Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Apr 1960

Vol. 181 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Hire-Purchase Amendment Bill, 1957:Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 21, to delete "person" and substitute "officer".

This is an amendment which is in anticipation of other amendments that I have at a later stage to Section 8. The Minister is to appoint "such and so many of his officers as he thinks fit to be authorised officers for the purposes of this part of this Act." When you come to the definition section, you find the "authorised officer" may be any person appointed to be an authorised officer under Section 8. I understood on the Second Reading that this Bill was, as far as possible, to be kept inside the ambit of the Department and that, therefore, those who would be appointed for the purposes of the Act, for inspection and everything else, would be people who are already officials and that there would be no recruitment—no heavy recruitment, anyway. It is to get clarification of that point that I put down this amendment—to ascertain whether the authorised officer would be an officer, that is to say, a person already in the Department, or at least in the Civil Service who might be seconded from one Department to another, but not at all people brought in from outside. It all depends on what is the likelihood in the way of enforcement of this measure. Is it to be done by a horde of people brought in from outside or mainly by people already there?

Mr. J. Lynch

As I have already indicated to Deputy Sweetman on the Money Resolution the intention is, initially at any rate, to utilise the existing personnel of the Department. The Deputy's amendment to delete "person" and substitute "officer", I suggest, is not necessary when one reads the definition as it stands relating to an authorised officer meaning a person under Section 8 (1).

It says:

The Minister may appoint such and so many of his officers as he thinks fit to be authorised officers for the purposes of this part of this Act.

I suggest it is quite clear that the persons to be appointed will be authorised officers and that the authorised officers envisaged would be existing officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan

Then, the Minister could accept the amendment?

Mr. J. Lynch

The draftsman advised that it is not necessary to accept it.

Mr. McGilligan

It would certainly carry out what I now understand to be the intention, that the officer is to be a person already existing as an officer. The Minister will realise that if you say in the definition section that an authorised officer is any person appointed under Section 8, that certainly leaves the field entirely open.

Mr. J. Lynch

It says a person to be appointed under Section 8.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, a person appointed to be an authorised officer under Section 8. When you go to Section 8 the only limiting word is "his" officers. I take that to mean already established in the Civil Service. If that is so, it is quite proper to exclude the use of the word "person" and put in "officer". That confines it. The Minister apparently agrees that will be the position. Why not make it clear? It is not evaded at present to any great extent, but I think the Minister appears to be of the view that there are really enough officers without bringing in outside people. That being the case, you would at least limit the selection under this amendment.

Mr. J. Lynch

The only reason I am resisting the amendment is that I am advised by the Parliamentary draftsman that the elimination of the word "person" and the inclusion of the word "officer" is not necessary. However, if the Deputy feels he would be happier with the substitution of the word "officer" for the word "person", I am quite prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

I would be quite prepared to go the other way with the Minister if he could assure me that it would be necessary to recruit new people for the purposes of this Bill. But when he says "no", I do not think he is limiting himself to any extent.

Amendment agreed to.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before Section 4 to insert the following new section:—

"No order under Part II of this Act shall come into operation unless and until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and approved by a resolution of each such House.”

The purpose of this amendment is to make it obligatory on the Minister to lay an Order under Part II of the Bill on the Table of the House and have it approved by resolution rather than implement the provision in the form envisaged in Section 4 of the Bill as drafted.

This amendment must be considered in conjunction with Part II. In particular, it must be considered in conjunction with Section 6. Under Section 6 the Minister is taking very wide powers. The section provides that:—

(1) The Minister may by order provide for the regulation and control of the hire purchase, sale upon credit and letting of goods of any class or description of goods.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing or to anything in the Principal Act, an order under this section may provide for—

(a) the form of agreement for the hire-purchase, sale upon credit or letting of goods,

(b) the minimum deposit to be paid by a buyer or hirer,

(c) the maximum period of payment, and the amount and frequency of instalments or rentals,

(d) the information to be given in any visual advertisement or visual announcement published or made in any form or manner whatsoever relating to goods for sale by way of hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement regarding the terms upon which the goods will be sold.

