Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1931

Vol. 40 No. 16

Private Deputies' Business. - Auctioneers, Valuers, House and Estate Agents Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

Mr. Leonard

I move that the Bill be given a Second Reading. Since the Bill was introduced it was suggested that it should be withdrawn and recaptioned so as to include various amendments that have been suggested by Deputies on all sides of the House. If it were withdrawn now, or if Deputy Ryan's amendment was put and carried, it would mean that the several hundred pounds that have already been spent in bringing the Bill to its present position would be lost, and the protection which the Bill would afford to the general public would be indefinitely postponed.

I am indebted to several Deputies for suggested amendments which undoubtedly improve the Bill as it was originally drawn. My co-sponsors of the Bill have undertaken that those amendments shall be proposed to the committee that will be appointed if the Bill is given a Second Reading. It is doubtful if the House as a whole have any knowledge of the losses which fraudulent auctioneers have in the past inflicted and are in the present inflicting upon the public. The public are protected to a certain extent if a stockbroker or a solicitor makes default or is guilty of fraud. If an auctioneer does away with the money of his client the client has no redress whatever, and at present there is nothing to prevent an auctioneer from repeating the transaction as often as he can. Anyone at present, no matter how shady his antecedents or how small his capital, if he can scrape up £10 for the purchase of a licence and advertise sufficiently, finds himself able to help himself to other people's money. On the 15th March of the present year an arrangement was carried for £5,000. That was to pay 4/- in the £ in five instalments, spread over 18 months. Anybody who has any knowledge of getting payment of a debt by instalments will realise, of course, that they are exceedingly lucky if they get the first instalment. On the 20th May a judgment was given for £149 and another for £795, and as far as I know nothing has been realised on these judgments.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

On the 20th June a client here in Dublin paid an auctioneer a deposit of £200. That £200 has probably gone to swell the total of the November Handicap Sweep receipts. Certainly the unfortunate owner of the £200 is in the position of the person who has not drawn a horse in the sweep. On the 9th July there was a fraudulent conversion registered against another auctioneer. On the 8th July there was another arrangement for £5,000. There is a total for the present year of £11,145. In December, 1930, there was a fraudulent conversion registered for £4,700. In the same month another well-known firm failed for £8,000, and another for £4,532, and still another for £18,744. On the 16th June a complaint was sent in to the Auctioneers' Association that an auctioneer in Dublin had sold property in 1928, and from that day to this the owner of the property has been unable to receive any dividend.

I could go back to 1925, but I do not want to weary the House with further particulars. I can vouch for all these items. They are taken from official documents, and there are many other cases which have never been reported, but which we know of. I have only mentioned those to show the importance of a Bill such as the one I am proposing for the protection of the general public. Something like ninety per cent. of the present auctioneers have agreed that this Bill is necessary. The particulars of the Bill have been in the hands of members of the House, and any amendments that we consider improve the Bill have already been printed and are in the hands of every member in the House. Deputy Haslett, Deputy Cole, Deputy McFadden and myself have undertaken that those amendments shall be proposed.

I do not propose to go through the various sections of the Bill now. Deputies, I am sure, have studied it. I would like to point out, however, that the really important section is Section 25, in connection with which there is a suggestion dealing with the bond which the general committee of the association say should be given by anybody practising as an auctioneer. It is suggested that the proceeds of any bond, or of any security held on behalf of registered persons by the council shall in all cases be applicable solely towards the discharge of the obligations of such registered persons upon any sale, letting or transfer of land or other property in respect of which the registered person, or the firm or company by whom he is employed, has been declared liable to their clients by a decision of a competent court of Saorstát Eireann. I formally move the Second Reading.

Mr. Haslett

I beg to second.

Mr. de Valera

Deputy Ryan does not propose to move the proposal which stands in his name. This is a Bill to which members of our Party have given considerable attention. When it was circulated, and when we discussed it originally, the feeling was that the Bill was so badly drafted that it was doubtful if anything could be done with it. We all agreed that it was necessary to take steps to protect the public against the possibility of fraud and loss through persons being licensed as auctioneers who really should not get such licences. We thought that the whole position should receive examination before any action was taken to legislate in this matter.

It is quite obvious that steps could be taken to protect the public other than by a Bill of this particular kind. Direct legislation dealing with the matter could be introduced without any idea of making auctioneering a profession, as is more or less proposed in this Bill. That was why Deputy Ryan's proposal appeared on the paper. Recently there have been a number of conversations between the promoters of the Bill, those who are interested, and members of our Party. From what the Deputy who introduced the Bill has said, it is quite evident that members of other Parties have similarly been discussing this Bill. The assurance which the mover of the Bill has given us that the amendments we think are essential will be introduced, has satisfied us that the Bill can be let through the Second Reading.

A great deal of work will have to be done on the Committee Stage. The general opinion is that the Bill will have to be completely recast before it can pass through the House finally. We are agreed upon the need for protecting the public and, as some of the principal dangers that we apprehended are going to be met by amendments, we propose not to vote now against the measure. One point upon which we wanted to have assurance was that no unfair barriers would be put against new people who are qualified to enter the profession. There was a fear that examinations of an unsuitable character might be put up, that a severe period of apprenticeship might be instituted or that some other barriers that we think would be unnecessary might be proposed. It is understood that there is no intention to erect such barriers. That being the case, we do not propose to vote against the Bill at this stage. We are prepared to give the measure every consideration when it comes before us with the amendments inserted.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I feel myself in a position of difficulty with regard to what should be the attitude of this Party in connection with the Bill. Until a few moments ago I was not aware that Deputy Ryan was not moving his proposal. It seems to me that Deputy Ryan's proposal was a proper one. It was one that would have got our support had it been moved. It seems to me there are more things involved than the mere question of the protection of the public. It looks very like creating a monopoly, and it seems that the real object behind the Bill is not so much to protect the public as to protect auctioneers and valuers. Of course we have to wait until we see, eventually, how the Bill will turn out, but there is a suggestion running right through it that here we are creating something for the auctioneers such as we created for doctors, dentists, and lawyers. Deputy Cole suggests teachers, but the fact is that no such position has been created for teachers or members of other bodies.

