that that provision is ample. I think that the resources of civilisation and the resources of the police will prove adequate to meet the illusiveness which Deputy Cooper ascribes to street traders as a class. I think that in fact the administration of the Bill when it becomes law will be a simple matter for the police, and I am not attracted by the proposal to prescribe for what is, after all, not a very grave offence, imprisonment without the option of a fine. I am therefore not accepting the amendment.

Major COOPER

I am glad that I put down this amendment for the light that it has given us on the Minister's mind. The resources of civilisation or the resources of the police—I always suspected that the Minister regarded the police and civilisation as synonymous. and now I know——

Mr. O'HIGGINS

They are inseparable.

Major COOPER

They are inseparable, I agree, but I think the Minister considers them more than that, that they are not only inseparable but that they are one and the same thing. However, this amendment deals with the first offence. I appreciate the Minister's point that in the case of a first offence the Court should not be given the power to inflict imprisonment unless the fine is not paid, and therefore I will ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw the amendment without prejudice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major COOPER

I move:

In page 3, Section 2 (4), line 11, after the words "ten pounds" to add the words "or to imprisonment for not more than fourteen days."

Here I think I am on stronger ground. I agree that in the case of a first offence leniency is necessary and a fine desirable. But here I think there should be the power to reinforce the law in the case of frequently repeated offences, in the case where a man or a woman deliberately defies the police, deliberately defies the orders that will be issued under this Bill and insists on going on trading in the street where it is not allowed. In some cases street traders make big profits. Those big profits come in practically wholesale to their own pockets. I do not think street traders make income tax returns. I am quite sure that they do not pay rent and that they do not pay rates, and therefore it is desirable to have a stronger penalty, not merely a deterrent fine of ten pounds, when their weekly profits may exceed ten pounds, but that it is necessary in the case of very frequently repeated offences that there should be a term of imprisonment. I appreciate and accept the Minister's argument that imprisonment is not necessary for a first offence. But I do urge him now to consider whether the law might not be better enforced by adding imprisonment as a possible penalty for frequently repeated offences of this kind. It will be entirely at the discretion of the Justices, and I think nobody will say that the District Justices are extraordinarily severe in their punishments. Any complaint I have heard is the other way, that they are somewhat inclined to let their natural leniency carry them too far. I do not think the District Justices would use this penalty in anything but the most extreme circumstances, where the law has been broken again and again. But where it is repeatedly broken I do suggest to the Minister that it is desirable to have this power in reserve. Therefore, I hope that while he objected to the last amendment he will accept this.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

My attitude to this amendment is the same as to the previous one. I do not think that it is necessary and I do not think that it would be wise to provide for an offence of this kind a penalty of imprisonment without the option of a fine. I think that the ten pounds' fine which is the limit of the District Justices' discretion, will, in fact, prove adequate. A street trader, after all, cannot carry on his business furtively. He cannot, for any lengthy period or with any degree of success, carry it on without the knowledge and notice of the police. I think that when a man has been fined once and recognises that if caught again he will be liable to a ten pounds' penalty, it will prove a deterrent, and I would prefer to wait and see whether I am right or whether the Deputy is right before deciding to fix a penalty of imprisonment without the option of a fine for this class of offence. The alternative to the payment of a fine ranging between five and ten pounds is three months' imprisonment, and I think that the discretion to fine up to ten pounds, which lies with the justice, and in addition a period of imprisonment of three months in default of payment, will be adequate to meet the situation. I cannot see a street trader doing such a flourishing trade as would enable him to pay a periodical fine of ten pounds and still carry on a lucrative business. I would prefer even to have to bring in an amending Bill if the Deputy were to prove right than in the first Bill to take the view that it was necessary to impose a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine for this kind of offence.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 3, Section 2 (5), line 22, to add a new paragraph as follows:—

"(c) a person who sells goods or offers, exposes, or carries goods for sale in any lawful public market or fair."

The effect of the amendment is to exempt from the provisions of the Act persons who go into a lawful public market or fair to sell their goods.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 3, Section 3 (2), line 38, after the word "size" to add the words "but subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations made thereunder."

The necessity for this amendment arises because of an amendment proposed by Deputy Cooper on the Committee Stage, which gives power to the Minister for Justice to make regulations prohibiting any particular class of street-trading in any specified street in the City of Dublin.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 3, Section 3 (4), lines 47 and 48, to delete all from the word "bye-laws" to the figures "1903" inclusive and to substitute the words "Employment of Children Act, 1903, and the bye-laws made by the Corporation thereunder."

