Auctioneers and House Agents Bill, 1946—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. As Deputies, I think, will agree, this is a rather simple Bill and does not require very much explanation. I probably will hear more about what is not in the Bill than what is in it.

The main purpose of the Bill is to safeguard the public from dishonest auctioneers and house agents. At present auctioneers are required to take out licences under the Auctioneers Act, 1845, and house agents who deal in houses with an annual rent over £25 are required to take out licences under the Revenue No. 1 Act, 1861. Any person who pays the appropriate licence duty can obtain a licence, however. The duty on a licence for an auctioneer is £10 and the duty on a licence for a house agent is £2. In view of the fact that property and money are regularly held in trust for their clients by auctioneers and house agents, the Government consider it desirable that untrustworthy persons should be excluded from the profession, and that auctioneers and house agents should be required to give security.

The Bill proposes that in future an auctioneer's licence or a house agent's licence should not be granted or renewed unless the applicant obtains a certificate of qualification from the District Court and lodges a deposit of £2,000, or a guarantee bond for that amount, with the accountant of the Courts of Justice. It provides that a single deposit or bond will suffice for a firm irrespective of the number of partners.

Some years ago a private Bill was brought in and the principal matter in connection with that was that the auctioneers themselves desired to have a council which would control the business. That was turned down. I think I am right in saying that the last Government were not prepared to agree to it. This Government was not prepared to agree either and the Minister for Finance, I think, indicated that in the Seanad in 1932 or 1933 Before deciding on the provisions of the present Bill, therefore, I gave careful consideration to representations which were made to me for the establishment of a council with powers to control the auctioneering business in the same way as the Incorporated Law Society controls the solicitors' profession. I came to the conclusion that there was not a good case for empowering a vocational body to control entry into the auctioneering business. I feared that the establishment of such a body would tend to make the business a "closed borough," no matter what safeguards were provided. I felt that there was not the same necessity for insisting on technical qualifications in the case of auctioneers and house agents as there is in the case of solicitors; and furthermore, it seemed to me that, on account of the variety of the work performed by auctioneers, it would be very difficult for a council to fix a uniform standard of competency for licensing.

It was suggested to me that a council would at least require a period of apprenticeship before admitting any person to be an auctioneer. I am doubtful as to whether such a requirement could be justified, however. For instance, there is no doubt that many farmers, who have never been apprenticed to the auctioneering business, would make better auctioneers of farms and farm produce than persons who have served apprenticeships in the offices of auctioneers who specialise in other classes of business. For these reasons I formed the view that it would be unwise to attempt to regulate the auctioneering and house agency business, except in so far as is necessary to prevent untrustworthy people and "men of straw" from entering the business. I think the auctioneers themselves will be at one with me in that matter. They are very concerned at the situation that exists, as there is nothing to prevent even a person with a criminal record from becoming an auctioneer as things stand at present.

The deposit of £2,000 is not intended to provide complete insurance against frauds. It is intended to provide a minimum guarantee, in order to ensure that newcomers to the business will not be tempted to make away with the first few hundred pounds which come into their hands. I am glad to be able to say that in recent years we have not had a single case where an auctioneer of long standing was found guilty of fraud. Nearly all the cases which came before the courts were cases of men who went wrong at the very start and in nearly all cases the sums converted amounted to only a few hundred pounds. The matter was recently referred to in the Dublin Circuit Court and I think the judge expressed concern at the fact that untrustworthy people could become auctioneers. I think that the £2,000 deposit should be sufficient to ensure against defalcations of this kind.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I should like to say at the outset that I welcome this Bill as far as it goes. My only regret is that it does not go far enough. The Minister made it clear that his concern and the concern of the Government was to safeguard the public. Unquestionably, in the Bill before us the Minister goes a certain distance to do that. My quarrel with the Bill, and I think it is the quarrel of the auctioneers' association, is that it does not go far enough, not nearly far enough, to protect the public. I want to make it clear that this Bill does not confer a single benefit on auctioneers. In fact it imposes on them considerable financial obligations and a good deal more trouble and expense in various ways. So far as I know, there is no reputable auctioneer in the country who objects to anything that is contained in this Bill, with the few minor exceptions that I hope to have set right on Committee Stage. In fact, as the Minister and, I think, the House, know, the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Association have been pressing for legislation for at least 15 or 16 years.

The trouble about this Bill is that it talks about an auctioneer or a person who wishes to take out an auctioneer's licence obtaining a certificate of qualification. It is not a certificate of qualification because there is no test whatever in the Bill as to the applicant's competence to carry out all or any of the duties which an auctioneer usually has to carry out in the course of his business. Therefore, may I suggest that it is not right to talk about the certificate as being a certificate of qualification?

It is merely a certificate of personal fitness and any person who may go before a court and who is a respectable, decent man in the ordinary way, but who might be entirely unfit, for one reason or another, who may not have the remotest idea of the value of anything from a chair to an estate, must get a certificate and the court would not be carrying out the intention of this Bill if it refused to grant him a certificate.

That is the main objection of reputable auctioneers to this Bill. It is the main objection of the association, so far as I know it and, certainly, from whatever experience I have, personally, it is my objection to it also. It is quite legitimate for anybody to say to me: "What experience had you when you started or what experience had any of your colleagues when they started?" Frankly, I had no experience beyond whatever little common sense I may possess and, of course, as I grew older in the business and acquired knowledge and experience I began to realise how little in fact I did know about the business when I started. It is for that reason that I can appreciate all the more that an incompetent auctioneer or valuer may unwittingly be responsible for severe and heavy losses to a person who entrusts his property to him either for sale or for valuation. I do not wish to weary the House by quoting actual cases which came under my notice, particularly cases of valuations being made, where property was valued in such a way as to entail severe financial loss to the person whose property was valued or, as happened in very many cases, severe financial loss to the revenue. That is the main objection.

The Minister said—and, speaking from recollection, I think he is correct when he says that the Government's predecessors had the same view—that one of the reasons why the Government refused to agree to the council or to registration was that it would tend to make the business a closed borough. There is no such intention so far as the auctioneers are concerned and so far as the auctioneers' association is concerned. To give the House some idea of the right of the association to speak for auctioneers, I may say that there are over 500 auctioneers members of that association and those 500 are spread over the country, not confined even to the Twenty-Six Counties.

There has been a good deal of misunderstanding of this Bill. There has been a good deal of misrepresentation. I know about the misrepresentation and I know the reasons for it and I know the people who are responsible for it. They are the very people against whom this legislation is aimed. They are the people who are setting out that if we got registration or a council it would mean a closed borough, that it would be a matter of holding it for the big fellows. There is not a shred of truth in that. The original suggestion was that there should be a council set up, that the members of that council would be nominated by the existing licensed auctioneers in the country and that a number of the members of that council would be nominated by the Minister; that the regulations for admission to practise in the business of auctioneer and valuer would be drafted by that council but would have to be submitted to and sanctioned by the Minister so as to ensure that that council would not impose any impossible regulation or any regulation which would keep any ordinary person who was entitled to engage in the business from engaging in it. I want to make that clear.

Another piece of misrepresentation and, to some extent, misunderstanding is on the question of the deposit. We are told that the deposit of £2,000, either by way of cash or securities or insurance bond, is brought in deliberately to keep the small man out. You can take it from me that if that were so I would not be supporting this Bill because I am one of the small men who probably would be kept out myself. Another point in connection with that that is put abroad is that the cost of the premium for such a bond would be severe. So far as I am given to understand, the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Association have been assured by a number of reputable insurance companies that the annual premium on a bond of £2,000 would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £10. I suggest that is not an undue burden to be placed upon any man who proposes to engage in this business and I further suggest that any man of any standing, in the country, city, or anywhere else, will have little difficulty in obtaining a bond from any registered insurance company operating in this country.

That is one side of the criticism I have heard of the Bill. The other side I have heard is that the amount fixed for the bond is not sufficient. Some people say it should be far higher. If it were fixed at a far higher figure, there would be perhaps some truth in the criticism that it would keep out certain people who legitimately ought to be allowed to act as auctioneers, estate agents, house agents, valuers, and so on. Two thousand pounds are not going to be, as the Minister has stated, a complete cover or guarantee for people whose money is held in trust by auctioneers. To those who would be inclined to object to the deposit I would like to point out that auctioneers—and I speak now not merely of the few men at the top of the business or profession but of auctioneers generally throughout the country—hold in their possession from time to time very, very large sums of money. In some sales deposits run into considerable amounts. In other sales, if any legal or technical difficulties arise regarding title or anything else, deposits may remain in the hands of the auctioneer for a considerable time. I think it is only right that there should be some protection afforded to those people to whom such money belongs.