Are we setting out here to create corporations, monopolies, self-governing bodies for various classes of workers or professions? Is that to be a general policy? If that is the case I think we should not deal with the matter piecemeal, taking one profession or body to-day and another to-morrow or the next day according as these various interests will press their claims upon the members of the House. I think that is a matter that deserves some consideration from us. We had an application from the barbers some months ago, and for some reason their application was turned down. I do not know whether it was that they commanded less influence in pressing their claims than the auctioneers and valuers. If for the auctioneers and valuers, why not for the plumbers? We are sure to have the surveyors very soon. Then we will have the accountants coming forward. Many other professions that can be mentioned will undoubtedly come forward.

I should like to hear especially from the Government some indication as to what is their policy on this particular line, or whether it is to be part and parcel of our procedure in the future that bodies like this may come forward and may get power to create what is to all intents and purposes a self-governing trade or business of any kind. I am not saying at the moment that I am opposed to that particular idea. A good deal can be said for it. What I do not like is that we are dealing with a matter piecemeal instead of dealing with it as part and parcel of a general policy here in the reorganisation of our business.

We have heard a good deal, of course, about the protection of the public from fraud. That is necessary so far as the shopkeeping profession is concerned just as well as in the case of the auctioneers. That is necessary so far as a great many other businesses that have dealings with the public are concerned. Most of our ordinary laws are framed with the intention of protecting the public from fraud. Many of our Acts of Parliament deal specially with the necessity for protection of the public against fraud. I am afraid I cannot compliment Deputy Leonard on throwing very much light on the matter of this Bill in his introductory speech. The Deputy told us that a person requires only to get a licence of £10 in order to be able to engage in this business. There are many people who engage in business without any licence of any kind whatsoever and there is no registration system whatsoever to interfere with them.

There is a provision in this Bill to which Deputy Leonard referred as being the most important provision in the Bill. That is to say that certain deposits would be necessary from people who would be engaging in this business so as to protect the public. I do not know whether a Bill of this kind is necessary or whether it is necessary to set up what is to all intents and purposes a self-governing body or a controlling body for the auctioneering business with a council controlling entrance into the profession in order to secure that arrangement. If a licence has to be paid at present before a man can engage in work as an auctioneer and valuer, there is nothing so far as I can see to prevent the Minister making regulations. If there is anything to prevent these regulations being made, it could be made easy to secure its removal. There would be nothing to prevent the Minister making regulations, say, that in addition to paying the licence, the person proposing to engage in this business should get some adequate security, and that adequate security to be determined by the Minister who would be in charge of that particular Department of State. I would be rather surprised to see that the particular Minister in charge of it would be the Minister for Lands and Fisheries who is now sitting on the Executive Benches.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch)

Not at all, I assure you.

Mr. O'Connell

I would be surprised if it were. It would appear to me that in this case it would be the Minister for Industry and Commerce who would make regulations which would ensure that the person engaged in this particular business would give what the Minister would consider ample security. Unless care is taken in the course of this Bill through the House there might be a danger, and a great danger, that this particular business would be made a close borough to some extent, and that people who legitimately engage in business in a small way, as we know they do down the country, would find themselves debarred from engaging in this business. Then, if a farmer down the country had a few acres of meadow to sell, or a few pounds worth of furniture and farm effects and things of that kind to auction off, he would require the services of a specially qualified man who had passed all the necessary stages of getting into this profession, a profession that in the future will be a very dignified and noble one. In view of the line that has been taken with regard to Deputy Ryan's amendment, I do not wish to press an objection to the Bill at this stage. I want to say that I am refraining from voting against the Second Reading with great reluctance. My own personal view on the matter is this: I would like, before the House commits itself to the principle of this Bill, that we should have the kind of investigation that we could have got under Deputy Ryan's amendment. There would be an opportunity there, and a better opportunity than can now be afforded on the Stages of the Bill, for examining into the whole position, having regard to the bearings of our action in accepting a Bill of this kind and having regard to the effect of our action and the general attitude in regard to other applications which may come before the House in the near future.

I think it would be well if the House came to some general decision as to what its future action in regard to such applications will be, and have some guiding principle in regard to these applications. I have no special objection to the adoption of this as a general policy, but I do think that each section or each profession should not come along in this way and, according to the amount of particular influence they can exert in the House, get a Bill through the Dáil conferring rights and privileges upon the members of a particular business. I would much prefer that we would have the examination that we could have had under Deputy Ryan's amendment; but in view of the circumstances I do not wish to press my objection to the Second Reading.

Mr. Haslett

I should like to supplement what Deputy Leonard has said in introducing this Bill. Perhaps I might state the main outlines of it. At the outset I might say that the attitude of Deputies towards it so far is a great argument for the Bill. No Deputy who has spoken has said that he is in opposition to the principle of the Bill. I have had a good deal of conversation with Deputies on all sides of the House, and I found a great desire on the part of everybody to make this a useful measure. At the present time, the auctioneering business is not on the sure and satisfactory foundation on which it ought to be. At present it is open to anyone who can put £10 together to go to the Custom House and get an auctioneer's licence and start business. I have no desire to criticise anybody, but I think that that fact speaks for itself. There are people suitable for carrying on this business, but, on the other hand, there are people who are totally unsuitable who would aspire to carry it on.

What is asked for in this Bill falls under three heads. The first is that there should be somebody to have the right to say who should get a licence to become an auctioneer, and that there should be some supervision over, say, the character and ability of the person taking out a licence. The second is that such a person should give security or take out a bond with an insurance society to cover his auctioneering business. If Deputies read the Bill, I think that they will find that that is clearly stated. It is not to be a bond covering a person's general business, but a bond to cover his liability to the public. The third thing is that there should be some body, preferably the same body, to see that a person who has taken out a licence conducts his business in a straightforward and business-like way. They are the main outlines of what is asked for in the Bill, and I do not think they are unreasonable.

