Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 May 1930

Vol. 34 No. 16

Public Business. - Excise—Hawkers' Licences.

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

(1) That so much of Section 2 of the Hawkers Act, 1888, as defines the meaning of the word "hawker" in that Act shall be repealed and that in lieu thereof the word "hawker" wherever it occurs in the said Act shall be construed as meaning and including the following persons and the said Act shall have effect accordingly, that is to say:—

(a) Any person who travels either with a horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden or with a mechanically propelled vehicle and goes from place to place or to other men's houses carrying to sell or barter or exposing for sale or barter any goods, wares, or merchandise or exposing samples or patterns of any goods, wares, or merchandise to be afterwards delivered, and

(b) any person who travels either with a horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden or with a mechanically propelled vehicle carrying with him any goods, wares, or merchandise (other than goods, wares, or merchandise carried for delivery to a purchaser in pursuance of a previous order) and sells or barters or exposes for sale or barter any of such goods, wares or merchandise at any other person's house, and

(c) any person who travels by any means of locomotion to any place in which he does not usually reside or carry on business and there sells or barters or exposes for sale or barter any goods, wares, or merchandise either in or from any vehicle or in or at any house, shop, room, booth, stall or other place whatever hired or used by him for that purpose.

(2) That notwithstanding anything contained in the Hawkers Act, 1888, the duty to be paid on an excise licence issued under Section 3 of the said Act to a person who is a hawker by virtue of sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b) of the first paragraph of this Resolution and travels with a mechanically propelled vehicle or a person who is a hawker by virtue of sub-paragraph (c) of the said paragraph shall be ten pounds, and no such person shall be deemed to be duly licensed under the said Act by reason only of his having taken out a licence under the said Act on which a less duty than ten pounds was paid.

(3) That it shall not be necessary for a licence to be taken out under the Hawkers Act, 1888, by any person selling meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, bread, milk, coal, peat, or firewood, and no other goods.

(4) That paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Hawkers Act, 1888, shall be repealed.

The purpose of No. 3 is to widen the scope of the tax on hawkers. It is widened by two passages in this Resolution. In sub-paragraph (c) the tax on hawkers is extended to include those who have booths at fairs and markets as well as the hawkers who go from house to house, The tax is also widened by paragraph (3). In the present law there is a provision exempting from the necessity of taking out a hawker's licence any person selling fish, fruit, victuals or coal. This Resolution substitutes any person selling meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, bread, milk, coal, peat or firewood; that is it leaves out the word "victuals" which by legal decisions has been given a very wide interpretation, an interpretation which means anything that either by itself or mixed with another substance may be used as a food, and we are substituting this list of articles. That generally is the purpose of introducing this Resolution, to enable the section in the Bill to be wider than the first Resolution which was moved in the Dáil would permit.

Mr. Corish

I would like to know if the Minister has received any representations from different towns with a view to doing away with this kind of person altogether. There was certainly a great outcry in the various provincial towns about people coming across from the other side and setting up booths in the vicinity of markets and fairs and selling a good deal of shoddy stuff. People may think, at the moment, that they are getting good bargains but I think everybody will admit that it is very detrimental to the resident traders and that the people who buy from them are not getting the value they think. I would like to know if any representations have been sent to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Lemass

I wanted to ask the Minister if the decision to delete the word "victuals" and substitute other words as shown in paragraph (3) of the Resolution is a result of any representations made to him and if so, by whom and to what end.

Mr. Shaw

I might say that these Resolutions will be very much welcomed by the shopkeepers in the small towns, because they will protect them from very unfair competition. Foreigners particularly are going around the country with such articles as second-hand clothes, bought by weight in Leeds, which are a very serious danger to the health of the people—boots, harness and rubbishy hardware. They are going to fairs and markets and selling them to innocent people who are foolish enough to buy them from them. They pay no rates or taxes or anything else, and I certainly welcome this Resolution. Chambers of Commerce, certainly in my area, have pressed very hard for some protection in order to save shopkeepers in the small towns from extinction, because owing to 'buses and other modes of conveyance at the present time they are in a rather serious position. I do not think that this tax is large enough. I believe the Minister will have to make the £10 tax £20, but I certainly welcome this Resolution, and I am very glad that the Minister is exempting such articles as foodstuffs, because they are sold at cheap prices, and the people are glad to have them.