As I have said, this section gives the Minister very wide and very far-reaching powers. I agree it is necessary to regulate certain conditions under which hire purchase arrangements may be made. In fact, it is desirable that some minimum requirements should be fixed. As the Bill stands at the moment, however, an Order which embraces these very far-reaching powers must be laid on the Table of the House and it will take effect immediately unless it is annulled within the subsequent 21 sitting days. In the case of annulment, anything that has been done prior to the annulling Order remains in effect.

This amendment would make it obligatory on the Minister to get the approval of the House for any such Order. For such an Order as that envisaged in Part II of the Bill it is, I think, desirable that there should be confirmation before the Order takes effect. This Part of the Bill is, except for one or two later sections, such as Section 19, the principal part. The very wide powers which it is proposed to take in it, together with the possible consequences of any regulations made on business and on the persons concerned, makes it obvious that wide publicity should be given to an Order of the kind envisaged.

As the Bill stands, any Order made will be laid on the Table of the House. Whatever publicity is involved in that procedure may come to the notice of the persons concerned. In many instances a variety of Orders, many of them trivial in character, are laid on the Table of the House and the public generally are unaware of their contents. If, however, an Order has to be confirmed by resolution there is, first of all, the definite act of formal resolution moved by the Minister concerned with the possibility of a subsequent debate. Even assuming the resolution to be comparatively unimportant in character, nevertheless, the fact that the resolution is formally proposed will involve some remarks upon it by the Minister and consequently some publicity attendant on the terms of the resolution and the terms of the particular Order the resolution seeks to confirm.

Considerable powers are being sought by the Minister under Section 6. No one objects to the Minister laying down in statutory form certain specific requirements as to minimum terms in relation to deposits, terms of repayment, instalments, the form of the agreement and so forth. But if that is to be done, it should be done by means of statutory regulation rather than by merely laying an Order on the Table of the House and waiting for some Deputy, possibly, to raise the matter in order to focus the attention of those affected on the particular Order.

Judging by the discussion on the Second Stage, it is obvious that hire purchase is on the increase. The fact that it is increasing means that the interests of a greater number of people will be affected by hire purchase trading. It is important, therefore, that people should have full knowledge of the terms of any Order made and that they should be aware in advance of the terms and conditions under which they may enter into hire purchase agreements.

This amendment does not in any way limit the powers of the Minister in prescribing conditions. In fact, it leaves Part II unaffected. It does not alter the terms of Section 6 (1) which outlines the various aspects in relation to which Orders may be made. It does mean, however, that before an Order takes effect it must be approved by formal resolution of the Dáil. I believe that it is important in a matter of this kind that legislative sanction should be given. In fact, in most Acts which deal with undertakings of this nature, the sections of the Acts concerned lay down in detail the conditions under which the business may be operated. If we take either State companies or other bodies authorised by statute to carry on business or enter into undertakings, there is generally a section, or in some cases, a number of sections, dealing with the powers, the duties and the limitations of these powers and duties.

In this Bill, which amends the earlier Hire Purchase Act of 1946, the power taken in Part II is of a very wide and far-reaching nature. It deals with a growing volume of business—a business that has been extended in a variety of ways and which now embraces all types of goods and many forms of trade, to such an extent that a great number of persons who formerly were not used to carrying on business in this way now find themselves caught up in it. It is, therefore, important in a matter of this sort that legislative authority should have the sanction of the Dáil behind it, as in the case of other large-scale trading carried on by State or semi-State companies. As the Bill is framed at present, the Minister is obliged only to lay the Order on the Table of the House, and if no Order is made annulling it within 21 subsequent sitting days, the Order takes effect. That, as I say, might not attract the attention which it ought to attract and it might indeed not come to the notice of the persons affected until after the prescribed time has elapsed particularly, as is often the case during the long recess, when a great many Orders and other documents are on the Table of the House.