Looking at it from the standpoint of the person who has business to transact, it should be made reasonably safe that the business entrusted to another person shall be transacted in a straightforward and business-like manner, so that not alone shall that person not suffer loss, but that his interests shall be protected. In discussing this point, Deputy de Valera expressed the wish that there should be no unfair barrier to becoming an auctioneer. I do not think that is in any way intended. In fact, one of the amendments suggested after consultation with several of the members was that it should not be a question of examination at all, but a question of the ability of the person to perform the work. There are certain professions and callings for which it is necessary that there should be certain scholarly qualifications. In this particular business the school of experience is one of the things which fit a person for it. It is an undertaking on the part of a person to transact business for someone else. Deputy O'Connell suggested that plumbers might come along and seek something similar. I suggest that that is an entirely different thing. Plumbers as such do not undertake the transaction of public business. I do not know whether Deputy O'Connell's opinion of plumbers in general would coincide with that of Harold Begbie, but I suggest to him that they are in a different class altogether. Auctioneers and valuers undertake work for somebody else, and that person should have a reasonable amount of protection. Deputy O'Connell said that he was in considerable difficulty, as the Bill asked for more than the protection of the public. I do not think it does. I do not think it is meant at all that auctioneering should be a close borough, as was suggested. I do not think it is to the discredit of any worker or any business man that he should try to magnify his office. If workers and business men seek to make themselves more proficient and put their business on a sounder basis, I think they should get credit for it. They should be like the old stone-breaker who, when he was twitted about what he was doing, said that he was helping to build the King's highway, meaning that he was contributing to the work of the State in a way that they did not think about.

The Bill will be considered in Committee, and I do not think it is necessary that we should go through the sections, except to answer any queries which may be put. I personally think that the attitude of Deputies towards the Bill is a reasonable one, that it should stand its examination, and that the House should make it as good a Bill as possible. So long as the three things I have outlined are preserved, we are more than anxious that the Bill should be amended, and should be framed in such a way that the public shall be safeguarded, and that the people engaged in this business shall be compelled, if I may use the word, to do their business in a straightforward and honest way.

Mr. Gorey

I rise rather to get some direction from the Ceann Comhairle than to criticise the Bill. This Bill has been submitted to Deputies, and certain suggestions were made to the promoters that an endeavour was made to carry out later on. It has been promised that we shall be met in many directions. The Bill contains not one principle, but three distinct principles. I am quite satisfied that once the Bill gets a Second Reading containing certain principles, these principles cannot be removed. I should like to have a decision from somebody competent to give it as to whether, once the Second Reading has been agreed to, these principles must be maintained. The Revenue Commissioners get a fee of £10 from those taking out an auctioneering licence. They have done very little after getting that £10 to protect the public from whom that £10 ultimately comes. Certainly something should be done by the State in that direction in view of the amount they receive from these licences. We should all like to see the public protected because we all know of cases where they need protection. Many of us know of cases where auctioneers, who were engaged in other business besides auctioneering, became insolvent, with the result that people who had entrusted to them the sale of farms or other property did not get the money realised as a result of these sales. In this Bill a charter is being asked for. I cannot call it by any other name. If that principle, which is at present contained in the Bill, can be got rid of in Committee, we would be satisfied. If the Bill gets a Second Reading, and we can get rid in Committee of the principles contained in it, I am quite satisfied.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the point of order was seriously put.

Mr. Moore

I would like to support Deputy O'Connell's appeal to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries as representing the Executive Council to state the Government's attitude with regard to the organising of the different professions in the Saorstát. As far as I can learn, there are a number of professions preparing similar Bills to this, naturally encouraged by each Bill presented. Every Bill passed here of this nature will encourage other professions to go ahead and say: "We are as well entitled as the auctioneers to be organised under State protection and representation as they are." That will be said by a number of professions to-morrow. Already, if rumour be true, there are a number of professions preparing Bills similar to the one we are now discussing. The accountants, I understand, are engaged in looking for recognition for their profession. The engineers are doing something similar, and no doubt the architects will copy the example set them by the North of Ireland Government, mentioned in the Press to-day. It is time, as Deputy O'Connell suggested, that the Government should say whether they have any general opinion with regard to this question, whether it could be done in at least a more time-saving way. If we approve of these proposals, could they not introduce a general measure to cover a number of them, leaving the differences that would be necessary to be dealt with by regulation?

Deputy Haslett and Deputy Leonard have both emphasised that this Bill is intended as a protection for the public with regard to the funds handed over to auctioneers. But there are other people in the country, I think, who handle public moneys and against whom the public have no protection. I think solicitors, already themselves protected by this House, do not give any bond or guarantee as to the money they handle, and without any disrespect to solicitors, I may mention that there have been cases of embezzlement on the part of solicitors resulting in very great hardship to their unfortunate clients. If such provisions are necessary in regard to one profession handling money, they ought to be necessary in regard to other professions.

I am not sure that there is any protection in the case of bank managers, for instance, who deal with insurance. I think they are in a position to defraud their clients. There are other questions in regard to the protection of the public as well as in regard to their money. There is the question of protection with regard to the safety of human life. In my opinion no profession has had as good a claim for recognition and organisation under State protection as the engineers. There is no other profession that has so much to do with the safety of human life: It is really time, in view of the number of cases that come before us, and that are likely to come before us in the future, that we should have some agreement amongst us as to the way in which we could deal with them in future. There is no section in the House, I think, opposed to the regulation of the professions in so far as they do not intend to make their professions close boroughs. If that were the point in this Bill I think there would be almost unanimity in this House that it should not be given a Second Reading. We are not yet prepared for that, but whatever the ultimate attitude may be as to the question of limiting the number of people entering any profession, we are not prepared for it at the moment. I do not think we would say that it is right that the auctioneers' profession should be confined to 500 people within the Saorstát and that the engineers should be confined to 1,000 people. We are hardly in a position to say that yet, whatever we may do afterwards; it would require a great deal more experience to deal with that aspect of the question. Any attempt to embody such a provision should be resisted by the House. There are several provisions in the Bill that seem to me to be very faulty. I was one of those who found most fault with the Bill as drafted. I do not find fault with the principle of regulating the different professions. But I certainly found fault with the drafting. I do not know how some of the things got into the Bill. Sections 12 and 13 will have to be examined very carefully in Committee, but I do not think, in view of the case that appears to exist for such a measure, that we should refuse to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. George Wolfe