The Minister has very truly said that there have been very, very few cases where reputable auctioneers have done away with money, the property of their clients. As far as I know, in those cases where money has been embezzled, it has been by auctioneers whom I can only describe as "a mushroom growth." An absurd position exists under the present law whereby any person with £2 in his pocket can walk in at any time and purchase a house agent's licence just as easily as he can purchase a 2½d. stamp. Having done that he can hold himself out as a house agent. He can canvass an owner for a house and he can tell that owner that he has a buyer. Perhaps he may produce a buyer. He receives a deposit of £200, or £300, or perhaps £500. Now that house may be the only asset that the person who is selling it has in the world. That person may never see that £500. If a man has £10 in his pocket he can walk into the office and get a licence which entitles him to hold himself out as an auctioneer, an estate agent, or a valuer. He need possess no qualification of any kind and nobody will ever raise any query. The system in operation at the present time is absurd. I admit that there have been comparatively few cases where fraud has taken place.

Mr. Boland

About 13 in the last 12 years.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is what I say; it is not a very large number. But, even though the number is not large, it is desirable that this House should put a check upon it.

The Minister said that one of the principal reasons why they would not agree to registration or to the setting up of a council was because it would be difficult to fix a standard of competence. I cannot see where the difficulty arises. As long ago as 1931 a suggestion was made that a council should be set up consisting of existing auctioneers throughout the country together with a certain proportion of members nominated by the Minister himself. The purpose of such a council would be to draft regulations governing entrance into the profession and the qualifications required before a licence would be issued. These regulations would have been submitted to and sanctioned by the Minister. In my opinion, that would have provided a full safeguard and would have ensured that the profession could not be made a closed borough.

I think that this Bill takes us only a certain distance, and a very short distance at that. Only partial protection is given under it and that partial protection consists of the £2,000 bond or deposit. The question of competence does not arise at all. Until such time as some definite regulations are made regarding competence there will not be a sufficient safeguard. Those of us who are in the business—even in a comparatively small way—realise that every day one comes up against problems as to the value of a house, the value of an acre of land, the value of a farm, the value of a piece of furniture and a hundred and one other items. The person who asks to have a valuation made of such property is completely dependent upon the valuer for a just and equitable valuation. On the competence of the valuer will depend whether that person is going to get a just price or suffer a serious loss. I regret that the Minister has not seen his way to accept even in principle the question of registration. If that had been accepted, then it would have been a simple matter to adjudicate upon competence and it would have been comparatively easy to frame a section, or sections, in such a way as to ensure that nothing could arise in the nature of a closed borough.

I would like to assure the Minister and assure the House that, so far as the auctioneers and estate agents are concerned, it is not the intention and never was the intention to make this profession a closed borough. While I do not suggest that we are absolutely or completely blind to our own interests in the matter, I must say to the credit of practically every member of the association that their main consideration at all times is to protect the public and, in protecting the public, to protect their own good name. We know that in every profession there are a certain number of black sheep who appear in our law courts from time to time, and the tendency is for the public to paint every member of the profession in identical colours. I am not satisfied that it is beyond the capacity of the Minister to fix a standard of competence which would meet with general approval.

I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but I regret that it does not go far enough. There are, I think, a few points requiring clarification. In the title of the Bill there is no mention made of valuers at all. As everybody knows, the usual title is auctioneers, valuers and estate or house agents. I do not know whether there is any point or any significance in that omission. I want to refer the Minister to Section 7, sub-section (2) (c). That seems to me to introduce something which cuts across the whole principle of the Bill. A person who may be engaged for a week, or two, or ten weeks, or ten months as a rent collector is brought in under the Bill, but he will avoid all the obligations that are placed upon every auctioneer and house agent under the Bill. I do not think that is helpful. It might be a question of one house, or it might be a question of 20 houses, or it might be a question of a very large estate. I do not think that any person, merely by virtue of the fact that he has been appointed a rent collector, should be armed with the full powers of a house agent without having to go before the courts or take out the necessary licence. Unless the Minister has a very strong reason for that, I think it would be better if it were omitted altogether from the Bill.

Section 9 deals with a rather new feature. It deals with auction permits as distinct from auction licences. I am not at all clear whether only one individual in a firm can get a permit to conduct an auction. Let me put it this way to the Minister. There may be an auctioneer working on his own, and either because of the fact that he is doing a very large volume of business, or because he may not be in the very best of health himself, he may require for the successful and efficient carrying out of his business, to have one, two or even three members of his staff qualified and competent to conduct auctions. The section as it stands at the moment is certainly not very clear to me. Sub-section (2) says:—

"An application under sub-section (1) of this section shall be accompanied by the excise duty payable on an auction permit."

I do not know what the amount would be there. I know what the amount is for a licence but what is the amount for an auction permit as distinct from the licence?

Mr. Boland

The same, I believe.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It is the old story of cutting a stick to beat yourself. This is certainly a stick to beat ourselves. There are one or two other matters to which I would like to refer. There is one rather serious matter-at least we look upon it as very serious—dealt with in sub-section (4) of Section 19. The sub-section states:—

"Any member of the Gárda Síochána may, at the request of an officer of customs and excise, arrest without warrant any person conducting an auction who, when requested by the said officer so to do, fails to produce and show forthwith to such officer an auctioneer's licence or auction permit under which he is authorised to conduct the auction or in lieu thereof to deposit immediately with such officer the sum of £10."

Those of us who drive cars know that we occasionally go out without our driving licences in our pockets. The licence may have been paid for and left at home inadvertently. I can quite readily conceive myself conducting an auction having forgotten my permit and certainly not having £10 to hand to an officer in lieu of the production of my licence. I think that to give a customs officer authority to command the Guards to arrest me or any other auctioneer without a warrant, and to take me away forthwith, perhaps in the middle of an auction, is going a little too far. Mind you, if you remove an auctioneer in the middle of some auctions you might have to send for a squad of Guards to look after the stuff left behind by the auctioneer. I should like the Minister to look into that matter again. These are just a few points with which we shall deal more fully on Committee.

To sum up my remarks, I should like to emphasise again that this Bill does not confer one single benefit on any existing auctioneer. There is again a misunderstanding on a further point. Some people seem to think that when this Bill becomes law, it will not be necessary for existing auctioneers to go through the procedure laid down in the Bill-to go to a District Court in order to obtain a licence. The fact is that any person who wishes to carry on an auctioneering or house agent's business after the Bill becomes law will have to go through the procedure set down. That is why I say it does not confer a single benefit on existing auctioneers. It is going to inflict obligations on auctioneers, perhaps for some auctioneers very substantial financial obligations, but so far as I know there is no reputable auctioneer who objects to any of the obligations which the Bill proposes with the exception of the few items which I have mentioned. On the contrary, not only do we welcome it but we have been urging the passage of a Bill like this for the last 15 years. Secondly, I would direct the attention of the House to the fact that there is not a single provision in the Bill directed towards the question of a person being competent in any degree either as an auctioneer, house agent or valuer. There is no question whatever of any test. I have already suggested to the Minister and to the House that it is wrong to talk in this Bill about a qualification certificate. The certificate has nothing whatever to do with the person's qualifications to be an auctioneer. It is merely a matter of personal fitness.

I think I have dealt sufficiently clearly already with the question of the deposit. The fact is that no person of any standing whatever, whether in the city or the country, should have any difficulty in obtaining the necessary guarantee bond which the Act requires for a sum of £2,000. I think it will be found that that deposit will be of value, particularly to the small owners of property. These are the people to whom a loss would mean far more than to a person who has other property or means. I think I have covered as many points as it is possible for me to cover. I have tried to make the position of existing auctioneers as clear as I can. We welcome the Bill. We regret that the Minister has not found it possible to include sections which would give some guarantee of competence. However, I can assure the Minister of our utmost help and co-operation in his efforts to strengthen the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Healy

I, too, welcome the Bill. I consider it a measure that is long overdue, but I am rather disappointed with some of the terms of it. There is no doubt that there were some people —I will admit they were very few—who obtained auctioneers' licences who should not have received them. It is obvious that when this Bill becomes law more supervision will be exercised in the issuing of auctioneers' licences. As I say, I welcome the Bill, but I am disappointed that it has not gone far enough. The only protection it gives to the public is that the applicant for a licence must apply to the courts and anyone who is interested can object. A deposit of £2,000 must be paid or an assurance bond must be given in lieu of it. The sum of £2,000 in my opinion, is too high for auctioneers who carry on business in rural areas, but, on the other hand, it is too low for auctioneers who carry on business in the cities and larger towns. In my constituency in South Kerry there has been no great increase in the price of land. The farms are small and, with the exception of good pockets of land or land in the proximity of towns, the average-sized farm could be bought for £500. Then it must be remembered that auctioneers carrying on business in rural areas carry on such business as a side-line. They have other businesses and other interests. If these auctioneers are compelled to take out a bond for £2,000, it will be putting them to extra expense for which there is no necessity. A bond of £500 would be sufficient to meet the case. Small farms do not realise very much money and, as the auctioneers only hold deposits, there is not justification for asking those in rural areas to provide bonds of £2,000.