This is really a drafting amendment for the purpose of rendering compliance with the statutory provisions of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 3, Section 3 (5), line 54, to delete the words "Section 2 of."

It is necessary to delete these words because of the fact that the Corporation have power to make bye-laws under other sections of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, as well as Section 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 4, Section 4 (2), in line 10, after the word "bye-laws" to insert the words "and regulations," and in line 11 after the word "bye-law" to insert the words "or regulation," and in line 21 after the word "bye-laws" to insert the words "and regulations."

This is also a drafting amendment for the purpose of making street traders' stall licences conform with regulations made by the Minister for Justice under the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 5 to delete Section 6 (2), and substitute two new sub-sections as follows:—

"(2) Sections 219 to 223 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall apply to all bye-laws made by the Corporation under this section.

"(3) The Minister for Local Government and Public Health may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purposes of this section, and Sections 209, 210, 212, and 213 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall apply accordingly."

I think the amendment speaks for itself.

Amendment agreed to.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am not clear that amendment 9 (Deputy D'Alton) applies to this Bill. Perhaps the Deputy will explain the amendment?

Mr. D'ALTON

The amendment is as follows:—

In page 4, Section 6, to insert before paragraph (f) a new paragraph as follows:—

"ensuring the cleanliness of and the freedom from contagious disease of second-hand clothing and harness."

The main purpose of the amendment is to ensure the cleanliness and freedom from contagious disease of second-hand clothing and harness. The spread of contagious disease through the medium of second-hand clothing or harness should be guarded against in every possible way. That might mean the necessity for having second-hand clothing disinfected before it is put up for sale. The spread of disease through the medium of second-hand clothing to children or adults is particularly undesirable. It is quite possible that contagious diseases, such as diphtheria, scarlatina, typhus, etc., could be spread through the medium of second-hand clothing, and I think it is necessary that second-hand clothing should be disinfected before being put up for sale.

The same thing applies in the case of harness. Harness that is affected with disease is largely responsible for cases of parasitic mange, glanders, and strangles. A veterinary surgeon informed me a few years ago of the spread of parasitic mange in his district. The parasitic mange existed over a large area, and the veterinary surgeon had inspected many horses, jennets, and mules suffering from it. He stated that he knew second-hand harness had been disposed of, and he believed that the origin of the disease could be traced to the second-hand harness. The disease affected many fine animals in the district. In the interests of the people and of animals, some steps should be taken to have second-hand clothing and harness disinfected before people are allowed to sell them in the public market. I desire to bring the amendment to the notice of the Minister in the hope that he will favourably consider it.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I am rather perturbed with regard to this proposal of Deputy D'Alton; I am perturbed as to the possibility of anything effective being done with regard to it. There is no doubt that it is quite possible, if clothing that has been in contact with infectious disease is carried and sold to other people, that those people may contract the disease. When we come to actual facts, I find that as far as smallpox is concerned, it certainly is contracted through the distribution of rags. That matter, however, is provided for by an Act passed in 1911, known as the Rag and Flock Act, by which it is impossible at present to have dirty rags distributed. On the other hand, I am rather distressed as to what might happen when this Act is extended to the smaller towns throughout the country.

Up to 1925 the Notification of Infectious Diseases Act had not been adopted to any extent in this country, with the result that there was no knowledge of where infectious diseases occurred. When there was no notification of infectious diseases, it was not at all likely that precautions would be taken with regard to the necessary destruction of clothing and other things. Under the Local Government and Public Health Act, 1925, notification of infectious diseases was made mandatory. Although up to the present it has not become very effective, it certainly will become completely effective when the new County Officers of Health will be appointed. When it is effective, it will be possible to ascertain where infectious diseases are and provision can then be made for disinfecting all clothing.