This amendment in no way limits or restricts the power or effectiveness of the Minister's authority under Part II or under Section 6, but it means that the confirmation of the Dáil must first be sought and the attendant publicity, which in a matter of this sort, might well be desirable, would be secured. I consider that this amendment is an important one and is indeed a desirable one in the Bill.

Mr. Moloney

I must say I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment proposed by Deputy Cosgrave. In the ordinary course, little exception could be taken to a proposal such as that contained in Section 4 of the Bill, if the matters dealt with were limited to matters of a trivial nature. According to Section 6, however, the whole framework of hire-purchase—the control of hire purchase, credit sales and the letting of goods—will be dealt with. If the large number of Orders envisaged under this Bill are circulated and put into effect, it is possible that proposals in connection with this matter might escape the notice of the House.

It might be found that the Minister's Order would have taken effect and a very awkward situation could then arise. I do not know in what way the Minister might get over that difficulty. I think it would be a better idea if there were some arrangement whereby formal notice of any proposal the Minister might make in this connection could be given to the House. At the same time, however, I appreciate that certain requirements may have to be met at short notice and in that connection the Minister might possibly be at a disadvantage if he had now to include the amendment in the measure before us.

I wonder could any middle course be adopted? Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section 6 deals with the form of agreement for the hire-purchase, sale upon credit or letting of goods. That would not be very important, but paragraph (b) which deals with the minimum deposit to be paid by a buyer or hirer, would be very important. That is a matter on which there might be a very big difference of opinion and which might be very suitable for discussion in the House. There is also the question of the maximum period of repayment. Hire-purchase companies themselves change these terms from time to time, according to their experience. It could very well happen that an Order might be made by the Minister varying the maximum period of payment which would cause a good deal of incovenience to new hirers coming on the list from then on.

I have only a very limited experience and knowledge of how Orders may be promulgated, but I listened with much interest to Deputy Cosgrave's suggestion that the Orders might be made with ordinary legislative effect. However, if that would lead to delay, it would not do any good and I can see why the Minister would be reluctant to accept the proposal; but in view of the comprehensive nature of Section 6, I think the Minister should endeavour to meet to some extent the suggestion contained in the amendment.

Mr. J. Lynch

To accede to this amendment would be to depart in general from the procedure that has been adopted in many other Bills. The practice is the contrary to what is suggested in this amendment. There are several precedents of Orders being made under Bills in the circumstances in which it is proposed Orders should be made under this Bill. I could quote several examples.

Mr. McGilligan

Quote one or two. The Road Traffic Act, for example.

Mr. J. Lynch

I shall pick out one or two good ones for the Deputy. The Fertiliser, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act, 1955.

Mr. McGilligan

I wonder what powers does that give?

Mr. J. Lynch

The Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1949.

Mr. McGilligan

What is allowed by it under Order?

Mr. J. Lynch

In particular, I would refer the Deputy to the years in question.

Mr. McGilligan

I can understand an Order being made on minor points but this is a substantial point.

Mr. J. Lynch

Under the Electricity (Supply) Act, the E.S.B. are empowered to make regulations providing for the right of access to premises, the inspection of premises and the cutting off of electric current, which, I think, is a reasonably substantial point and an important consideration as well.

Mr. McGilligan

And is very seriously contested at the moment.

Mr. J. Lynch

These were Orders made when Deputy McGilligan had responsibility for the Department of Finance and when Deputy Cosgrave had some responsibility in relation to the Department of Industry and Commerce. However, the Orders to be made under this section are, in the main, of two kinds—Orders that would be required for the ordinary administration of hire-purchase, for example, the advertising of an article in which the hire-purchase terms on which the goods to be sold must be displayed, and then an Order dealing with the main deposit and the maximum period of payment.