I am one of those who have been thinking for a long time that there ought to be some regulation governing the work done by auctioneers and valuers. Of course, I speak from one side only and that is the side of the public, where they have the necessity of employing auctioneers. There is also the auctioneers' side of the question. I do not agree with every section of this Bill. I think more or less with Deputy de Valera that it should be given a Second Reading and then well considered in Committee so as to make it acceptable, as far as posable, to all Parties in the House. I think it must be obvious that it is right that people who have at their control very large sums of money, as some auctioneers have, should be under some pretty tight regulations in regard to it. Of course a large number of auctioneers and valuers are extremely honourable and upright men, as we all know. But I can remember some cases that were different. It seems from what Deputy Leonard says that they could deal with moneys which they handle pretty much as they like.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

I remember a case where I was let in for a small amount and some people in my area were also affected, but where the whole sums amounted to something like £20,000. I do not think that anything ever happened in the way of restoring their money to them. I never heard of it anyway. We had simply to bear our loss and the matter ended there. I do not think that is a very satisfactory state of affairs. I think also, particularly in the case of valuers, that it is hardly suitable that it should be possible for anybody who pays £10 for a licence to be able to call himself an auctioneer and valuer. I think that is rather ridiculous. It is not so in any other profession. It is not so in the case of solicitors and doctors. I agree with what was said that it would be absurd to have great examinations of people trying to be auctioneers. Still, I think there ought to be some reasonable regulation governing them. I agree that the Bill is very badly drafted but I think it could be improved and I think it could be made serviceable by attention from everybody in this House, and I hope it will be given a Second Reading on that account.

Mr. Brennan

I agree with the statement of Deputy O'Connell, except that portion which was repeated by Deputy Moore, that the Government should outline their views on this matter. I do not think that would be possible or desirable. Like Deputy O'Connell, I am disappointed that Deputy Ryan has not moved his amendment. I think it would have given the House an opportunity of examining the question and seeing if such a Bill was necessary. The only case put forward in favour of the Bill was the necessity of protecting the public. That is the only case that could be put forward. Although Deputy de Valera does not intend to oppose the Second Reading, he said, and said very truly, that this matter could be met in another way. Of course it could. Auctioneers' licences should not be granted to people unless they can be held responsible for the money that comes into their hands. That could easily be done if there was some regulation in existence which would compel applicants for licences to have an insurance policy or some other security, so that the public would be protected against fraud or embezzlement. If that was the case I do not think there would be any necessity for this Bill. Deputy Haslett stated that if the Bill was passed, the public, in addition to being protected, would have their business carried out in a business-like way. I do not see how that could be done, except Deputy Haslett wants to contend that no one should be permitted to act as an auctioneer unless he had some experience, or had served an apprenticeship to the business. I am not aware that a case has been made that the public have at any time suffered through the inefficiency of auctioneers as apart from their probity. It has not been suggested that they have suffered in that way. The public are very careful when dealing with auctioneers, and do not often place their business in the hands of people, as a Deputy said, with shady antecedents. Deputy O'Connell stated that plumbers might be applying to-morrow. I would not say that, but you might have egg merchants and fowl merchants. They pay licences in order to carry on trade, and they might come along next year and endeavour to make their business a close preserve. The danger behind this class of legislation is that if you try to make a profession of an ordinary business, undoubtedly a close preserve will be made for some people. I do not wish to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, but I think it deserves very close consideration. I do not see the necessity for the Bill if the other measures for the protection of the public are taken in a direct way.

The Bill sets out that the council shall consist of certain people and they have suggested amendments to that. Both the original and suggested amendments propose that the new council will be appointed by the Council of the Association. I do not know anything about the Council of the Association, but I would like to know why the members should not have the appointment. That is a matter for Committee Stage. I do not think there is any necessity for making a profession of auctioneers, any more than there is any necessity of making a profession of egg and fowl dealers who also pay licences. I am sorry that Deputy Ryan did not move the amendment, so that the House would get an opportunity of examining the whole matter. As Deputy de Valera said, I think the matter could be met in a simple way, and Deputy de Valera, and people like myself who agree with that, should stand for that method.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch)

Apparently Deputy Moore took seriously what I took to be the semi-jocose remarks of Deputy O'Connell, because I cannot conceive the Government outlining a general policy for organising all crafts and trades. I do not think any such Bill would be possible. At any rate there is a great distinction between professions or trades which are handling the money of the public, and those which are not, but which are merely doing their work in the ordinary way for a wage. Deputy Moore also contrasted auctioneers with solicitors and said that solicitors have not to provide bonds. I suggest that auctioneers and solicitors are in an absolutely different position. The public is protected from fraudulent solicitors, to a large extent, by the fear that solicitors have of being struck off the rolls. If a solicitor does wrong he is brought before the Incorporated Law Society and he is not allowed to practise. As far as I understand it, an auctioneer who commits a fraud can next week or next year take out a licence and continue to practise. Of course the public will, probably, protect themselves by not dealing with such a man.

Mr. O'Connell

Why should he get a licence?

Mr. Lynch

As I understand, as long as a man planks down £10 he must get a licence. This Bill is to prevent such a thing happening. Naturally the public will take steps to protect themselves, but you have to consider a case where such a man might set up in another part of the country as an auctioneer. The Government Party have not committed themselves to the support of this Bill, so that each Deputy is free to take any line he wishes. At the same time, the majority of us believe that some such Bill as this is necessary. I agree entirely with Deputy de Valera that it will require very great scrutiny in Committee. We are supporting the Second Reading because we believe that some such Bill is necessary for the protection of the public. I believe that the Bill secures that by the provision of this bond. For that reason, I am giving the Bill my personal support. The majority of Deputies on this side are supporting it also, but each Deputy on these benches is free to take his own line. Deputy O'Connell suggested that the Minister could meet all that is to be gained by making a regulation that the person concerned should provide security by way of an insurance bond or by way of surety. I think that would require legislation. The Minister has no such power at the moment. There is admitted necessity for some type of Bill, and since this is the measure before us, I support its Second Reading. In Committee, we can see what is objectionable in it and what is not.