It does not seem to me that there is any great reason for bringing in this amendment in the circumstances. It might be possible to bring in a by-law and, under that by-law, order the disinfection of all second-hand clothing. Then, the man or woman offering second-hand clothing for sale, would produce a certificate indicating that the clothing had been disinfected. That would not necessarily meet the case, because it would be quite possible, under this certificate, to include a great deal of clothing that would never go into the disinfecting chamber. I know, and perhaps many others are aware of it too, that two large bales come into the North of Ireland twice a week containing a huge amount of mixed second-hand clothing. This clothing comes from Scotland and it is distributed very largely through Tirconaill. Almost 70 per cent. of the poorer people in Tirconaill are using this clothing that comes from Scotland. The clothing passes down even to Monaghan. The way in which this clothing is gathered is through pedlars coming to Glasgow from all parts of the country, and on the part of the public health authorities in Scotland there is no knowledge that the clothing is disinfected and there is no knowledge whether any precautions have been taken in regard to it. It is quite possible that a great deal of infected clothing would be scattered in that way through various parts of this country.

If Derry port were under the control of the Free State Government, it is quite possible that an order might be made to prevent the import of any of this second-hand class of goods. The case has another aspect which I am not going to dilate upon; that is, whether it is a wise thing to allow this second-hand clothing to be sold in towns where people are paying rates and rent and making a living. That is one aspect of the case.

Another aspect is whether it would be right for us to prevent poor people getting the clothing at a cheap rate. I am not going into that. I am now going into the public health aspect of it. I say again that very little evidence has been afforded here of the spread of disease through this second-hand clothing. Every time there is an outbreak of this class of disease the Central Public Health Authorities issue a circular, and one question in that circular is "Can this case be traced to second-hand clothing brought into the district?" I am, therefore, in the position that I would like to ensure that the clothing was clean, because there are other dangers in addition to what Deputy D'Alton mentioned. There are itch an scabies, to say nothing of vermin, which are very often carried in this clothing. Deputy Cooper knows a great deal about fleas. He did not say anything about other vermin that are more obnoxious than the class of parasite he is more familiar with.

However, I would be very glad if any measures could be taken to ensure that the poor would not have sold to them clothing that would carry infectious disease. I would very gladly support anything in that direction. On the other hand, on thinking over this subject very carefully, I am not quite sure that we can see any effective or efficient means of having this done.

Mr. WOLFE

There is a great deal to be said in favour of Deputy D'Alton's amendment, and I think it is worth the Minister's kind consideration. If he would attend any of the fairs throughout the country where so-called second-hand clothing is exhibited, he would see the necessity for this amendment. I say "so-called second-hand clothing" because I think it is glorifying it to call it "second-hand." I think a great deal of it has passed through many more hands than two. I have often wondered that something was not done to regulate this traffic. One sees sometimes a really repulsive garment held out to the admiration of possible purchasers. The same thing applies to harness. One sees filthy harness of all descriptions put up for sale. There is no doubt of the possibility of infection through this harness. For that reason, I think it is well worth the Minister's while to consider this matter. He will have more information than we have, and I certainly urge it as well worthy of careful consideration.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I was not sure that this amendment would be regarded as coming within the scope of the Bill. Its primary object is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases amongst human beings and amongst animals. My view is that no useful object would, in fact, be served by the acceptance of the amendment, even if we agree to waive the question of whether or not it is strictly relevant to the Bill which we are considering. The Public Health Acts, ranging from 1878 to 1919; the Infectious Diseases of Animals Act, 1889, and the Infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890, contain between them very full powers for the prevention and spread of infectious diseases amongst human beings, and deal, in fact, more effectively with that matter than any bye-laws which would be made by the Corporations under the proposed amendment. Under their provisions, the sanitary authority has power to prevent the spread of infectious disease by attacking it at its sourcs, and is authorised to cause articles of bedding, clothing, etc., to be destroyed or disinfected. If the Deputy wishes to take a note of the relevant sections, he will find that Sections 137 to 154 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, has a bearing on the matter and that Section 66 of the Public Health Act, 1907, and other provisions contained in Part 4 of that Act deal with the matter. Then, with regard to the Diseases of Animals Act, the Department of Agriculture has power under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and the enactments amending that Act to make provision, by regulation, for the prevention of the spread of the diseases amongst animals and for the disinfection of infected articles, such as harness. These powers have been exercised as regards horses, mules and asses in the case of parasitic mange and in the case of glanders. Generally, I put it to Deputy D'Alton and the other Deputies whether a provision of this nature would not be more properly included in a general Bill than in a Bill the operation of which is confined to districts which choose to adopt it and to make bye-laws under it. There are administrative difficulties in the way of giving effect to any such provision as this—for instance, the determination of the precise standard of cleanliness and freedom of the clothing from infectious disease and the identification of disinfected clothing. To be effective, power would also require to be given for the seizure and destruction of articles presumed to be infectious or to be in a state dangerous to health. Generally, I regard the amendment as going considerably beyond the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is introduced simply with an eye to keeping traffic clear in the thoroughfares of the larger towns and to prevent abuse going on by the over-crowding of the streets and footways by those casual vendors of articles of various kinds. On the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage it was clear that there was a desire to give something of a swing to the Bill, and to divert it from what was the original departmental purpose.