Mr. Blythe

With reference to the point made by Deputy Corish, I do not think I have received any very serious representations that stall-holders should be done away with altogether, but I have received many representations over the past twelve months that some tax should be imposed upon them on the basis that they were availing of the facilities of towns towards the upkeep of which they contributed nothing. The representations were not on the basis that they should be abolished, but rather that they should be charged some reasonable tax.

Mr. Corish

Has the Minister given these representations consideration?

Mr. Blythe

The Resolution is an indication that I have given them consideration.

Mr. Corish

I mean from the point of view of contributing towards the upkeep of a particular town.

Mr. Blythe

These people go from town to town. They could not be charged a series of taxes. One cannot say what town they will go to. With regard to the point made by Deputy Lemass I have had letters and individual representations about it. It was also, I think, mentioned in the debate here when the Resolution was up in the first instance. The object is to prevent peddling of general groceries. It is really intended to include amongst the travelling shops a travelling grocery shop as well as a travelling drapery shop.

Mr. Moore

Might I ask the Minister if any part of this tax will go to the local authorities? It seems a case where the local authorities would be entitled to it. I think local authorities are disappointed that they have not been given the right to raise revenue in this way.

Mr. Blythe

Unless the amounts are going to be very much greater than we anticipate there would not be anything very much in it for any local authority and there would be great difficulties about distributing it. You could not tell at the beginning when the tax is paid what towns any particular hawker was going to frequent and it would be impossible to find a basis on which it could be distributed. Certainly, any representations that I have had have not been along the lines of increasing the funds of the local authorities, but rather that there were facilities for which the town trader had to pay and which the hawker was able to use without making any payment for them. The question to whom payments should be made has not been raised so far as I am aware.

Mr. Corish

Might I ask the Minister if this tax will go into the Road Fund?

Mr. Blythe

No.

Mr. Corish

Why?

Mr. Blythe

It will go into the Exchequer — a very much better place.

Mr. Lemass

I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister that no representations have been made to me regarding the imposition of this tax upon the travelling grocery shop. I do not claim to know very much about this question. I do know that there is considerable hostility to the hawker who trades in the commodities mentioned by Deputy Shaw — commodities such as second-hand clothes, boots, harness and articles of that kind. I must say that I have had no representations made to me, nor have I found any evidence of hostility against the person who sells meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, tea or sugar. That class of trader seems now to be regarded as a convenience in rural districts. It may be that there is a case for the imposition of the tax upon that individual, but I would like to know that the matter had been fully considered and that he is not merely being included with the other and more objectionable form of trader without being given an opportunity of having his case heard.

Mr. Blythe

A considerable body of representations has been made in reference to the travelling grocery shop, but I must say that it has not been anything like as voluminous, nor as strong, as the representations made in regard to what I may call the travelling drapery shop. If any Deputy thinks that, to the list of exemptions mentioned in the Resolution, tea and sugar should be added, an amendment to that effect could be moved. I would be perfectly willing to leave that particular matter to the opinion of the House.

Mr. Davin

Will the Minister make further inquiries in reference to this in the course of his travels in connection with the Longford-Westmeath election?

Mr. Blythe

I will make them wherever I happen to be.

Mr. Allen

I would like to know from the Minister whether he thinks that there is not a loophole in Section C of the Resolution. In the case of a hawker who uses the railway to bring his goods to a particular town, what happens if he turns his goods out on the street of the town and sells them there?