Mr. Fahy

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the remarks of Deputy Gorey. I conclude that the Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading is really the Bill as amended by this memorandum which the movers of the Bill have accepted, and which the House has been assured will be placed before the Committee and accepted by the promoters. I further conclude from the criticism levelled at the Bill from all sides of the House that there will be many other amendments moved in Committee, and that even when the Bill comes from Committee it may not be safe if it does not allay the fears of Deputies. Many points which would be Committee points could be mentioned. It is obvious that a man who auctions hay in Galway or some such county would not require a bond to the amount that a person auctioning property valued for thousands of pounds would require. That is, of course, a matter for Committee consideration. I support the Second Reading of the Bill on the understanding that it is not the Bill before us, but the Bill as amended in accordance with the memorandum, and that careful consideration will be given to its provisions in Committee. The title of the Bill is "An Act to make provision for the registration and control of auctioneers, valuers, house and estate agents, and for other purposes connected therewith." I think that title is wide enough to permit of any amendments we desire to introduce for the purpose of meeting any fears which are entertained. It is on that understanding that I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. O'Connell

Deputy Gorey raised a point before you, Sir, came into the Chair with regard to the type of amendments that could be introduced on Committee Stage. Section 3 sets up a council and the greater part of the Bill is built up around the council. If we proposed to delete the provision for a council—not to have a council at all—would that amendment be in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy does not want me to answer that question now.

Mr. O'Connell

I think it is a matter upon which we should have some information. The House proposes to give a Second Reading to the Bill in the hope of amending it later.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not prepared to rule whether or not an amendment is in order until I see the amendment.

Mr. Gorey

The Bill was submitted to different parties, who drew the attention of the promoters to particular provisions which were considered unnecessary. We were assured by the promoters that these requirements would be met and that anything reasonable would be accepted in Committee. If the Bill is to get a Second Reading on that understanding, is it possible to move amendments excluding any of the provisions of the Bill, even clauses that contain certain principles?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If this Bill gets a Second Reading it will go to a Joint Committee. I cannot say what the Chairman of the Joint Committee will do as regards amendments submitted.

Mr. Little

If you take the terms of the long title they are sufficiently widely drafted, if I may express an opinion on the matter here, to allow of any amendment. There is no mention of the council in the terms of the title. There is no reason why the council could not be cut out if the Committee so desired. The Bill could be amended so as to be wholly changed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill, if it gets a Second Reading, will go to a Joint Committee. As regards the point mentioned by Deputy Little, the Deputy must not take it that the question as to whether amendments are in order or not is solely governed by the title.

Mr. Little

Is not this Bill a hybrid Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Little

Therefore, it will be subject to amendment by this House when it leaves the Joint Committee?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a different point. The House has its remedy all the time.

Dr. Hennessy

I am convinced that there is a necessity for this Bill, if only in the public interest. Only six or seven months ago cases were brought to my notice in which I was asked to intervene on behalf of some poor girls from the country who were victimised by an auctioneer. That man should never have been an auctioneer. He lived in a garret. That was his only address. You might call twenty times a day, but would never find him in. After a good deal of judicious legal intimidation and after taking him into court, he reluctantly refunded the money he had received from these poor simple country girls. I do not believe that the auctioneers, bad as they are, have introduced this Bill for their own benefit. I think they realise there are black sheep amongst them and want to get rid of them. That, I think, to a great extent is the spirit that underlies the Bill. If the auctioneers wanted to advance their own interests they could have done much better by organising themselves into a trades union, membership of which would bring them more than this Bill will. As far as I can understand from the memoranda we have been supplied with, which pleases me better than the Bill itself, the auctioneers are satisfied to accept a scale of fees sanctioned by the Minister. If my interpretation of the memoranda is correct, that is a very important thing.

I do not believe in having a council elected by a limited franchise. I do not see why all the members of the Association of Auctioneers should not elect the council. I think a council elected by the full membership would command more confidence than one elected on a limited and small franchise. I hope the amendments to be introduced by the promoters of the Bill and the members of the House generally will get careful consideration. I intend voting for the Second Reading of the Bill on the condition that certain amendments are introduced on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Corry

I have studied the Bill rather carefully and I cannot see any necessity for it. I would like to know who is going to elect the council in the first instance? Three are to be appointed by the Minister, but who is going to appoint the other thirty? Deputy Hennessy referred to the proposed new Section 15. It reads:

Provided the consent of the Minister shall have first been obtained in writing, the Council shall have power to fix a minimum rate of fees which can be legally demanded by registered persons for work done or services rendered, but the failure to charge or observe said minimum rate of fees shall not be a ground for removal of any person from the Register.

The minimum rate of fees? What about the maximum? Is this ring to be formed amongst auctioneers going to fix the maximum rates? Who is going to fix the maximum rate that the unfortunate people of the country will be fleeced into paying? I would like to hear someone tell us the qualifications that will be necessary under the Act to become an auctioneer, or what degrees will have to be taken out. We will probably hear that later from the Grand Preceptor of the Black Rod. The only qualifications that I could ever attach to an auctioneer are, first, that he should be a good shouter and, more necessary still, that he should be a good liar. These, to my mind, constitute their principal qualifications.

For my part I am not prepared to see the Bill getting a Second Reading when we have no assurance as to the type of amendment that can or cannot be moved on the Committee Stage. We had experience of that before when amendments were refused because it was held they were against some principle supposed to be contained in a Bill when it got a Second Reading. I want to warn Deputies of that danger. It seems to me that the purpose of the Bill is to form a close borough for a profession that does not exist. I see no necessity for the measure at all. At present people have a way out in this sense, that if one auctioneer demands too high a fee they can go to another auctioneer whose charge is more reasonable. But if this measure is passed into law it will mean that you will have an auctioneers' ring. That would be a most dangerous precedent to establish. I entirely object to the Bill.