People became interested in it and thought the Bill was one intended for the elimination of competition. I had to make it clear that it is not introduced to that end and in the case of this particular amendment it is necessary to point out that the Bill does not purport to be in any sense a public Health Bill or to have any particular bearing on public health at all. If further measures are necessary for public health no doubt the Minister for Local Government will take notice of that. If further measures are necessary for the prevention of the spreading of diseases among animals, no doubt the Minister for Agriculture will take notice of that. This is to keep the streets and pathways of the larger towns free from obstruction by street traders, and there is even this limit which comes into it on an amendment which Deputy Duggan moves, that it is not to apply to the public fair or market. The person who comes in with pig troughs or one thing or another into the fairs or public markets to sell them is entitled to sell them in competition with any shopkeeper in the town who happens to stock that particular class of goods. That is moving away from Deputy D'Alton's amendment which, I think, itself moves away from the Bill.

Mr. D'ALTON

The statement made by the Minister makes it clear that this particular section which I want introduced into the Bill can be dealt with effectively by the Board of Health and the Minister for Agriculture. The importance of it is very great, but I think, having brought it before the attention of the Minister, it is sufficient. I am aware of the harm that has been done, especially in the case of second-hand harness, and I thought it would be possible for the Minister to say that second-hand harness sellers would be under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Agriculture. Now he has made it clear that they are, and that this Bill deals with street trading alone, and, as far as necessary, disinfection, cleanliness and freedom from disease are concerned, they are in the hands of the other two Ministers. For that reason I am ready to withdraw my amendment.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The fact that the amendment was outside the scope of the Bill and was perhaps already provided for was indicated to Deputy D'Alton before he moved it but I yielded to his desire to have it explained. The amendment is outside the scope of the Bill,. of course.

Amendment withdrawn.

SECTION 7.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:

In page 5, Section 7 (3), line 22, to delete the words "Section 2 of." This is simply a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:

In page 6, Section 10 (2), line 30, after the word "bye-laws" to insert the words "or regulations."

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:

SECTION 13.

In page 7, Section 13 (e), line 38, after the word "prohibiting" to insert the words "street-trading or any particular class of street-trading or."

This amendment was proposed by Deputy Cooper, and the effect is to enable the Minister by regulation to prevent street-trading or any particular class of street-trading.

Amendment put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:

In page 7, Section 14 (1), lines 44 and 45, to delete the words "Having a population according to the last census exceeding five thousand."

The effect of it is to leave it open to the council of any county borough or of any urban county district to adopt or not the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. BRODERICK

Is it the Minister's intention to have this section of the Bill applied to Town Commissioners? Representations have been made from towns in my constituency complaining of the great obstruction of traffic by lorries used by people who do not pay the rates in these towns.

PADRAIC O MAILLE

Before the Minister replies, I should also like to know if this Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to the towns of Tuam and Loughrea where there are Town Commissioners. It does not appear from the Bill that Town Commissioners were included, but perhaps the Minister may see his way to have such towns included, because, as Deputy Broderick stated, there is a strong desire to have this Bill, when it becomes an Act, extended to other areas. Perhaps if, in line 43, after the word "commissioners" he inserted the words "or Commissioners of any town," it would cover the position. In the Local Government Act of 1925, in the Definition Clause, "local authority" is explained as "a county council, county or borough council, urban district council, rural district council, board of guardians, or the commissioners of any town."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I took notice of the desire that was shown on Second Reading to have the provisions of this Bill extended rather more generally than was originally contemplated. In the Bill as introduced in the Dáil, there was a population limit. It has been since removed, and the Bill as it now stands applies to the Dublin area and can be adopted by any corporation or urban council in the Saorstát. We are now urged to allow the Bill to be extended to include towns in which there are Town Commissioners. There are considerable difficulties in adopting and giving effect to that suggestion. In the first place, the Money Resolution proposed and passed on the Committee Stage of the Bill did not make provision for the application of the Bill to towns having Town Commissioners. Town Commissioners appear to be outside the scope of the Bill, inasmuch as the long title confines it to county boroughs and urban county districts. I have some doubts whether any amendment including Town Commissioners would be in order at this stage.