Mr. Blythe

He would come under Section C.

Mr. Allen

But supposing that he does not hire any house or stall in order to sell the goods, what is his position?

Mr. Blythe

If he sells them from a vehicle, booth or a stall, or a place on the street, he will come under this.

Mr. Allen

But the Section does not say "a place on the street."

Mr. Blythe

I leave that to the draftsman.

Mr. Kent

It will be a great inconvenience to workers in the rural districts if, in future, they are to be prevented from getting their supplies of groceries from the bread vans which call around two or three times a week. In lieu of a cash payment for the groceries they sell, these bread van drivers take a certain quantity of eggs. If groceries are to be included in this Resolution, then it will mean a great inconvenience and hardship on numbers of poor people living in the rural districts who, when this comes into effect, will have to travel six or seven miles to get their supplies.

Mr. Blythe

There are people who think that system is a very bad system and that an attempt should be made to stop it.

An Ceann Comhairle

An amendment to that effect which would be of a restrictive character — restricting the tax and not increasing it— would be in order on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Gorey

In addition to the articles exempted under this Resolution, the vans that go through the country also take supplies of bacon. There is no doubt that the fact of these vans calling around is a great convenience to people living in the country. If people cannot get their supplies as they have been getting them, then it will mean that they will have to travel five or six miles, and in some cases more, to make their purchases. That will mean that in order to purchase the necessaries of life they will lose a day travelling to the nearest town or village. There are two sides to the question, and both deserve consideration. A shopkeeper who is not able to put vans on the road is handicapped in competing against the shopkeeper who is able to send two or three vans through the country. There is the danger, of course, that the latter will monopolise all the trade. The view-point of the people in the country must also be considered. I think it is generally admitted that there are too many distributors in the country. Take Dublin alone. It is, practically speaking, a city of distributors. I think that both aspects of the case should be considered.

Mr. Goulding

In reference to the point raised by Deputy Gorey, this is really a question of town versus country. There is no doubt that these vans do a considerable amount of injury to shopkeepers in the towns. In view of that, I think it would be only fair that the tax to be derived from these people should be handed over to the urban councils and devoted to the reduction of the local rates, in that way setting off the damage done to the local shopkeepers through the operations of these travelling traders.

Mr. Carney

As Deputy Gorey and Deputy Kent remarked, there are two sides to this question, The small towns, of course, have to be considered. It is a great convenience to very small farmers and farm labourers who may own a little bit of land to be able to get supplies of groceries from these vans which travel through the country. Otherwise, they would be obliged to travel to the nearest small town, which might be four or five miles away. The drivers of the vans take in exchange for the groceries they sell a dozen or two dozen of eggs.

It would certainly be a very great hardship on the mother of a family, say, if she had to travel four or five miles for her supplies of tea and sugar and, perhaps, an ounce of tobacco for the husband. In my opinion, if some of the people in the small towns had the pluck and initiative shown by some of these hawkers their position to-day would be far better than what it is. They are in the position of being able to buy in large stocks, and they should be able to sell at a cheaper rate to people in the country than the hawker who, in many cases, has to buy third-hand. Of course, the people in the towns give employment, and that is a side of the question that we must keep in view. The hawker should pay a certain amount in the way of licence that would go to the upkeep of the roads and so on, but he should not be excluded simply and solely to help the large or the small towns, as the case may be.

Mr. Blythe

There is no proposal to exclude hawkers. The tax proposed is not excessive. The horse-drawn vehicle will be liable for a tax of only £2 as before. Only the driver of a motor vehicle, or people with booths in fairs or markets, will be liable to the tax of £10. I do not think that £10 is excessive in such cases, when £2 is charged for the use of a car.

Mr. Lemass

When will this Resolution come into effect and the tax be imposed?

Mr. Blythe

On the 1st August.

Resolution put and agreed to.

Additional Financial Resolutions 2 and 3 reported and agreed to.