Like Deputy Morrissey, I am very disappointed that the Minister did not introduce a section compelling an applicant for an auctioneer's licence to show that he has some knowledge of the business, that he is familiar with the value of house property and of land, and has some knowledge of the law. I have seen people acting as auctioneers who knew nothing about the value of land. They were unable to advise clients in that respect, and were scarcely able to fill in the contract in the conditions of sale. I am not suggesting that the District Courts should be turned into examination bureaus, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister should be able to find a means by which persons applying for licences should show that they had some experience of business.

I am not in agreement with the procedure to be adopted. There is no necessity to compel an auctioneer to go to the court every year for a renewal of a licence. It is right that an applicant for a licence, in the first instance, should go to the court, but I do not see the point in requiring a man to go there every time he is seeking a renewal. Everybody familiar with court work knows that when an application goes before a district justice, he asks the superintendent if he has any objection, and if he has not, the licence is granted. I suggest that the procedure for renewal should be that the qualification certificate should be signed by the superintendent, and if he did not do so, the applicant should have the right to appeal to the District Court. That would be sufficient to meet the case.

It has been stated that this Bill was brought in in order to protect the public. As far as I am aware, an applicant for an auctioneer's licence had to pay £10 but under the new procedure it will probably cost £24. Seeing that the amount is being increased no protection is needed.

The Bill is very silent on one matter which, I think, is of importance. Deputy Morrissey did not refer to it. It concerns the amount of fees paid to auctioneers. At present they are paid a flat rate of 5 per cent. There is discontent throughout the country about the fees, as both vendors and purchasers consider them to be too high. I cannot see any reason why auctioneers should be paid at such high rates. It should be remembered that solicitors' fees are fixed on a sliding scale. I do not see any reason why a similar method should not be adopted for auctioneers' fees. They receive 5 per cent. on a £1,000 sale, and the same rate on a £20,000 sale. There is no justification for that, and the Minister would be well advised to bring regulations placing some restrictions on fees.

I agree with Deputy Morrissey that sub-section (4) of Section 19 should be removed. There is absolutely no justification for giving an officer of customs and exise power to arrest an auctioneer if he has not his licence in his possession. A situation might arise where a respectable auctioneer, conducting a sale, might, by an oversight, not have the licence in his pocket and in order that he would not be arrested, he would have to borrow £10 from someone. The provision set out in the section is not sufficient to prevent arrest in such a case, and the Minister should be very reluctant to give such power. I cannot see any value in that sub-section, because the auctioneer can avoid arrest by handing £10 to the officer of customs and exise and then carry on. Looking at the matter in that way the sub-section is not of any value.

I direct the Minister's attention to the fact that fresh fish sales are excluded by the Bill. I have seen cured fish sold by auction on a few occasions.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

In so far as this Bill is designed to remove a number of serious defects that now exist it is bound to meet with general approval. The overriding consideration must be the public interest and, as far as I can observe, that protection is given, particularly in Section 14, by the bond of £2,000 which is to be provided. It is true that there is a certain amount of uneasiness among small auctioneers, who think that a bond of £2,000 might be prohibitive, and calculated to put them out of business. My own view is that that is a misunderstanding. They seem to be under the impression that they will have to make a physical deposit of £2,000, whereas the Bill provides a way out, a bond from an insurance company, involving only a premium. In that respect I might point out that rate collectors are entrusted with public moneys, and have to have a bond. Apparently the Minister is applying the same system here. There is a good deal in the view expressed that there might be a grading of the amount of the bond as within rural areas, small towns and cities. The volume of business transacted in a small town is obviously not on a par with that dealt with in an office in Dublin. There is room for grading there, so as to make it equitable, and in accord with the amount of business transacted, especially when we see the value to which house property has soared.

The main weakness in the Bill is that adverted to, that Section 13 does not prescribe any standard of efficiency in respect to individuals to whom licences are granted. I should like to ask the Minister how a district justice would decide that an applicant was a proper person to be an auctioneer. Is it to be presumed that he is a fit and proper person because he is of good character, and in a position to provide a bond for £2,000? In the world we see around us to-day, obviously that is not sufficient. He may be an excellent man by repute, and may be in a position to provide a bond, but he may be hopelessly unsuited to a position which is highly complex and exceedingly responsible. The only way in which the standard of efficiency can be prescribed is by a system of apprenticeship. And referring to apprenticeship, may I say that some firms in this city might improve their standards? Those of them who take fees ought to ensure that the individuals from whom they take the fees will have an opportunity of learning their business as they should learn it during the period of apprenticeship. I am informed that some of these young men are engaged for most of their time on routine office work and that they never, or rarely, get an opportunity of learning the business.

I adhere to the principle of apprenticeship as a solution of the problem of competency. A condition should be prescribed by which the young man who goes into this very important business will undergo an examination, the same as in any other business, at different periods, with a view to the ascertainment of his standard of efficiency. There is no provision for that form of apprenticeship in the Bill. Section 13 merely prescribes that an individual shall go to the District Court and will get his licence if he fulfils the conditions, and, incidentally I might suggest to the Minister that that section, as drawn, might be very unfair to certain applicants in that there is no provision for appeals.

Returning to the matter of apprenticeship, I feel that the only way in which a system of apprenticeship can be operated—and naturally I am viewing this whole matter in the light of what I see around me in the City of Dublin rather than in the rest of the country—is under some organisation such as that which already exists in relation to the auctioneering business and which has done exceedingly well over a number of years. I have seen the case made by the association for a council of registration and council of control, and, unless the Minister has very grave objections to it on the lines that it might lead to what might be termed a closed borough, the case will stand a good deal of argument.

The auctioneers have an association for a considerable time, the members of which are men of repute, and in that association, with suitable safeguards whereby the Minister would have complete and absolute power, I see the ideal way of dealing with this matter of apprenticeship. It is a tribute to the people engaged in this business that there has been such a very small number of defaulters in the last dozen years-something like 13 in 12 years. That is an excellent record. As I say, I have read their case and find it very hard to combat the arguments they put forward for registration and a council of control, particularly as it would concede to me the point, which I think is most important, of competency being achieved through a system of apprenticeship.

A good deal might be said on the question of licences, but obviously it is linked with the matter of the bond. We have the rather archaic position in which a house agent at present can set up in business in relation to furnished premises by paying a premium of £2, whereas the individual who wants to deal with unfurnished premises need pay nothing at all. There is, however, the rather more serious question—and I am not so sure that the position is remedied by this Bill—that an individual convicted of fraud during the period of his licence——

Mr. Boland

That is covered by Section 18.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

It seemed to be absurd that an individual convicted of fraud could subsequently operate as an auctioneer. I should like to support the view expressed with regard to sub-section (4) of Section 19. Reading that sub-section, it struck me that the Minister embodied it for the purpose of seeing how the House would react to it. The procedure is of a rather cut and thrust type and I have no doubt it will be suitably amended in Committee.

Mr. Cosgrave

The fact that auctioneers have a great responsibility to the community and more particularly to their clients makes it necessary that this Bill should receive serious consideration. Deputy Morrissey has adverted to the portions of the Bill which might require strengthening and I should like to support him in that view, primarily on the question of qualifications. A rather commendable procedure is adopted in the Bill which will make it incumbent on an applicant for an auctioneer's licence to go before the District Court and involve himself in the publicity which the 28 days' notice must give him, with the result that anyone who knows any reason why he should not receive a licence will be afforded both time and the opportunity in which to oppose the granting of that licence but assuming that there is no opposition and that the superintendent of the Guards accepts the applicant as a fit and proper person in every way to be granted a licence, I consider that that individual may be entirely unsuitable for carrying on the business of auctioneering and estate valuing. The certificate which the District Court will give him will be only a certificate of personal fitness, and I suggest to the Minister that, if he does not accept the suggestion made by Deputy Morrissey, which, I understand, is the suggestion adopted by the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Association, that a council should be set up to consider future applicants, at any rate, he should prescribe certain statutory conditions which an applicant would have to fulfil before getting the licence.

Section 13 says:—

"An application for a certificate of qualification may be refused on any of the following grounds:—

(a) that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a certificate,

(b) that the applicant is an undischarged bankrupt,

(c) that the applicant is disqualified under Section 18 of this Act from holding an auctioneer's licence or a house agent's licence,

(d) that an auctioneer's licence or house agent's licence previously held by the applicant has been suspended or cancelled under Section 18 of this Act.