Apart from these technical difficulties. I am not convinced that any particularly strong case can be made for the inclusion of towns controlled by Town Commissioners. Most of the towns so controlled are small towns. Exceptions can be quoted. There is the notable exception of Mullingar, with its population of upwards of five thousand, and Tuam is a fairly large town to be controlled by Town Commissioners rather than by an urban council. The adoption by a town of a system controlled by Town Commissioners is largely actuated by the desire for a small rate. Town Commissioners cannot strike a rate exceeding 2/-, and I should think that if a real case exists for the adoption of the Bill by a town controlled by Town Commissioners, it would not seem an undue hardship that such towns should apply for and obtain from the Minister for Local Government power to establish an urban county district. In towns controlled by Town Commissioners the only adjustment of traffic which could arise would be on market or fair days. As I indicated just now, and as Deputy Davin explained when proposing an amendment, this Bill will not affect people trading in markets or fairs, so that its adoption would not be for the purpose of dealing with traffic problems on market or fair days.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The Minister has stated that the Bill will not interfere with street traders on market or fair days. If that Bill is adopted by an urban district council, will that council not have power to specify in which streets in that town those people may trade, even on market or fair days?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

They will have the power to sell their wares in any place where a market or fair is held, and they cannot be restricted in the exercise of that. They can, of course, be restricted by statute, but it is not proposed to restrict them in the exercise of their right.

Mr. JOHNSON

Could the Minister say how that is secured by the Bill?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Deputy Duggan moved an amendment, No. 3, and the effect of it is to exempt from the provisions of the Act persons who go into a lawful public market or fair to sell their goods. As this seems to have taken the Deputies by surprise, I had, perhaps, better elaborate the amendment a little. When the question of extending the Bill to towns generally throughout the Saorstát came to be considered it was realised that such an exemption was necessary. The objects of the Bill are, as I have said, to ward as far as possible against interference by street traders with traffic and to secure cleanliness of articles of food sold by the street traders. The object of the Bill is not to define what is, or what is not, legitimate competition among traders, whether they are traders in houses or on streets. It was, therefore, felt that it was entirely outside the scope of the Bill to interfere with the existing rights of sellers and buyers to gather in market or fair.

As is known, a market or fair is a concourse of buyers and sellers, and every person is entitled to go into a market and expose his goods for sale, subject to the payment of certain tolls or stallage fees to the owner of the market rights. To impose an obligation on persons who come into a market to sell by retail to obtain first a certificate as a street trader would be an undue interference with the existing law as to markets and fairs. Selling by retail may be defined, roughly, as a sale to the consumer or user rather than a sale to a person for the purpose of re-sale. If, therefore, the Act were to apply generally to persons selling by retail in markets and fairs, it will be seen that, say, the person who grew vegetables and sold them on the street could not carry on his business without obtaining a street trader's certificate. Similarly, a carpenter who made gates, feeding-troughs, etc., for sale in market, would be in a similar position and, in fact, the producers of most agricultural produce such as hay, turnips, etc., who sold to a person for use for consumption by such a person would have to obtain a street trader's or stall trader's certificate. It is realised that a certain amount of congestion of traffic exists in towns throughout the country on market and fair days, but power is given by the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, to make regulations for the purpose of freeing from obstruction all passages and thoroughfares in and through a market. If these powers were properly exercised by local authorities, the traffic problem could be dealt with adequately without interference with existing market and fair rights, and could be dealt with without any further provisions under this Bill.