The first one I have referred to, and which deals with the information to be given in visual advertisements, is to be made a short time after the passage of the Act. The other Orders will be made, as is indicated in subsection 5 of the section, after consultation with the Minister for Finance. The implication is that the Minister for Finance will have some responsibility, having regard to his own office, in this matter. That responsbility will arise in circumstances under which serious balance of payments problems would occur in the country, as happened in 1956, and it would be difficult and perhaps, in many instances, embarrassing for the economy of the country if the effect of such Orders had to be postponed pending a meeting of the Dáil and Seanad, especially during periods of recess.

I suggest the making of an Order, its being laid on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the provision for its annulment within a specified period, is sufficient safeguard to ensure that no hardship will be encountered. On the contrary, I think that the balance of hardship that might be expected on the part of the economy, in certain circumstances, is much more serious from the State's point of view. Therefore I suggest, having regard to precedent, having regard to the fact that the Orders must be placed on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas anyway, and having regard to the provisions for annulment, there is adequate safeguard to ensure that the public will be fully protected.

As far as publicity is concerned, I do not think there will be any danger when these Orders are made of their effect not coming before the public. The usual practice is not only to insert an appropriate advertisement in the newspapers but also to make an announcement on the Radio—in fact a series of announcements. So, I suggest on that score there is no reason to suspect that the making of the Orders will not be given due publicity and will not be brought to the notice of the people immediately concerned, and I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

This is the usual contest between those who want ease in administration and those who want Parliamentary control. Throughout its history from 1922, the members of this House have decided that they want Parliamentary control and this is not Parliamentary control. The Minister has spoken about other bits of legislation under which Orders might be made. There are plenty of them and I thought he would have referred to Road Traffic Orders and Road Transport Orders in which very minute details vary from county to county and it would have been impossible, except by very bulky legislation, to have everything covered in a Bill. We have got accustomed to those things being done by Order, but this is not one of those cases.

The weakness of the Minister's argument is shown by the fact that he has to fall back on the point that some of these Orders have to be brought before the Minister for Finance because they might conflict with what the Minister for Finance wants to do.

Mr. J. Lynch

They would not be made then.

Mr. McGilligan

No, but that is very limited. In other words, he would be interfering only to protect finance. As it happens, he, the Minister for Finance, will look after that position if the Minister for Industry and Commerce wants to make regulations and they are liable to interfere with the collection of revenue.

The Minister has quoted regulations of a minor type made under the E.S.B. Acts but that is a very small matter. Look at the main Act, the Act which established the E.S.B. It is a very bulky Act and most of the things which it wanted done were put in the sections and paragraphs of it. The main things arising under that Act were all dealt with in specialised paragraphs and, strangely enough, that Act did not require much amendment in all the years that have passed. The E.S.B. Acts have, however, been amended to increase the amount of money put at the disposal of the E.S.B. for its operations, but as far as ordinary control in matters referring to the E.S.B. is concerned, it is contained in the main Act. There have been minor alterations here and there, but what does the Minister propose to do in this instance by Order?

He proposes to provide for the regulation and control of hire-purchase, sale upon credit and the letting of goods of any class or description and then, as if that were not enough, the rest of the section reads:

Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing ... an order under this section may provide for—

(a) the form of agreement for the hire-purchase, sale upon credit or letting of goods,

(b) the minimum deposit to be paid by a buyer or hirer,

(c) the maximum period of payment, and the amount and frequency of instalments or rentals,

(d) the information to be given in any visual advertisement or visual announcement published or made in any form or manner whatsoever relating to goods for sale by way of hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement regarding the terms upon which the goods will be sold.

and now the Minister wants to include with that, as set out in his amendment:

the inclusion in any such advertisement or announcement of a statement of the price at which the goods will be sold for cash.

Is that not the whole Act? It is not a mere detail. That is everything that is to be done by Order and I suggest that is a departure from what we have become accustomed to and is not necessary. The principal Act is the Act of 1946. It contained the main matters that were of a hire-purchase type and that Act has lasted without amendment for 13 years up to this date. The Minister, of course, may answer me that it had to be amended on one occasion when increasing hire-purchase became an important matter in the balance of payments situation developing in the country, but what happened then was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was able to come into this House with an Order made under the Supplies and Services Act which rectified the matter without any delay. That machinery is still at the disposal of the Minister.