Mr. O'Hanlon

My inclinations are altogether against closed boroughs or closed corporations of any kind. I have had some experience of auctioneers and I say that a case has been made for this Bill. All the arguments that I have heard against it are more or less arguments in its favour. I admit that it is necessary that the public should be protected. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, Deputy Leonard read out a long list of judgments obtained against auctioneers which could not be executed. He also referred to cases in which compositions had to be made. People throughout the country have had experience of that. In many instances that was due to the fact that people with no qualifications were allowed to rush into the auctioneering business. As I know myself, some of them went into it because of the fact that a friend was about to sell some property. They paid the fee of £10, and this enabled them to earn £30 or £40 on that one transaction. Deputy Corry asked about the qualifications of auctioneers. His definition was that they should be good shouters and good liars. Would the Deputy tell us what the qualifications should be for membership of this House? The definition that the Deputy gave of auctioneers could possibly cover the qualifications necessary for membership of the Dáil.

Mr. Corry

I know that the Deputy himself is a good bluffer.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I did not hear what the Deputy said. I intend to support the Second Reading of the Bill though there are certain things in it which possibly none of us like. At any rate, I think it is a step in the right direction. If the Bill is properly handled by a joint committee of both Houses I believe that it will emerge a very useful measure for the protection of the public generally. It will mean that people who want to place their goods or property in the hands of an auctioneer will have a wide field to select from. The auctioneers carrying on business will be men with a guarantee behind them; they will be men of probity and honesty with an organisation behind them. It will ensure, too, that people's property will be properly dealt with, and that whatever money is paid in will be handed over to the vendors in full. With some little amendment, I think the measure can be made a useful one. I intend voting for the Second Reading of it.

Mr. Bennett

I intend voting for the Second Reading of the Bill, though I think the proposer made a very bad case for it. I would like to have a more detailed explanation of what the Bill proposes to do than we have got so far. At present I am completely at sea as to what the primary intention of the Bill is.

Mr. J. White

To safeguard the public.

Mr. Bennett

Deputy White says that it is intended to safeguard the public. I would like to safeguard the public, but I definitely do not know how the public are going to be protected by this Bill. If I take the cases mentioned by the proposer of the Bill, how is a bond of £2,000 going to protect the public? He mentioned the case of a man who settled at 5s. and who went down for £5,000. How are you going to protect the public against a man of that kind? To make the bond sufficiently large in that case it would have to be a bond for such a sum as would prevent all but a very small section from ever becoming auctioneers. Take another case mentioned by the proposer, when a man went down for £17,800. In such a case, unless you are going to make the bond so big that it would prevent any new man from coming into the business, the bond is going to be useless. These things may be met in Committee, but there are some things even that cannot be met in Committee. To my mind the public cannot be absolutely safeguarded, financially, in this or any other business. As far as the other provisions of the Bill are concerned, as for trying to get a man of integrity and probity, there might be a case to be made for it. Probably a case will be made for it when the Bill goes to Committee, but even before the Bill goes to Committee I think it has killed itself.

It is impossible to get by legislation any safeguard for the public in a Bill of this kind, if it is not provided for in the principle of the Bill. We all know that the reputable auctioneers of the country do practically all the business, and that they will continue to do so. The public fight shy of the man with a bad reputation.

The Minister for Fisheries alluded to the fact that an auctioneer may burst in business and start again. The public generally have some commonsense and will not entrust their business to a man of that description. The commonsense of the public will always be their greatest safeguard, and the public must be left some discretion to employ what auctioneers they like. As I say, if there could be a reasonable proposition put up that would safeguard the public, I could see a great necessity for the Bill. I am voting for the Second Reading of it just to see what amendments can be introduced to make it acceptable to the House and to me personally. I am pointing out the difficulty I see, that if the bond is to be of sufficient magnitude to protect the public in this business, it is going to have the effect of preventing the ordinary honest citizen, without a very large capital, from ever becoming an auctioneer. For that reason I think there will be grave danger in any section which is intended to safeguard the public financially in this or any other business.

Mr. Davis

I join with Deputy Bennett and other Deputies who have put forward certain objections to this Bill. I fully recognise that some protection is necessary for the public, but as the proposition is put forward in the Bill, it is protection without protection. Deputy Bennett has very lucidly pointed out that an indemnity of £2,000 will not safeguard the public against a man who is carrying out a transaction involving £20,000. £18,000 of that £20,000 will not be covered at all. Again, as Deputy Bennett has properly pointed out, when it comes to a huge transaction of £20,000, where is the man in the country who can secure a sufficient indemnity to enable him to carry out that transaction, and at the same time give the public protection? There is no such man, and the only result of such a provision would be that the auctioneering business of this country would be confined to a limited few in the near future. In a matter of this kind, the public are free agents. There are plenty of reputable auctioneers in the country, and if there are disreputable auctioneers, the man who entrusts any business to them is a man who deserves to pay for his stupidity and carelessness in the management of his own business. I agree that more protection is needed, and if the Bill had been properly drafted, so that it was clearly intended as a matter of protection, and that there were some practical suggestions contained in it that would convince anybody that it secured protection for the public and nothing else, I would agree whole-heartedly with the Bill.

I do fear, I hope I am wrong in my fears, that there are other matters underlying the Bill that certainly are not intended as protection for the public. I grant that there is such a thing as protecting the public in the case of default by men holding certain positions. Take, for instance, the position of rate collectors. The public have to be protected there, and the holder of the position has to have the necessary indemnity. He has to be guaranteed by a guarantee society. When he goes out with his warrant he must have sufficient security to cover and indemnify the public to the amount of that warrant. His books also are examined every month. These are indemnities for the public, but this Bill as it now stands does not hold any indemnity for the public. I would certainly be whole-heartedly with the moves of the Bill if I could see that protection was afforded, and if they had afforded that protection on lines which would not debar any worthy man from entering this business. I can see only one protection, protection on the lines provided by rate collectors, who secure the necessary indemnity for the public before they are handed their warrants.

Mr. D. Bourke

I just wish to say that I have an open mind on this question. I believe the public should be protected, but I think it is a shame to introduce this Bill when more important bills, such as the Transport Bill, are long delayed.

Mr. Nolan

I have never heard a Bill introduced in this House being received as well as this Bill by every individual who has spoken, but at the same time it seems rather inconsistent that each of those Deputies should say that the Bill needs amending. I would imagine if they were in any way enthusiastic about the Bill that they should have brought it in in a manner in which it would be received with less criticism.