The Town Commissioners who are clamouring for the extension of this Bill to their towns ought look up their existing powers under the Act of 1854 to make traffic regulations for market or fair days, and if these powers are exercised there appears to be no necessity for such towns to adopt this Act save that they may fear undue competition by street traders, and this is not a subject with which the Bill proposes to deal. We did not set out to deal with the matter of competition, the matter of the moving shop versus the stationary shop. It was not from that angle that we approached the Bill, but from the angle of keeping the streets and footways reasonably clear, and I think the Bill does that, and does it as fully as is necessary. I do not consider that its provisions are seriously needed in towns controlled otherwise than by Corporations or urban councils. With regard to remaining towns, I think they will find that their problems will disappear by a judicious exercise of their powers under the Act of 1854.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Amendment No. 13 proposes to delete the population bar in Section 14, so that the Section would then read: "The Council of any county borough (other than the county borough of Dublin) or of any urban county district may, by resolution, adopt this Act, etc." If that does not enable Town Commissioners to adopt the Act then the money resolution does not enable them, and, if the money resolution does not enable them to adopt it, the whole discussion as to Town Commissioners is too late and cannot be raised. It should have been raised on the money resolution, that is assuming that expense would be incurred by the Minister for Justice in carrying the Act into execution, if adopted by Town Commissioners.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am a little doubtful as to the effect of this amendment. I think it will mean that many urban districts smaller than those originally contemplated will be free to adopt the Act. The Minister's explanation rather suggests that the market or fair referred to in the amendment which has been passed, and I think referred to indirectly in the reference to the Towns Improvement Act, rather suggests a fixed market in a market place or a well-established market. I do not think it can be said to apply to the people who set up stalls in a town on a market day on one day in a month or perhaps one day in a quarter, where they do not pay any toll. I do not think that would be construed as being a lawful public market unless it were held in a market place.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

In a market place.

Mr. JOHNSON

On that assumption the effect of the amendment would be to allow the local authority in any small town to prohibit the selling of goods on the street on a market day. It may be desirable to do that, but I am very doubtful whether it is desirable, because it is going to have the effect of enacting what the Minister says was not contemplated, particularly in this Bill—namely, to enable the local authority, which may be a body of shopkeepers, to say that on a particular day in the month or any day in the month because only one day affects these market traders—that this particular class of goods or that or the other shall not be allowed to be sold in such-and-such a street. If we are going to enact in that manner, then we should do it quite deliberately and purposefully, but, as the Minister said, it is not intended by the Bill that that should be the effect, which is rather to regulate ordinary street trading.

I think that the effect of this amendment would be to increase the number of towns which would be allowed to make specific regulations against the marketing on fair days of all kinds of commodities. I do not know whether I am right in that belief, but I think that is going to be the effect of this in regard to small towns, and I am not at all convinced that it is a proved necessity, except in the interest of a few traders in those particular towns.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I should like to ask the Minister whether an urban council, if they adopt this Bill, would have power to make a by-law to prevent these street traders or hawkers from carrying on their business in towns on fair days, particularly where the fair are held in the streets. It is well known that these people set up to sell their wares in the busiest part of the town. Naturally, they will set up where the largest number of people congregate, with the result that there is bound to be a block in the traffic. The Minister said that the urban council have the power to prevent that, if they so desire, under some previous Act. As a matter of fact, many councils have consulted their legal adviser on the matter and have been informed that they have no power or authority to prevent those people from setting up in any part of the town on a market or a fair day. I should like the Minister to make clear what the position will be under the Bill.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The dilemma is that the local authorities can pick and choose. That is the trouble. You have this position: that the man who is quite prepared to take the risk of a bullock jumping through his window or walking in through his hall-door objects to the person selling pig troughs or gates or something of that kind on the street outside. They have power to say where the fair or market shall or shall not take place, but if they allow the fair or market to straggle through the streets of the town and to acquire a kind of prescriptive right there, then they have got to put up with the inconvenience of that, and with whatever little minor competition that brings them in business. If the Deputy thinks it over, I think he will find I am right. I certainly have considerable administrative experience to support me in the contention that that is the real position—that the moment the police, who have some concern for the amenities of the town, begin to suggest that the fair or market ought to be restricted to a particular area, they are met with indignant protest and resentment. "Nothing of the kind; the bigger the tail to the fair the better; the more people there are buying and selling their cattle on the street the better."

Mr. GOREY

And drinking the "luck-penny."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

When the man with his pig troughs or branding pots or gates or something of that kind, who comes in to sell to the farmers, makes his appearance, that is bad, that is immoral and unlawful competition; that should not be tolerated for a moment by any efficient local authority. It is simply a question that if the fair or the market is to straggle, then your casual vendor of goods will straggle with it. If the fair or the market is restricted to a particular area or confined within reasonable limits, to some square, open space, or fair green, the casual vendors can be restricted along with it. But where there is a fair or market, there is a right on the part of A, B or C to go there and sell his goods—any quality of goods he cares to go and sell.