While Section 18 disqualifies anybody convicted of fraud or dishonesty, the other qualifications imposed by Section 13 are entirely inadequate, and the Minister should well consider the desirability of setting out clearly certain qualifications. I think that any person engaging in the auctioneer's business should have served some period of apprenticeship. It is quite true that when many big auctioneers, men with a good name established by reason of many years of satisfactory and honest service to the community, started originally, they had no particular qualifications and, as Deputy Morrissey said, they acquired their qualifications after years of experience, years, possibly, which involved in some degree losses to their clients, not through dishonesty, fraud or neglect but by reason of the fact that the individuals concerned were not fully able to give expert opinion on the value of property. By reason of their inability to give that expert opinion, the individuals whom they advised were at a loss or were obliged to sell property at prices lower than those they would normally have fetched. Of course, it is true to say that if property is put up at auction the value is very often stated to be what the vendor can get for it. When the auctioneer holds the auction and there are sufficient bidders, it may make its value or it may not. At any rate, the auction has been held and the vendor has had a full opportunity of having his property put before the public. The prospective purchasers have had an equal opportunity of deciding what they consider a fair end proper value for it. But, in view of the fact that no qualifications have ever been required for any person acting as an auctioneer, I think the Minister should seriously consider the desirability of having a council of advisers, or, at any rate, inserting certain statutory provisions.

The other matter to which I should like to refer is the question of the bond. The question of the bond has been received with mixed feelings in the House. Some people consider the amount provided for is not sufficient. Some people probably consider that for certain areas the amount is too big. The bond certainly may work inequitably. An auctioneer in a remote rural district or in one of the smaller towns will be dealing with property of far less value than an auctioneer in one of the bigger cities or towns. Nowadays property has appreciated so much in value, however, that what was formerly regarded as a large sum of money is not now so regarded. Formerly, £2,000 was regarded as a big sum, but, with the great appreciation in prices and values, it is not now so regarded. I suggest to the Minister, however, that, instead of a bond being required from auctioneers, all moneys received by auctioneers should be regarded as trustee moneys; that moneys paid to auctioneers or by auctioneers to clients for property should be treated as trustee money; that the auctioneers should be under a legal obligation which would leave the client in a position to demand that the money should be placed to a trustee account.

At the moment, I understand that banks keep trustee accounts for minors and wards and manage trustee business, if so required, but that would not mean that banks would undertake the management of trustee accounts under this Bill. It could, however, be overcome, if necessary, by amending the law to enable banks to treat all moneys coming into the hands of auctioneers, or anyone who is in a position similar to an auctioneer, who has a responsibility to the vendor to see that he is paid his money and a responsibility to the purchaser to see that the money which he deposits goes into the proper hands, in such a way that both parties are effectively safeguarded so far as the transfer of the money from one to the other is concerned.

I suggest to the Minister that, if he adopts a proposal which would allow both the purchaser and the vendor or anyone dealing with auctioneers to require the auctioneer to put the money to a trustee account, it would prevent the possibility of fraud. While it is very satisfactory to know that there have been only 13 cases of fraud in about the same number of years, it would certainly guarantee the money for the vendor and the purchaser and, at the same time, it would free auctioneers from the burden of taking out a bond for £2,000 or whatever sum is decided upon. From what Deputy Morrissey says, it is obvious that a very small expense is placed on a person who wishes to take out a bond. If you can get a £2,000 bond for £10 or £12, then the financial commitments of the auctioneer are limited. I certainly suggest to the Minister, if he is keeping this provision in the Bill and proposes to stand over it, that he should not reduce the amount of the bond because property nowadays has appreciated so much that a £2,000 bond is not by any means an excessive burden on an auctioneer.

As to the question of fees, I suppose anyone who is not in business imagines, when he sees a person in any line of business doing well, that the fees are excessive. Lay people probably imagine that lawyers get excessive fees. Lawyers probably imagine that auctioneers get excessive fees and I suppose auctioneers consider that lawyers get excessive fees. But, by and large, I think that the fees are reasonable. It may be that fees should be on a sliding scale. Where a certain fee is payable on property of a limited valuation and then, as property appreciates, the same fee is payable, there may be something to be said for a sliding scale. But, on the whole, I think fees are fairly reasonable. While considerable objection may be made by those not actually acquainted with the business, it must be remembered that there are expenses which auctioneers are obliged to undergo for advertising, etc., which must be met out of whatever fees they get. Of course, in certain cases I understand that auctioneers make it part of the bargain that they will be refunded all expenses. While other values in the community have increased considerably in later years, all forms of professional fees have, I think, remained more or less static. If a revision is necessary, then a revision of fees in general and of all forms of payment for services rendered should be undertaken. Subject to these remarks, I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Byrne

The Bill is a step in the right direction and is welcomed by every auctioneer of repute in the country. The Bill is a recognition of their profession, because it is a profession. They deal with large sums of the public's money and the public must have great confidence in those to whom they entrust their money and upon whom they depend to see that they get good value. Therefore, I say that it is a profession which is worthy of the recognition which the Government is giving to it. The public are also being protected. I wish to congratulate the Minister on the effort he is making to protect the public. I do not see much difficulty with regard to newcomers into the business and I do not believe that this will drive out the small men. It would not drive out the small man. The Minister is not insisting on a cash deposit or on a security. An insurance bond or a fidelity bond, as is taken out by rate collectors and other public officials, will be sufficient and that can be secured for anything up to £25 premium for £2,000. Personally, I regard it as a very proper safeguard. The applicant for a licence should be recommended by his local Gárda superintendent as a fit and proper person to hold a licence and to practise in the business and, having been accepted as a fit and proper person, thereafter his fee should be accepted, in the same way as a publican pays his licence duty, unless there is a conviction recorded against him or unless the Gárda superintendent knows of something he has done that is not in accordance with the regulations. I do not think it would be right to ask a member of the profession to apply to the courts every year for a licence. All that should be required is the first application and the granting of a certificate of fitness.

The Minister in regard to Section 9 referred to a permit being applied for. I want to know what is the meaning of that. Why should there be a permit to auction if there is already a licence to auction? I earnestly hope that it does not mean that a person outside this country can come to this country and make an immediate application for a permit to carry out some very big auction and then to leave the country. In my opinion, the only person who should be allowed to auction in this country are those with at least five years' residence in the country and who have the high recommendation of the Gárda superintendent. I do not think there is any danger of an outsider coming to this country to hold an auction but it is possible that the representative of a large concern across the Channel might be appointed to wind up an estate here or to auction off ground rents, and I do not think that should be permitted. There should be at least a five years' residence qualification.

Three or four months ago a woman came to me to complain that the £100 deposit that she had paid on apprenticing her boy to an auctioneer could not be recovered. What would be the first claim on the £2,000 in case of default? There should be some priority. What would be the position of the apprentices in the case of a firm that defaulted where the apprentices had paid £100 or £200 fee?

I may be treading on dangerous ground and I trust that Deputy Morrissey and others who are interested will bear with me, but I think there is room for more provisions in the Bill regulating the business of auctioneers. There is always an odd black sheep who attempts poaching. Poaching in the auctioneering world is not new. A prominent firm of auctioneers may be asked to sell a particular property and his bills will be put on the property. and he may advertise the property. Another auctioneer may find out about the property and may interview a prospective buyer. There may be difficulty in the case where the buyer has interviewed two auctioneers and the question then is which auctioneer is to receive the commission. I know that the code of honour in the profession is very high, as high as in any other profession, but there is a possibility of such a case arising and I would ask the Minister to see that rules and regulations are laid down. I hope Deputy Morrissey and the other speakers will not mind my drawing attention to that matter but I know it has happened more than once that a buyer had the misfortune to interview the representatives of two firms and that a dispute arose.

Personally, I welcome the Bill, but I would almost go so far as to ask the Minister to withdraw it and to bring in a fuller Bill. The Bill before the House does not deal with all the points that have been raised in the past few years and, as the Minister anticipated in his opening remarks, more fault has been found with what is not in the Bill than with the provisions in the Bill. I congratulate those who have shown the Minister the necessity for bringing in such a measure and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it in. It is a step in the right direction and gives certain protection to the public but perhaps not to the extent that is required.

Most of the provisions of this Bill have been taken from the old Act. Section 19 has been taken almost word for word from the old Act. I do not think it should be permissible under this Bill for a revenue official to demand the arrest of any person without a warrant. I think that is entirely wrong. Apart from the sections dealing with the bond and the certificate of competency, the rest of the Bill is a repetition of the Act already in force.

With regard to the bond, there is an acute difference of opinion as to whether it is too high or too low. An auctioneer doing a small business in a rural area might consider a bond of £10 or £12 too high. An auctioneer doing a large business in the city might consider the present bond too low. However, I do not think that the bond is such as will prevent anyone from going into the business.

Deputy Healy objects to the fees which auctioneers charge. Solicitors charge certain fees to their clients and solicitors will charge auctioneers when they go into court. I would like to point out that an auctioneer does not charge a client a fee of two guineas every time he interviews him. He does not charge him 10/- or a guinea when he writes a letter for him. I do not object to the fees which solicitors get. Their work is just as onerous as that of auctioneers on occasions.