I agree with Deputy Moloney's point of view that one can sympathise with the Minister. In fact, we would be ready to hear him if he makes any point in regard to urgency but he has this machinery, the Supplies and Services legislation, and can make Orders under it. As I say, it was possible to make Orders under it with regard to the time of payments for hire-purchase transactions. I do not know if Deputy Moloney wonders whether there is any way out without this way of legislating on an important topic. One way is a Bill which includes everything and I suppose nine-tenths of the legislation we pass does not require anything to be done by regulation or by Order because it itself contains whatever proposals it is intended to give effect to.

We have got used to two types of regulations and Orders. One is the type set out in Section 4, namely, that an Order made may be laid before the House and it is open to annulment, but it is open to annulment only if a resolution is passed by either House within a prescribed period, that is, 21 days in which the House has sat. Of course, if an Order is made on the verge of a summer adjournment, it lies there over that period, having full effect all the time, and can then be brought to a conclusion only within 21 succeeding days of the House resuming its session.

Secondly, we have the type of Order which Deputy Cosgrave's amendment refers to, the Order which must be affirmatively passed. The Minister gives notice of his intentions and then comes into the House and, as far as speed is concerned, he has control of the speed with which an affirmative Order may come before the House, but the difficulty is with regard to an Order he may want to make on the verge of a long break, and that is the difficulty we have to meet.

At the moment—the Minister will agree, I think—he has machinery at his disposal—the Supplies and Services Act machinery. He may say that that may go one of these days, that it should have gone long ago. It is still there but it may go. Very good; let us think of the future. There is a type of legislation that we know. I think we had an example quite recently of what is called Imposition of Duties confirmation. Under that, duties may be imposed and they take effect but they must be confirmed inside a certain period, but while that period is running, the order is of validity and has full effect. I have never seen that particular type of approach brought into an order or regulation but there is no reason why it could not be done. If the Minister thinks there may be some difficulty about an Order which has to wait and if he wants to get something done at once, a way out could be found in this—imposing on the Minister the necessity of bringing his order before the House and having it confirmed, but putting in it that it is valid over a certain period but must be confirmed within a certain time. That would certainly meet any difficulty that I have ever experienced in the way of hire-purchase regulations.

I want to put another view to the Minister. Hire-purchase has become an element in State finance—all this matter about expansion and the development of credit and the restriction of credit. When one blocks up one channel, say, through bank credit or through, say, exactions of a Government type, those who want to get money on easy terms will find some other way out. A way that was found during the past five or six years was through extension of hire-purchase. There is no doubt that that did have an impact on the country when it was thought necessary to restrict borrowing for hire-purchase—and hire-purchase is only another form of borrowing— but it was found easy to restrict that; there was no difficulty whatever. That had to be done quite urgently and it was done and done effectively and urgently. I do not see why that should not prevail for the future.

The Minister will have to have a look at this again. Again, as Deputy Moloney said, it may be possible to say: Let him have an Order which will take effect immediately and take effect until it is annulled, if it is to deal with certain important points. But, what does the Minister want to do by Order?—Everything. Read again his phrases. He "may by order provide for the regulation and control of the hire-purchase, sale upon credit and letting of goods or of any class or description of goods." That is everything. Then he pinpoints the details by saying in a later paragraph, including the words "Without prejudice", "What I want to be able to do by order is the following;" and then he sets out the important matter of hire-purchase.

I think the Minister must give a better explanation. Was the 1946 Act found to be in any way deficient? Did it require an amendment oftener than once? Was the machinery for meeting an emergency found to be effective? Is there any chance that in a critical situation that machinery will cease to be effective or is it likely to be abandoned and, if so, is there no other method of achieving the Minister's object and with which the House would sympathise? Is there no other way of achieving it except by giving himself full power to do everything by Order and having that Order left as we know the way these Orders always go? You get them on the back of an Order Paper. They are supposed to be published and put on the Table of the House. In the main, nobody bothers about them and the time passes until the time for annulling the Order is gone.