A Deputy

Every Bill needs amending.

Mr. Nolan

Quite so. Every Bill needs amendment, but I think a Bill should be produced in a form on Second Reading that would leave the least ground for complaint. We have got three memoranda about this Bill. Each one suggests amendments. So much so that one does not know what the Bill is about at all. Personally, there are a few amendments which I would like to suggest, but I do not think that those amendments would be quite in order. I am very sorry that Deputy Dr. Ryan did not stand by his motion. My colleague has spoken about the suggested bond. The bond is limited to £2,000. A bond of £2,000 may be all right; the premium may not be very great and any ordinary auctioneer may be able to meet it, but what is a bond of £2,000 to the average individual who has to deal with an auctioneer?

I understand that the cattle salesmen in Dublin are exempt. For the life of me, I do not see why they should be exempt as they are auctioneers to all intents and purposes. I might take the mover of the Bill. He may sell cattle by auction; if he does a bond of £2,000 is required. If he sells them in the market there is no guarantee or bond required. I am not saying that Deputy Leonard is an individual who is likely to run away, but I am pointing out that as far as cattle salesmen in the market are concerned, when cattle are sold in the market, there is no guarantee for them. At first when I was interviewed by some of the auctioneers they told me they would not bring them in. They interviewed me again and told me there would be a guarantee. This evening I was interviewed and I was informed that it was intended to introduce an amendment to that effect. I do not see how such an amendment could be brought in under this Bill, because it would alter the title of the Bill, and I do not think the Ceann Comhairle would be able to accept this. The Bill is entitled "Auctioneers, Valuers, House and Estate Agents Bill." I would like to know how cattle salesmen could be brought into that Bill.

Mr. Bennett

Would that not bring in cattle dealers?

Mr. Nolan

Not necessarily. The cattle salesmen hold other people's money, cattle buyers do not. What about fowl merchants and milk merchants, if you like?

A Deputy

And every other merchant.

Mr. Nolan

The other merchants are as well entitled to a Bill as the auctioneers. It is a mockery to say that the Bill is for the protection of the public. It is not for the protection of the public. It is for the protection of a closed borough and for that only. I have spoken to a good many auctioneers. These auctioneers were in the association, but they said they were forced into the association for the simple reason that they felt that if they were not in the association before the Bill became law, they might have a difficulty in getting in afterwards. A good many auctioneers do not want this Bill at all. If the Bill passes Second Reading, we will have a motion for a Money Resolution. We will have the same people in a day or two afterwards saying that taxes are too high and that we have too many officials. In this Money Resolution the Minister will have to have a representative on the Council. That means more taxes on the people.

Mr. Davin

That is not required.

Mr. Nolan

If the Bill passes its Second Reading the Government will have to take it up and introduce a Money Resolution.

Mr. Davin

For what purpose?

Mr. Nolan

The Minister cannot have a representative on the Council without paying him, and he cannot pay him without having a resolution passed in the Dáil.

Mr. John White

Nonsense.

Mr. Nolan

Is that all you know about it? The hairdressers brought in a Bill some time ago. There is no reason why they should not get it passed. A hairdresser has as much right to have a licence as a bankrupt salesman. I am sorry that Deputy Ryan did not stand by his amendment. I daresay there is no reason why cattle salesmen should not be included, but a £2,000 bond is no good in their case. Any cattle salesman can sell £5,000 or £6,000 worth in a week. They can do away in a few weeks with £16,000. In the month of September they may have £30,000 worth of property in their possession. Therefore a bond of this amount would be of no use. If it were to take any effect it would have to be arranged in the same way as the insurance companies arrange it in the case of employers' liabilities. The premium and the bond should be for ten years. That is the only way.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I do not think that Deputy Nolan was quite serious in what he said. I believe he had some assurances from the people who introduced this Bill that the bond would be regulated. At least I have some little assurances from them that the amount of the bond would be in proportion to the amount of dealing that an auctioneer carried on over a stated period so as to ensure a reasonable amount of security. There is hardly a doubt about it. Since the war the public have been subjected to a great deal of hardship and losses through the actions of auctioneers. The Government could have stepped in and have proposed perhaps a better system of licensing auctioneers. What I would like to see and what I am sure the Committee will ensure is that this auctioneering business will not become highly centralised and left in the hands of a certain number of auctioneers down the country who have a monopoly in the good name they hold and who as often as not prevent younger people from starting. I take it the bond will be regulated so as to allow beginners to enter into what will now be the profession of auctioneering, and that it will be in proportion to the transactions carried on.

We have to deal with different classes of auctioneers. The ordinary country auctioneer is concerned with the sale of live-stock, farm implements, land and all that kind of thing. It is necessary that those men should have a certain knowledge of the value of the commodities that they sell. Here in Dublin you have men who perhaps have a greater turnover and deal with commodities that are sometimes of great value and sometimes demand information and knowledge that the average country auctioneer does not have. For that reason I think it would be very advisable if the business were put on a professional basis, and that in the near future the council that will be set up should have some form of examination. Considerable losses have been incurred by people through the country allowing auctioneers to sell valuable furniture, pictures and other objects, who did not understand the value of them. I believe those things should be offered to auctioneers who could produce some definite indication that they had passed a certain form of examination which would guarantee a knowledge of these things.

I have not the slightest doubt that the committee which will examine this Bill now will give the same information as the committee which Deputy Dr. Ryan proposes. It seems to be rather superfluous to have Deputy Ryan's committee set up. I do not think that the principles of the Bill will exclude us from introducing amendments that will make it acceptable to the community and will make it a definite guarantee. I believe it is quite broad enough, and I believe that the people who introduced it are anxious that the Bill would really attain the object they meant it to attain, that is the security of the public. At the same time I would like to see definitely guaranteed in that Bill that it would not have the effect in the different countries throughout Ireland of leaving the auctioneering business completely in the hands of certain people in each county. I think the young people ought to get an opportunity of entering that business with a bond which would be security enough for a small business. I have no misgivings in allowing the Bill to go through, and I have confidence that the committee will make such a report that we will be in a position to amend it.