With regard to the point made by Deputy Cosgrave that auctioneers should be compelled to put the moneys they handle into a trustee security, or a bank, I want to point out that the auctioneer is himself the trustee for the money which he handles We must trust somebody in this country, otherwise business will come to a standstill. Auctioneers have proved themselves fully competent to handle large sums of money. Auctioneers have been in existence since the beginning of time and long before Christendom. At one time an auction was held for the Emperor of Rome. The Emperor was appointed as a result of that auction. Two armies were camped outside the walls of Rome and each army was headed by a rival prince. The princes were held up to auction and the prince who provided the most money was made Emperor of Rome. I take it the army subsequently divided the "swag" between them.

Another system was in operation too in those early days which I think might be adopted with some advantage at the present time. No man could get married unless he got his wife in the auction ring. It was a very good idea. I do not say it would be a good thing for this country, but the system was that the wealthy man had to pay heavily for his bride, while the poor man was given £1,000 to take away his bride. The wealthy man paid £5,000, we will say, for a good-looking wife, and the poor man was paid £1,000 to take away an ugly one. I merely say this to show that auctioneering goes back almost to pre-historic times. It has been carried on most successfully in this country by the people engaged in it and the standard of the profession is very high. The amount of fraud which has taken place is comparatively small when one considers the enormous sums of money that auctioneers handle day in and day out.

The price for agricultural produce and for land is very little different, not more than 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. from that which prevailed before the war. In the city, on the other hand, there is a boom in house property and in business premises. It must be remembered, however, that there is a very large number of auctioneers in the city and when the business is divided amongst them, it can scarcely be said that they are overburdened. None of them has a monopoly. I hope the Minister will not agree to the suggestion made from the Opposition Benches that he should allow a council to determine who should and who should not be auctioneers, any more than we should ask a certain body to determine who should or should not be barbers. I think the Minister was wise in introducing the Bill. With some slight amendments, I am sure the Bill will prove to be that safeguard for the public which the Minister desired to provide in introducing it.

Mr. Cogan

On the broad principle that the Government is a bad Government, that the Minister is a bad Minister, and that everything that the Government set themselves to do is bad, I should like to be able to describe this as a bad Bill. However, I have read it fairly carefully, I have listened to the speeches that have been delivered in the debate, and I am satisfied that the Bill does not call for any drastic amendment. I doubt very much if it can be improved in any of its sections.

It strikes me that the deposit required is fair, is not excessive, and, that on the broad average, it is not fixed too low. So far as the certificate required is concerned, I think it will serve a useful purpose inasmuch as it demands a certain amount of publicity before a person is admitted into the auctioneering profession. That publicity through the District Court, and through the intervention of the officers of the Gárda, will ensure that no exceptionally bad character will enter the profession. Having regard to the fact that the profession has been open to all citizens at a very modest fee up to the present, it is remarkable that there have been very few defaulters in the business. I think the standard of honesty and honour in the auctioneering profession of this country has been always very high. That may be due to the fact that those in the business have set a high standard and have more or less forced everybody who comes into it to adhere to that standard. I think that is satisfactory and, to a great extent, it is better to let well enough alone, so far as we can. Therefore, I am against a very drastic change which would have the effect of restricting entrance to the profession.

Deputy O'Sullivan made a very able speech in which he advocated the advantages of apprenticeship. There may be a considerable amount in what he has said, so far as the auctioneering business in the city is concerned. I do not profess to know anything about that business, therefore I cannot express an opinion. It may be true that the obligation to serve an apprenticeship might be beneficial there but, so far as auctioneering in rural Ireland is concerned, I think that to compel a man to serve an apprenticeship before entering the profession would be an unnecessary restriction on ordinary human liberty and it might prove very objectionable because, as we know, there are not so many auctioneers concentrated in the rural areas and opportunities of serving an apprenticeship would be very limited. I can easily see that an auctioneer would be very unwilling to train a potential rival so that the opportunity of a person serving an apprenticeship would be extremely limited. By insisting on an apprenticeship many very desirable entrants into the profession would be debarred.

We all know that young business men, young farmers have entered the auctioneering business without serving any apprenticeship and have proved remarkably successful. They have maintained a high standard of honesty and efficiency and transacted their business to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. There might possibly be a case for some form of apprenticeship before a person is qualified to act as valuer. That might mean dividing the two functions of auctioneer and valuer and prescribing that a man should act for some years as an auctioneer before he would be qualified to act as a valuer. There might be objection to that and I just mention it as something which might possibly be an improvement on the Bill. Generally speaking, I think the business is a free commercial enterprise and that the maximum amount of freedom should be allowed to persons to enter it. To close the profession to those who are already in it would be open to very serious objection and it might possibly lower the profession in the estimation of the general public. Moreover, I have an objection to this matter of imposing tests upon people entering various professions. There are certain professions in which it is necessary to apply tests—the learned professions, such as the medical profession and the legal professions, for instance. It is necessary to pass examinations to enter these professions but we all know that in the legal profession there have been more defaulters in proportion to the number in the profession than there have been in the auctioneering profession, notwithstanding the tests applied to entrants.

Another objection which I have to the proposal to apply a test before entering the profession is that if we were to compel auctioneers to pass some examination or serve some kind of apprenticeship, we might be establishing a precedent, and people would say: "Why should a person be allowed to enter the Dáil without serving an apprenticeship or passing some examination"? I think the maximum amount of freedom should be allowed wherever it is possible. I am not convinced that in a business such as this you will get any appreciable improvement by applying an examination or a test. The possibility is that by restricting the number of entrants into the profession you might be lowering the standard instead of raising it. We know that auctioneering, particularly in rural Ireland, is a spare-time occupation. It is not a whole-time job and for that reason it would not be possible for the average person either to study for the examination or serve an apprenticeship. In many areas the earnings of an auctioneer per year might not exceed £100. I think, having regard to that fact, that it would be unnecessary and undesirable to apply any test. I have sympathy with the view expressed by some Deputies, who said that the fees charged are high. It is a common thing for people in every profession to say that people in other professions are allowed to get away with excessive remuneration. The ordinary person considers that the legal gentlemen fleece the public. Possibly ordinary people, who are not in the business, think that auctioneers get their money very easily. I think it is accepted by everybody who is not in politics that politicians get away with a huge income to which they are not entitled. One has to serve in these professions in order to find that all is not sunshine. If Deputy Allen's suggestion were adopted, that auctioneers should enter into the matrimonial business, it is possible that such business would become lucrative, but the opening up of that branch might also bring some disadvantages, and headaches for auctioneers.

Mr. Colley

I was sorry I had not an opportunity of hearing the Minister's introductory remarks. As far as I am aware, this Bill simply takes steps to protect the public against certain things that have happened—admittedly in a very small number of cases—in the auctioneering and house agency business. I have personal knowledge of a case where a man lost his whole life-savings through the default of an auctioneer. While I am prepared to admit that a very small proportion of people engaged in the business was guilty of conduct like that, any man in the profession or any honourable man would agree that steps should be taken to try to protect the public from even an isolated instance.

Deputy Morrissey said that he welcomed the Bill so far as it went. Even apart from the terms of the Bill, it has been alleged that this Bill will create its own standards. Deputy Morrissey also stated that it had been alleged that if auctioneers got a council or the registration they looked for, the business was going to be a closed borough. It has been stated that this Bill would make auctioneering a closed borough. I cannot see anything in the Bill that would keep any man from going into that business. I think the qualification clause is necessary. Whatever way procedure may be regulated, it is necessary that the public should have some guarantee that those going into that profession are honourable people, and people of standing. I cannot see any objection to the provision of a bond. It is a common thing in business, in banks and in the insurance line, requiring people handling large sums of money to have a bond. I do not see any objection to it. Money could be lost other than by dishonesty, and for a person's own protection it would be well to have a bond. Speaking from experience in Dublin, I think fixing the amount of the bond at £2,000 is altogether too low, but when one considers the position in the rural areas the amount is probably looked upon as being too high. Maybe £2,000 is a happy medium, unless different local scales are set up, a procedure that, I think, would lead to trouble. I am prepared to accept the amount in the Bill as the happy medium.

One point in the Bill has been overlooked. Under Section 18 it is provided that the security bond can be called upon for offences involving, "fraud, dishonesty or breach of trust". I am thinking of a case of which I have personal experience, where an auctioneer received a deposit on a house and was later declared a bankrupt. As I understand the position under the law as it stands, the owner of the house is only entitled to a composition on the deposit. That point should be looked into. I suggest it should be arranged that the deposit should be put into a special account. That might mean that a man would have to pay auctioneer's fees, distinct from the deposit, but the deposit should be kept in a special account. The auctioneer should be bound by law to do so, and that account should not be touched for any personal debt but be a trustee account until the sale is completed. Such provision would mean that if a man failed to put the deposit into a special account he would come under the provisions of Section 18. I would not go so far as to say that the deposit should be handed over to the banks to deal with as, I understand, was suggested. There should be a special account for keeping deposits.