I suggest that the Minister either weakens the objectives of Section 6 and segregates those that are important and then let us consider whether we would permit him to have those done by an Order which is effective until annulled and then let him segregate another lot and say: "These are of great importance. They do impact upon the whole business of hire-purchase and they are not small details that ought to be regulated by Order of a specialised type. These are the important things." Let us then start off with something in the Bill and say that any amendment that is to be done by Order shall be done by Order that requires the consent of Parliament.

What is Parliament for if not to deal with that sort of thing? If a question is raised about Parliament not being in session and about urgency arising, we can meet that point of view. I would not mind even giving the Minister full control of Orders, say, where it was necessary in order to meet a balance of payments difficulty, if it arose, and where some interference with hire-purchase was sought by those who promulgated the Order in order to restrain so as to better a balance of payments situation.

I do think that we are getting very definitely into the position so much canvassed in England at the moment which they have stopped over there. It led to the promulgation of a book by a celebrated judge, called The New Despotism, where he showed the effect, and the deteriorating effect, he thought, of proceeding in a certain way and where he said that control has been taken from the parliamentary representatives and handed over to Departments. Then you got a further book, a much more cogent piece of work, called Law and Orders. The clear distinction was made as between law, which is what Parliament is supposed to fashion, and Orders which every Department wants because they make for administrative ease.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to urge on the Minister the desirability of accepting this amendment, even with some modification such as was suggested by Deputy Moloney. I can understand the difficulty in the case of a confirmatory Order where the Minister makes an Order either on the eve of a recess or shortly after the House adjourns for the summer or other long recess. In that case it could be provided that a confirmatory Order must be made within 21 sitting days. Even in that case, very considerable matters may have been dealt with, but, at any rate, the principle of confirmatory approval by the House, or the affirmative from being adopted, would be accepted.

As I understand it, the E.S.B. Bill which was quoted dealt only with certain comparatively limited matters and in any event, the power to terminate a supply of electricity is rarely used except in the case of non-payment of the sum due for a previous supply. That has been the subject of considerable discussion. At any rate, the Electricity Supply Board might feel entitled to be paid in respect of a supply.

In this case, the Order which it is proposed to make deals with a very wide variety of matters, not merely the matters referred to in Section 6. There are subsequent sections which apply to Part II of the Act, under which a fine and imprisonment may be imposed in respect of a breach of these Orders. It is conceivable that a person might find himself liable on conviction of an offence to a penalty not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or indeed to both such fine and such imprisonment and he might have been entirely ignorant of the terms of the Order. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, in a matter of this sort which affects and touches the lives of a greater number of people and a wider variety of interests and types of business than ever before, there is a very strong case for allowing the Legislature to have authority, in the form of an affirmative Order or a confirmatory Order.

Section 6, which has been referred to, deals with matters that are fundamental to hire-purchase agreements in future. Consequently, we feel that the authority of the Oireachtas could be made effective by the means which I propose in the amendment.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy McGilligan began by saying that Section 6 was, in effect, the whole of everything that dealt with hire-purchase. The 1946 Act dealt with the legal rights and the liabilities of parties engaged in hire-purchase transactions. It regulated the powers of the court and such matters. There was hire-purchase legislation in active operation for a period without any reference to Orders. I cannot understand how the Deputy can suggest this is the whole business of hire-purchase.

Deputy McGilligan went on to refer to other things that were done and then tried to anticipate the arguments I might make against them. He has anticipated most of what I would have said against some of the points he made but I should like to remind him again of the circumstances in which an Order, prescribing minimum deposits and maximum periods of repayment, was made in 1956. That, as he says, was done under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1946. That legislation has been repealed but even if it were there, I do not think its life would be very much longer.

Mr. McGilligan

When was the Order made, in 1956?

Mr. J. Lynch

In 1956.

Mr. McGilligan

When did the Supplies and Services Act lapse?