Mr. White

At the present time my experience of an auctioneer is that when he gets a deposit on a farm or gets the price of furniture or cattle, and that when later on financial difficulties arise there is nothing to prevent him calling a meeting of creditors and paying a composition. I think that is not a state of affairs which should be permitted. I can only speak from the experience I have had of country auctioneers. I know myself there are a large number of respectable, honourable men in the business, but I have known in other cases where considerable difficulty had arisen between the time when a deposit had been paid to the auctioneer and the date of completion of the sale and where many an unfortunate poor man in the country lost his deposit.

Mr. O'Leary

I never heard of it, in Cork anyway.

Mr. White

Of course all the honesty of the country is concentrated in Cork. Very often a poor man loses the deposit that was paid on a farm by reason of the auctioneer getting into difficulties between the date of the sale and the date of the completion of the sale. That state of affairs should not be allowed. I believe that the Bill is very sound in principle, and for that reason I am going to vote for it. I believe if it is amended in a reasonable way and passed, that it will be a considerable safeguard to the people of the country.

Mr. Coburn

It has been stated by certain Deputies, who ostensibly support the Bill and yet are suspicious of some of its provisions, that the only argument that has been used by its promoters is that it is for the protection of the public. In my opinion that argument alone is sufficient to justify the introduction of the Bill, and that is the main reason why the Bill has been introduced. Certain analogies have been made between auctioneers and people connected with other businesses. I think it was Deputy Brennan who referred to fowl and egg dealers. There was no analogy there. The auctioneer holds the money in trust for his clients. The fowl dealer, if he buys fowl, has to pay at the time of purchase. I could hardly visualise a country-woman giving a couple of dozen fowl to a fowl dealer without being paid for them. The same thing applies to the selling of eggs. Therefore there is no analogy between auctioneers and fowl and egg dealers.

This Bill has been introduced mainly to protect the public and as such I think it should have the support of all Deputies in the House. Any one who has had experience of the auctioneering business during the past six or seven years knows that very serious losses have been incurred by people least able to bear these losses, the small farmers in the Free State, and if this Bill can do anything to prevent a repetition of such losses it will have done much to improve the position of the people in the country. For that reason, I am heartily in sympathy with the principle involved in this Bill. If there are any sections of it which do not find favour with any Deputy it might be possible, when the Committee Stage is reached, to have general agreement. I think on the whole the Bill ought to command the support of every Deputy in the House.

Mr. Cole

I do not think it is necessary at this stage to add anything to what has been said in regard to the Bill. Nearly every Deputy who has spoken has been more or less in favour of it, and they all are agreed that something of the kind is needed. Deputy Nolan, who is more interested in a Hairdressers Bill than in an Auctioneers Bill, has admitted that he has not read the Bill.

Mr. Nolan

I read it five times over.

Mr. Cole

If he had read the Bill he would have found in Section 2 that the word "auctioneer" means one who sells goods or other property. I think that should leave him without doubt in the matter. The Bill will go before a joint committee and every amendment proposed will get full consideration.

As regards Deputy O'Reilly's question about security for those who are not already in the association, they will have a much better opportunity of getting into the association now than they had years ago, because heretofore it depended altogether on the council whether or not they would be admitted. If this Bill is passed and if the council refuses to admit them for some flimsy reason, they can appeal to the court; they can place their case before the court, and if the objection to them is not reasonable they must be admitted.

As regards insurance, I think it is very unfair that auctioneers who pay their licences should have to pay several insurance premiums. I have been secured in two or three different bonds. You have got to have a bond for the Bankruptcy Court or any other receivership. If this Bill is passed one bond will cover everything, so that it will be a certain relief. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the amount of the bond. That will be considered in Committee and will probably be fixed according to the business. Somebody has said that few people would be able to enter into a bond for the large furniture business which some of the auctioneers in Dublin do. On the other hand, there would be very few of these sales. Somebody remarked that solicitors had not to enter into a bond. The Minister for Fisheries has answered that question. He said that when a solicitor defrauded he was immediately struck off the register.

Mr. O'Leary

What becomes of the people he owes the money to?

Mr. Cole

The difference between the solicitor and the auctioneer is that he cannot practise again, while the auctioneer can.

Mr. O'Leary

That is no good to the man who loses his money.

Mr. Cole

It is for the solicitors to look after that. The Land Commission have a claim on auctioneers since the 1924 Bill was passed. When an auctioneer sells farm crops he has to make sure that the annuity is paid before he pays over the purchase money; otherwise he is liable for the amount of the annuity.

Mr. Davin

What are the terms of that contract?

Mr. Cole

The Land Commission insist on the auctioneer making sure that the annuity is paid. That was imposed by an Act that was passed in 1924 or 1925. I do not think it is necessary to deal with Deputy Brennan's point in regard to egg merchants. It was asked why should the present council appoint the first council. It is for the reason that there is no one else to do it, and it is only in the first year that it will be done. Afterwards, the members of the association will appoint the council in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

I do not think there is any other serious question to decide. I think the House and everybody here is practically in favour of the Bill and everybody sees the necessity for it. I can assure you that the auctioneers are anxious that the Bill should go through this House and come out as perfect as possible. We cannot expect the Bill in its present form to be watertight. We realise the fact that though the Government Ministers here have draftsmen to prepare the Bills which they have to introduce, yet these Bills require amendment, and it is hardly to be expected that a Bill of this kind would not need very careful amendment. What we want is that the Bill should pass through the House as perfect as possible. All reasonable amendments will be accepted.

Question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time" put and agreed to.

Mr. Cole

I move:—

1. That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses, to be nominated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 61 (Private Business), be appointed to consider the Auctioneers, Valuers, House and Estate Agents Bill, 1931.

2. That all petitions against the Auctioneers, Valuers, etc., Bill, 1931, presented three clear days before the date fixed for the sitting of the Joint Committee on the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee; that the petitioners be heard either personally or by their counsel or agents against the Bill; and that counsel or agents be heard in support of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Ordered:—That a Message be sent to the Seanad communicating the foregoing resolutions and desiring their concurrence therein.