I think sub-section (4) of Section 19 is too drastic. There should be some other way of dealing with a position where a man is not able to produce his licence. The sub-section goes too far.

Mr. Corish

I know very little about this business but, as a casual observer, I wish to make a few observations on points that have been raised. It strikes me that the question of deposits has taken up most time in this debate. I agree that £2,000 might be a happy medium in certain places, and might suit people who conduct large auctions and have many more auctions than men in a small way in provincial towns. I should like to make the suggestion to the Minister—whether it would be feasible or not, I do not know, but it is worth mentioning—that there should be a bond for each auctioneer in accordance with the amount of his previous year's trading. That would, at least, be an improvement on this happy medium of £2,000, because, small as it may seem to some people and easy as it may seem to get this deposit, it certainly will hit some small auctioneers, and these, too, must be protected. Along with making the auctioneering business a profession, we must have regard to the protection necessary for the small auctioneer. If that suggestion is feasible, I think it would work for the small auctioneer and for the big auctioneer in Dublin who to a certain extent will enjoy greater protection than the small man.

I do not quite follow the line of argument which Deputy Cogan put up. He spoke against the apprenticeship system rather than the deposit. If the auctioneering business is to be made a profession, and that is more or less the general idea, as against a deposit by which an individual more or less buys himself into the profession, by apprenticeship you will ensure that you will have young men as auctioneers who know what they are going to do and who will make the auctioneering business more efficient from the point of view of the public. As it is, a man who has a good reputation and who is financially sound can become an auctioneer, but would it not be a better state of affairs if we had men who were actually trained? I do not like the word "apprentice" because my personal opinion is that all types of apprentices are exploited too much; I should prefer to use the word "trainee". The system would be better if a young man had to serve a number of years as a trainee before becoming a fully-fledged auctioneer. I suggest that if there are any possibilities in the suggestion I make, of basing it on the sales, as it were, of the auctioneer in the previous year, it would be far better than the system under which a deposit of £2,000 must be found.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

With other Deputies, I welcome this Bill, but I want to draw the Minister's attention, as it has been drawn by several of the speakers, to the fact that he has not included valuers in the Bill. Valuations are so mixed up with the auctioneering and house agency business that I do not see how the Minister can escape bringing them within the scope of the Bill. I do not suggest for a moment that it should be necessary to take out a valuer's licence and an auctioneer's licence, but it is a serious omission—I am afraid it would involve an alteration in the title of the Bill— because it is a very prominent part of the auctioneer's and house agent's business. I do not know if there would be any attempt to carry on as a valuer and as a house agent sub rosa—I do not suppose it would be possible—but I suggest to the Minister that he should cover valuers in the Bill.

With regard to Section 11—I am probably making some points which will be raised in Committee, but I suppose the Minister will not object to getting early notice of ideas which some members have—there is provision with regard to applications for qualification certificates. These applications are to be made to a superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, but, in Section 4, it is provided that an ordinary member of the Gárda can object to the granting of such a certificate. I suggest it ought to be the superintendent who will make the objection. I do not suppose that a Gárda, on his own initiative, would butt in and object to a certificate being granted, but, at the same time, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that, when the application must be made to a superintendent, an objection, if there is an objection, should be made by a superintendent.

The next matter to which I want to refer is the thorny matter of the certificate of qualification and the matter of the applicant's qualifications. The Minister, in his opening remarks, said that auctioneers and house agents would have to take out a certificate of fitness and qualification, but I suggest that that is not what the Bill says. The Bill, in Section 13, says: "A certificate of qualification may be refused on any of the following grounds," and one of the grounds is that the person is not a fit and proper person to hold a certificate. The only two real safeguards there are, are the provisions which set out that a certificate of qualification will not be granted if the applicant is an undischarged bankrupt or has served a term of imprisonment. I doubt very much if a person will not be able to get a certificate of qualification, if he does not possess these two disqualifications.

The Minister mentioned that there have been 13 cases of default by auctioneers and house agents in the last 12 years. I think I remember the case of an undischarged bankrupt who came here from another part of the country and who did not disclose the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt. I think he took the precaution of assuming another name, but I think you will find that a person who came from another part of the country, assuming another name, would probably be able to get into the auctioneer's and house agent's business. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that information in a case of that kind would not come to the ears of the body which at present rules over the destinies of the house agent's and auctioneer's business. If you want to get a man's character, you ought to go to the other members of his own profession or calling, because they will know a lot of things which it would be very difficult for anybody to prove in court, and in fact nobody might appear in court to make the objection.

Most of the other points that I could make have been covered by other speakers. As I stated at the beginning, I wish to add my appreciation of this measure, which I think is an honest attempt to tighten up this business and make fraud on the public more difficult.

Mr. Corry

This is an attempt to turn the job of auctioneering into a profession so as to justify the racket which is being carried on. We have heard talk about qualifications. I wonder what the qualifications of an auctioneer are. Should he have a good loud voice which could be heard? Should he have good hearing so that he would hear the bids? Should he be a good judge of young ladies, as Deputy Allen alleges, so that he could sell them off? I suggest that an endeavour is being made to turn this business into something like a profession and also to make it a kind of closed borough. That particularly applies to this move with regard to apprenticeship. What knowledge is required by an auctioneer? I should like to see Deputy Dockrell, or any city auctioneer, going down the country to sell a rick of hay, just as I should like to see Deputy Allen selling furniture or house property in the city.

It is said that you must have certain qualifications. How you are to get them by serving an apprenticeship I do not know. Any ordinary farmer or anybody living in the rural areas can tell you the value of cattle or sheep or farm machinery. They do not want to serve any apprenticeship to learn that. They learn it from buying and selling those things. What qualifications has the city auctioneer for doing that? I have seen them going to the farmer or whoever was in charge and asking: "What do you think that would be worth? How many tons of hay do you think would be in that rick and what is the value of it?" In that way they endeavour to pick up the knowledge they are supposed to have. Yet we are told that there should be an apprenticeship served. I think the idea of apprenticing to a city auctioneer anybody who would be supposed to do rural business would be a bit of a joke. The city auctioneer would not know anything about rural business and never has any hope of learning it.

Then as to the question of a valuer, what does a valuer mean? You see "Auctioneer and Valuer" over the doors of premises in the city or after the names of people advertising in the newspapers. If you bring one of these people to a farm he will know nothing about the value of cattle. This is neither a trade nor a profession. It is only a racket. I do not see how else you can describe it except as a racket for getting money for being a good "shouter" for half an hour or an hour. This is an endeavour to justify the enormous fees charged by auctioneers by calling auctioneering a profession. It is nothing else but an endeavour to justify a racket. There is no justification for the enormous sums which these people earn in a day or sometimes in an hour or half an hour. This question of apprenticeship is an attempt to turn it into a closed borough into which a lot of other trades have been turned. You cannot be a carpenter unless your father was a carpenter. Now you cannot be an auctioneer unless your father was an auctioneer before you. That is the meaning of this apprenticeship proposal. Although it is not in the Bill, you know what will be read into the Bill. There will be no apprentice admitted unless he is the son of an auctioneer. It will be a closed borough.

Mr. Cosgrave

Are you going to vote against the Bill?

Mr. Corry

I see no justification for this proposed apprenticeship. I do not see to what a person is to serve his apprenticeship. I do not know what knowledge he can acquire from an auctioneer. As I said, 95 per cent. of the city auctioneers who carry out auctions of farms, farm machinery and stock know nothing whatever about them. They only go down to inspect. The same thing would apply to auctioneers from the rural districts coming to Dublin. I should like to see an auctioneer from Cork coming up to sell property in Dublin. He knows nothing about it. In the same way, a Dublin man would know nothing about the value of property in Cork.

Mr. Coogan

I never knew a Cork man to give an auction to a Dublin man yet.

Mr. Corry

Do not start me on that. I can see no justification for this proposed apprenticeship. I think the fees charged by auctioneers are scandalous. I do not see how the word "valuer" comes into the matter at all. It is merely used by way of justification, in an attempt to make a profession out of something that is not a profession but a racket.

Mr. Coogan

I do not know whether I should pursue Deputy Corry to the logical consequences which flow from his argument against this Bill, but I do hope, in view of the case he has made against it, that he will call a division and go into the Lobby against whoever may be in favour of the Bill. We have witnessed Deputy Corry on many occasions opposing in very forcible language measures which came before this House and then voting for them.