Mr. A. BYRNE

And pay no rates.

Mr. CORISH

If there is a market or a fair on a particular day in a town, can any of these hawkers set up in any part of the town, or only within the precincts of the market?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

As I am advised, where there is a fair or a market anyone can go and sell goods, conditional on paying whatever small toll or fee has to be paid by those using the market. The position with regard to other kind of street trading is covered by the Bill.

Mr. CORISH

I have in mind a case that I would like a ruling on. Take a town with a market where butter, eggs and country produce is sold on Saturdays. Can a street hawker set up a stall outside that market on the street, and does this Bill enable the local authority to prevent his doing so?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Deputy says "where there is a market."

Mr. CORISH

Yes, a market where butter, eggs and country produce is sold on Wednesdays or Saturdays.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I do not know whether you have very commonly a market confined to some particular class of goods, because you can move on from that, and say that a particular fair is a cattle fair and that nothing else must be sold there. I take it, generally, that where a market or fair exists there is the right of people to come together and buy and sell there.

Mr. CORISH

The Minister misunderstood me. What I mean is that if a market for selling country produce is inside a walled area, can persons set up outside that market? I have cases in mind where they do. They do not go into the market but sell outside.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

That will be a question of where the market is, and it is a question of fact. If a market is held in a green or in an enclosed place, clearly the right of free sale, so to speak, by casual people will be confined to wherever the market is.

Mr. J. CONLAN

With regard to the question of obstruction, I know that in the town of Naas the thoroughfare was completely blocked by people who sold not alone the articles that the Minister mentioned but also cattle. The matter was brought before the Urban Council by the local branch of the Farmers' Union, the complaint being that cattle received a great deal of abuse when getting through this narrow thoroughfare. The Council took action, and, with the assistance of the Gárda Síochána, they have secured a perfectly clear thoroughfare. There is a great improvement there now. As to the point raised by Deputy Corish, I know an Urban Council that has compelled people to sell in the market, and they have successfully prosecuted people who disregarded that order.

Mr. HENNESSY

I think the point Deputy Corish is raising, dealing with trading in towns or urban areas other than on fair days, is covered by Section 6 (I) (A). I am not quite clear about that, and I would like to hear the Minister's opinion on the sub-section. The urban authorities may adopt this Bill, and I think they are also protected under the Towns Improvement Act. There are many urban towns in the Saorstát where fairs or markets are not held, but still stall-trading goes on, eggs being sold one day and other things another day. I think the section would enable the local authorities to compel these traders to sell their wares in some specified area.

Captain REDMOND

In this matter, I think a great deal of the difficulty is to locate the market. As I pointed out at an earlier stage of this Bill, the habit is too common throughout the country of having the fair throughout the whole town. I thoroughly agree with what the Minister has stated, that if fairs are to be permitted anywhere throughout a town, and not confined to a particular area, the people in the town will have to put up with the consequences and permit traders of other descriptions also to carry on their business. As far as I understand this particular Section, it will mean that if there is not a definitely specified market-place in a town, which unfortunately is too often the case, and if the fair is being carried on through the town, then these particular hawkers will be permitted to go wherever the fair is. I think it is a bad system to have the fair scattered throughout the whole of an urban area, and perhaps this Bill may be a means of bringing home to those responsible for the conduct of the areas concerned the necessity for specifying a definite area for the holding of the fair and segregating it from the business part of the town.

I understand that the point raised by Deputy Corish was not as to whether these traders could trade on non-market days, but whether they should be entitled to set up in the neighbourhood or in proximity to the existing market. I see a great deal of force in the desirability of doing away with that practice. The practice can be done away with, and it rests with urban authorities, who should have power to pass a by-law to prohibit—Deputy Conlan has referred to the case of Naas—these traders taking advantage of the proximity of the fair and not paying any toll or having any legitimate excuse to be in the fair, but merely lying on the outskirts in order to profit by people going in and legitimately doing their business there. Owing to the fact that the locality of the fair is so seldom definitely specified in country towns, I do not see how this Bill can do any more than it has done, and I do not think anything we could do could segregate the actual conduct of the fairs from the traders who are mentioned in the Bill. If they choose to have a fair straggling through the town, they will have to have the followers of the fair there also.