Mr. Corry

Yes, and I often saw a superintendent of the Guards going to a pub on a Sunday for a drink.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Coogan

I am sure he did, and perhaps after Deputy Corry, for all I know. Deputy Corry has described this measure as an attempt to put a legal cloak around racketeering, an attempt to create a big profession and a closed borough in that profession. He quarrels with the principle of apprenticeship or training for the profession. I wonder how Deputy Corry would like these ideas to be applied to farming and to agriculture, about which he is wont to wax so eloquent in this House from time to time. I wonder how he would reconcile the case he has made to-day with the case he has made on several occasions in this House for a prices tribunal, or how he would reconcile his pronouncements this evening with his demand, made last week, for the right of the farmer to pile up prices against the community, when he told us that he did not give a hoot how high the rates would soar so long as the farmer had the right to tax the community as he felt fit.

Deputy Corry's statement is utterly irresponsible and, of course, he is running away with it. He has not the courtesy or the courage to stand and take his medicine. He talks of enormous fees earned in less than an hour or half an hour—fees which he described as scandalous. I cannot claim to have any intimate knowledge of the auctioneers' profession but, as an individual who has some idea of ordinary business, I realise that an auctioneer's fee is not intended to cover the mere presence of the auctioneer at the auction, seeking to get bids and to sell the particular property which is under the hammer. An auctioneer has his expenses of canvassing, travelling and particularly advertising. Whatever fee he may charge is intended to cover these out-of-pocket expenses and, in many cases, the auctioneer, who has to foot all these expenses, finds himself at a loss because the expenditure in canvassing and advertising may go for nothing. Very often a client may not pay anything. I do not think it is pertinent to the discussion of this measure to drag in this question of fees. We are not regulating the fees of auctioneers under this Bill and we do not intend, as far as I can see in the measure, to set up a system of control of auctioneers' income in any way. Most of the business of an auctioneer is done by way of private treaty, in which case the fee is half that which is earned at a public auction.

The fees of the legal profession have been dragged in by several speakers. All I can say on the question of fees generally is that auctioneers' fees, solicitors' and counsels' fees were fixed 50 years ago. Certainly in the case of solicitors and the profession which I represent, the fees were fixed away back in 1888 and 1891 and they have not been revised, except in a very small way. About the year 1920 there was a revision, which was a very limited revision and related to fees earned by chancery lawyers. But, taking fees by and large in the legal profession, they are as they were some 50 years ago.

On that point, I want to say that the lawyer who has the job of dealing with conveyancing, the examination of title and all the correspondence that arises in relation to sales of property, has a very big task to perform. The auctioneer, likewise, has a very big task. We see him standing on the mart but we do not realise the amount of work that may have been put into the preparation for the auction before he comes out to the open. Correspondence, interviews and expenses of all kinds are incurred. It is very easy for a man like Deputy Corry, who is completely ignorant of the implications in this matter, to make such an attack as we have listened to.

If the Minister is to take cognisance of fees at all, and I do not suggest that he should, I would suggest seriously that if there is to be a prescribed scale of fees for the profession of auctioneer, valuer and house agent, the law should be so extended as to make it possible for these gentlemen to recover their fees from unsatisfactory clients and should prescribe some ready method by which the unsatisfactory client can be dealt with as well as the unsatisfactory auctioneer. Like Deputy Allen, I am sceptical as to the effectiveness of any law passed here to promote honesty. It was said long ago that you cannot legislate for the morals of the people. You cannot make them more moral by legislation. I do not believe that, with the present tendency here and elsewhere, you will make our people any more honest by legislation.

As regards this particular measure,

I would have preferred to see this problem approached in an entirely different way. It is right and proper that a profession such as this is, despite Deputy Corry's disparaging remarks, should have some means of regulating the conduct of its members. I would prefer that that conduct should be regulated by a system evolved by the profession rather than by a sort of police measure, which is the framework of this Bill. In all these trades and professions it would be much better for the profession itself to set up its own code of etiquette and conduct, its own system of registration and that these professions should have power to set up councils or boards to regulate these matters and to deal with professional misconduct.

In that way the profession would itself be able to weed out all the undesirables and would be in a position to guarantee to the public that those who were entering into the profession, or who were actually engaged in the profession, were bona fide persons whom they considered to be fit and proper persons to conduct the business of auctioneer, valuer or house agent. I believe in that connection that there is a necessity for evolving a scheme of apprenticeship or training.

Deputy Corry, and other speakers, questioned the need for an apprenticeship in this profession. I think anybody who knows anything of the duties imposed upon auctioneers at the present time must realise that there is a grave need for prescribing some minimum standard of qualification and knowledge so that every kind of quack cannot go around the country valuing property. The valuation of property involves a certain amount of technical knowledge. Whilst a certain amount of that knowledge can be acquired by a system of apprenticeship and training the only real test is, of course, in the school of experience itself. Nevertheless there is a grave need for some system of training for people who are about to enter that profession or who are thinking of adopting that profession as a career in the future.

We would be able to overcome many of the difficulties raised by Deputies in this House if we had a system of registration under which existing auctioneers, who have been established in business for three or five years, would automatically become registered. We could then prescribe some system of training and an apprenticeship period for the future entrants to the profession. I think where you have men handling huge sums of money from time to time it is only right and proper that they should be given the status of a profession. Their work involves a considerable degree of trust and confidence and integrity and we should have in that profession only men of the highest integrity and trustworthiness.

With regard to the bond, I think it is too small. There may be some case for differentiation as between the rural auctioneer and the city auctioneer. Some limitation of the bond may be necessary there. But I think in the case of the city auctioneer a bond of £2,000 is very little guarantee of security against some of the gentlemen who have been operating in this country. I had a personal experience of one of them. He opened an office in Dublin; he had an office in Dundalk and an office in Wexford, and I think he had offices elsewhere. He committed wholesale frauds in this city. I am glad to say that he is now "doing time". That is no consolation to me, however, because I was at the loss of the property entrusted to him for sale. In that particular case that gentleman sold the same property three times over and defrauded three different people in turn.

Now we want to prevent that kind of gentleman operating. A two thousand pound bond is a poor guarantee against a gentleman of that kind, who operated only in the large cities and towns. I think the Minister ought not consider any reduction of the bond but rather that he should consider whether the bond cannot be raised to a more substantial figure. We have been told that a two thousand pound bond can be secured for a ten pound premium. A five thousand pound bond, therefore, could be secured for something like twenty to twenty-five pounds, or perhaps less. I do not think that is too much to ask these people to pay if they want to hold themselves out as auctioneers.

With regard to the granting of a certificate of qualification, I agree with the other Deputies who have spoken on this matter. The approach in the Bill is by way of a negative approach. We are told the grounds upon which the court may refuse a certificate, but no specific grounds are laid down upon which the court may grant a certificate. Speaking as a lawyer, I can see considerable difficulty in deciding the first ground of refusal, namely, that a person is not a fit and proper person. That is, if you like, a very arbitrary way of refusing an application for a certificate. Is it his fitness and propriety as a citizen, or is it his fitness and propriety as an auctioneer, or what fitness and propriety is the court to take as a test of the merits of the application? I can see considerable difficulty arising there.

Unlike other measures where we enable courts to grant licences there is no positive test of fitness here. I would suggest that the Minister should consider, between this and the Committee Stage of the Bill, the introduction of some statutory grounds to enable the court to grant certificates. One of these should definitely be practical experience and the technical training and qualifications of the applicant, particularly his qualifications as a valuer. We, who have any experience of courts, know that valuers are daily giving evidence in court and that they are men who have acquired a very high technical knowledge and skill in valuations. It is essential that a district justice, hearing an application of this kind, should have some evidence as to the skill, technical qualifications and knowledge of the applicant for a certificate. It may be that some exception will have to be made in the case of the existing occupants of the profession. I do seriously suggest, however, to the Minister that in regard to future applicants he should consider the introduction of some positive test.

I do not agree with Deputy Byrne that a superintendent of the Garda should have the right to certify on the renewal of the licence that a particular person is a fit and proper person. I think that is altogether an improper function to give to the police and the less police mentality we have brought to bear on a measure of this kind the better. I would prefer to see the profession doing this job as a matter of internal discipline within the profession.

Deputy Allen should realise that this is not a question of testing the honesty of the particular individual seeking a licence so much as the provision of certain safeguards for the community as a whole. Whilst I agree with him that the less control we have in these matters the better, the Minister has not seen fit to give the necessary legal powers to the profession to regulate its own practice and control. The less State interference we have the better. It is not correct to look upon this merely as a test of honesty. It is a matter of safeguarding the community against an undesirable type of activity of which we have had experience here in Dublin in the past. Any system we evolve is not going to prevent fraud or dishonesty. The man who is going to defraud, rob and embezzle will continue to do so despite any system we set up here. It is only right and proper, however, that we should attempt to regulate the profession in some way.

I do not agree with the manner in which the Minister has chosen to regulate the profession. I would have preferred a measure on vocational lines which would give to the profession itself a certain measure of control, within the law, which it could exercise over its own members. In given cases then we could give the right to certain people to go to the courts if necessary. On the question of the certificate, it may be possible for the Minister even yet to consider whether or not he would allow the council or board regulating the auctioneers' profession to give some sort of certificate to applicants which they could produce in court as to their trustworthiness, technical efficiency and knowledge so that the district justice would have something before him upon which he could judge the merits of the application.

As Deputy Dockrell has pointed out, he may refuse, on certain statutory grounds: that the applicant is an undischarged bankrupt, that he is disqualified under Section 18 by reason of being convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty or breach of trust, or that he had previously held an auctioneer's licence and had been suspended by the council. It would be necessary, in addition, to give the justice positive evidence of the fitness, in a professional way, of the applicant for the licence and perhaps of his fitness, in a financial way, to a certain extent. It might be necessary even to consider, despite all that has been said about closed boroughs, to regulate the numbers of those gentlemen who may come into this particular business in a certain area. It has been done in the case of other professions. For example, when the bookmakers sought the protection of this House by legislation, the Minister agreed to regulate the number of bookmakers who might set up in business throughout the country. It was considered desirable that that provision should have been made, and it might also be desirable that some system to regulate the numbers of entrants to this profession in particular localities should also be considered.

I feel that if this profession is open to all and sundry, despite the measure of protection that is being given to it, you will still have undesirables coming in who are prepared to pay both the licence fees and the premium on the deposit. What will it matter to one of those gentlemen if a fidelity guarantee bond is attached by the court? He will get away with a simple payment of a few premiums. For these reasons I would seriously suggest to the Minister to consider any representations which may be made to him on the Committee Stage by way of amendment from this side of the House. The measure so far as it goes is a step in the right direction but it will require a considerable amount of amendment in order to provide that safeguard for the public which we should all like to see.

Mr. R. Walsh

An argument has been advanced by the last speaker and other Deputies in favour of curtailing the opportunities for entrance into the auctioneers' profession. In regard to the question of apprenticeship, I agree with Deputy Corry that there is nothing to be apprenticed to. Some of the best and most successful auctioneers I have known have been men with a very limited education, men who learned their business in the hard school of experience and who gave 100 per cent. satisfaction to their clients. We have been told that it is necessary to safeguard the public. One would imagine listening to some of the speeches that every day there were numerous cases of auctioneers defaulting. I do not think in my whole lifetime I have heard of three auctioneers west of the Shannon defaulting, and I think that would apply to most other parts of the country. I think the record of members of this profession for integrity compares very favourably with that of any other walk of life in this country, especially that of the legal profession. I have heard, and heard often, of members of the legal profession defaulting. We hear nothing about their having a security bond or deposit to safeguard their clients. In fact, from what I have recently heard, there appears to be less security in this country in that direction than there is in Great Britain. I understand that the Incorporated Law Society in Great Britain has the right to go in periodically to examine the No. 2 account of any member of the legal profession—that is the account in which money belonging to clients is kept.

I agree with Deputy Corry in regard to the impossibility of providing a uniform standard of examination for auctioneering. For instance auctioneering in Dublin is quite different from what it would be in County Mayo, County Tipperary, or any rural area. The man who might be a very successful auctioneer in Dublin for selling house property, etc., might not be very much of a success in a rural area inasmuch as he might not be very efficient in valuing a farm of land. I agree with Deputy Coogan in the statement that valuing is an important part of the auctioneering business, for which a man must have experience and judgment. It is not a thing lightly to be dismissed. I think that there is something in Deputy Colley's suggestion that deposits paid by purchasers at auctions should be immune from seizure and should not be considered as part of a debtor's assets. I think that there should be some scheme to safeguard purchasers who have paid a deposit and the Minister might consider that suggestion of Deputy Colley. I believe also that there is something to be said for raising the amount of the security required. I would not at all accept the suggestion put forward by Deputy Corish that the amount of the security should vary with the amount of the business done because I think it would be impossible to regulate it in that way. At the present time we have sufficient crafts and trades which are closed boroughs. Anybody who has any knowledge of this city knows that there are at least six or seven trades and crafts that are absolutely closed boroughs. There may be something in what Deputy Corry stated that if this is made a profession the tendency amongst auctioneers, if they have the power to regulate entrance to that profession, would be to confine the business to their families. They are only human like everybody else. I think the Bill as a whole is a step in the right direction and is worthy of the support of the House. For that reason I intend to vote for it.

Mr. O'Connor

I have a good deal of experience of auctioneers, perhaps more than any other Deputy in the House except those who are themselves auctioneers, and I should certainly like to pay tribute to the high standard of integrity, courtesy and efficiency I have always experienced in dealing with auctioneers. Anyone who has had the experience of dealing with auctioneers in other countries will admit that the standard of integrity amongst our auctioneers compares very favourably with the standard in other countries, particularly in Great Britain. I welcome the Bill because I understand the auctioneers have been asking for it for many years. Why the auctioneers should want a Bill of this kind I cannot understand. It seems to me to impose upon them a great hardship. Take the case of a man who has been an auctioneer for many years, and who has given good service to the public. To tell that man that he must provide a guarantee of £2,000 each year, and have to go to court to get a certificate that he is a qualified person, is rather hard. Perhaps that aspect of the matter might be got over by exempting auctioneers who are already in business, or who have been in business for a certain number of years. That is a point I ask the Minister to consider.

I do not think the provision requiring a deposit of £2,000 will turn the auctioneering profession into a closed borough. Any man who has any chance of getting on as an auctioneer will be able to have a bond for £2,000. I submit that there is no case whatever for imposing that obligation on people who are now auctioneers. I do not think the public need that protection. There are many ways in which people could be robbed much more easily than would be possible in this business. If an auctioneer goes mad, and decides that he is going to keep money entrusted him, or to spend it for any purpose, the £2,000 will be available to satisfy in some part the claims of those who were dealing with him.

If there is any case for a deposit or a guarantee, this should go the whole way, and there should be a provision so that any money entrusted to an auctioneer would be recovered. I cannot suggest how that position is going to be brought about, but it should be one way or the other. If there is a case for a guarantee there is a case for that guarantee going the whole way. If not there is no case for a guarantee of £2,000 or any other fixed sum. I suggest to the Minister that that needs consideration. There is no provision by which the claims of persons who deposit money with auctioneers, and do not get it back, will be a first charge on the fund, before revenue charges or loan charges which, in the ordinary way, have priority. I assert that such charges should be set aside in favour of people who were dealing with a man as an auctioneer. Many other considerations arise out of that.

With regard to auctioneers' fees, I do not think there is any necessity to deal with them in this Bill. The commission that auctioneers get is well earned. People are inclined to forget that auctioneers may have only one auction in a month, and out of their well earned commission, they have to keep their offices open, so that the commission they get is not all profit.

The section which deals with the annual application to the District Court is one of the most objectionable features in the Bill. I do not know what auctioneers think of it as I have not had any conversations with them, but it appears to be most undesirable that they should have to go before a District Justice, where anyone who wishes can make a charge against them without prior investigation. There should be some safeguard against applications which would tend to make little of auctioneers, as was the case in the past. I would prefer if a council of auctioneers were given some discretion in determining who would be admitted to the profession. I think the Minister might also suggest to auctioneers some way in which to protect the public, other than this method of a deposit of £2,000 or a guarantee bond.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

The first question raised by Deputy Morrissey concerned qualification. I think the Deputy stated that I said that a person would require fitness and qualifications. What I said was "fitness or qualifications". The idea was to have persons of integrity. It was not a question of technical qualifications. That point may be cleared up as I will consult the draftsman about it. It could be held that a person applying should be able to show technical qualifications. That was not intended. The matter has been dealt with fairly fully in the debate. I mentioned difficulties that I saw would arise in the sale of different articles. Deputy Corry, in his own crude way, referred to that matter. There are so many different things at auctions that some men could not get sale for all of them. A man might be first-class at selling articles in Dublin, but if he went to the country he might find himself in difficulty. That is the difficulty I see about apprentices. I do not see how a man could know the value of every article he might be called upon to auction.

The main thing is to protect the public and, incidentally, the auctioneers themselves. They have been asking for a Bill. I know that this is not the Bill they want, but there is one thing in it which they do want, that is, that there will be no possibility of a person convicted of any fraud being able to engage in the business of auctioneering again. I know that we cannot make people honest by legislation, but we can provide that, if a person has been convicted of an offence, he will not operate as an auctioneer again. That is one big feature of the Bill, and, in future, that will not be possible. We have heard a lot of talk about the bond. Some Deputies said it was too large and others that it was too small, but, on the whole, I think it is fair enough. I have been told that an average of about £10 per year would be about the amount required and any person who could not get the £10 ought not to be in the business.