Mr. CONLAN

I would like to ask the Minister a question about the position of small towns and villages in which there is no local authority. By what authority could an obstruction to the thoroughfare in these centres by the setting up of stalls be prevented? Would it be possible for the County Council to make by-laws to prevent such obstructions?

Mr. CORISH

I would like to know from the Minister, in the event of an urban authority making a by-law in this connection, who is it that would take action against a person that would set up to sell goods on the street? Is it the Civic Guard or the urban council that would take the initiative in bringing a prosecution?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I think the Deputy will find that it would be open either to the county council or to the Civic Guard to bring the complaint. "All by-laws made by the Corporation under this section shall be deemed to be by-laws made by a sanitary authority for the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Act," and, according to the sections quoted, "shall apply to all by-laws made under this section." Under these sections the procedure with regard to the bringing of a complaint is set out. You see there could be endless questions on this Bill, and I think they can only be met by stating that the particular circumstances in each place cannot be envisaged here. That is a matter for the local authority which adopts the Bill. The Bill was brought in to deal specifically with the case of Dublin, where we had contact and consultation both with the police and those who feel aggrieved by the present state of affairs. The power is given to other Corporations and urban authorities throughout the State to adopt this Bill, and they have that kind of limited autonomy within which they will have their discretion. It will be for them to say where street trading shall or shall not be carried on.

It was necessary to insert in the Bill the exemption in favour of people going to buy or sell in a fair or market, and where the fair or market lies in a particular place is a question of fact which can be asertained. Deputy Conlan put me a rather difficult question when he asked who was to control obstruction by street trading in a small town or village where there is no local authority of any kind, either an urban council or a town commission. The reply is that that is simply a question that every individual has the right to pass down a street, and that if he is obstructed his right is infringed. He can bring his complaint before the District Justice or he can complain to the police, and they can inquire into it, and if, in fact, there is undue obstruction, that is an offence which can be dealt with under the law.

Mr. CONLAN

Would not that be throwing too much onus on the individual?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It would be very undesirable to throw any additional onus on the individual in view of the fact that he is staggering under what he has already.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The point raised by Deputy Conlan is a rather important one. Take the town of Roscrea, which, perhaps, the Minister knows something about. I think it has a population of something over 3,000, but there is no urban council or town commission there.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Why not?

Mr. MORRISSEY

Because up to the passing of the Local Government Act it was administered by the district council, and there is no district council now. Does the Minister say that in towns such as that it should lie with every individual to bring a prosecution in the courts for obstruction on the street, or whether the county council should not be given authority?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The police have the right to deal with obstruction on the streets if they consider that there is a case for intervention and if there is real obstruction. The Deputy quotes Mullingar and other towns. My own opinion is that these towns can, if they so wish, move to have an urban council established in their towns, and that towns which have only a town commission at present can become urban districts if they want to do that. There are reasons for not doing that—that there is a limit to the rate which a town commission can strike, and they like the limit. Very good, liking the limit, they must put up with whatever ensuing or consequent disadvantages there are to towns which have neither a town commission nor an urban council. I feel quite sure that under some of the existing Local Government clauses the remedy is available if they care to make use of it.

Mr. BAXTER

Are we to understand from the last statement of the Minister that a local authority, say a county council, can, at the present time, decide where a fair is to be in a small town. I have instances in my mind where the residents of a town, as well as farmers from the outside, desire that the fair should be held not in the street in a particular place. By-laws have been set up here to enable the authority to have that carried out. The by-laws have not been approved of, and I would like to know from the Minister if there is any power presently whereby regulations can be made by the county council in a matter like that.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Deputy is in grave danger of infringing the Constitution by addressing questions to me which should more properly be addressed to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. BAXTER

That is an evasion— it is the one problem.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move amendment 14:—

In page 7, Section 14 (2), before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) The council of any county borough or of any urban county district which has duly adopted this Act under this section may at any time thereafter by resolution passed after such notice as is hereinafter mentioned rescind the adoption of this Act, and upon the coming into operation as hereinafter provided of such resolution this Act shall cease to apply to such borough or urban district."

The purpose of the amendment is to permit a local authority which has adopted the Bill, and subsequently finds that there is no necessity for it, to rescind the adoption of the resolution.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment 15.—In page 7, section 14 (2), line 58, and in sub-section (3), page 8, line 2, after the word "adopting" to insert the words "or rescinding the adoption of." (Eamon O Dúgáin.)

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This amendment is consequential.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question.—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th February, 1926.