Mr. J. Lynch

During the period of this Government, 18 months ago. That order was made on 12th March, 1956. In November, 1955, the Minister for Finance who caused that Order to be made, I presume, because of the balance of payments problem, referred to the difficulty that was likely to arise in connection with hire-purchase. That was in November, 1955; nevertheless, while he would have had time to amend the 1946 Act, to introduce a provision such as is now suggested by Deputies opposite, he did not do so. He did nothing and a situation developed in which he found he had to take very quick action and he had recourse to the Supplies and Services Act for the purpose. That is the outstanding case in which such action was necessary.

Deputy McGilligan referred to the Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Acts and I think that reference is in support of rather than against the section as it stands. Such Orders are made from time to time according as they appear to be necessary and they are confirmed by way of legislation within 12 months of their being made. The only departure is that legislation will not be necessary in this case but at least the Oireachtas has the right to pass a resolution annulling or revoking such Orders. I do not think action in advance of the Orders being made would make those interested in the operation of the Orders any more aware of them than they would be by way of the ordinary means of advertising resorted to on such occasions. I cannot see that any difficulty will be created. On the contrary, I can see many difficulties being created by tying the hands of the Minister in the way suggested by the Deputy.

There is one other instance to which I should refer and it makes it necessary for expedition in the making of these Orders, that is, the case in which there is evasion of an Order when it is made and evasion of the effect of the legislation. There have been many instances of dealers, through one ruse or another, being able to evade the requirements of the law. It would be necessary to act swiftly in the case of some of these evasions to ensure that certain requirements will be followed and in order to bring such evasion to a speedy end so as to avoid damage being done either to the community or to the economy. I regret again I cannot see my way to accept the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

A very disquieting note has just been introduced in regard to evasions. It is now proposed to take power by Order to protect the community against evasions. Does the Minister mean retrospectively or otherwise?

Mr. J. Lynch

No, not retrospectively.

Mr. McGilligan

What is wrong with bringing in an Order with the power I have suggested, having the Order valid for a certain period and having to be confirmed inside that period? How many evasions have there been since 1946? How many times has this House moved to protect the community against evasions under the original Act? There was one occasion when there was an Order made under the Supplies and Services Act. On occasions when actions were taken in the courts, the usual procedure followed was to have a case stated and brought to the superior courts. The mere fact that these actions were taken stopped certain abuses that certainly at one time were thought to be growing. However, there was no crisis caused to the community by any supposed evasion. It was understood there were various people who had ways of getting out of some of the Orders. They were not such a large section as to cause any great difficulty and in the main, the serious cases were stopped in their tracks because people knew if they were to continue with that procedure, they might have to pay very heavy costs because the State had always the power to state a case from the lower courts to the higher courts.

The other side of the question is the balance of payments problem. It is the one thing I can understand as being a possible difficulty in connection with this matter. I have another piece of legislation in my hand which is to be discussed one of these days, the Rent Restrictions Bill. That lays down certain provisions in regard to houses which will be decontrolled and in regard to houses which will be kept under control. There is a permission given to increase the rent that may be charged for certain houses and there is a percentage stipulated here. The Minister might as well argue in regard to that Bill that one would not be sure whether the 12½ per cent. in certain cases would be insufficient or excessive. Why would not power be taken to deal with that by Order? Because it is not parliamentary procedure.

As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, this section has serious consequences. An Order comes in here quietly without any great notice being given to it and after a particular period, it becomes law. There is no question of debate or newspaper publicity or of questions being asked about it. The Order simply goes through and after that, the Minister appoints authorised officers. They may inspect premises and ask certain questions. It is an offence to refuse to answer those questions. It is an offence to obstruct the officers in carrying out the duty the Minister has prescribed by Order without the leave of this House. The Order goes through unnoticed with no confirmation in an open way. As I have said already, Section 6 is, in effect, the whole of this Bill. With regard to regulations and control of hire-purchase, Section 6 provides—I do not know if the Minister observed this before but in case he did not, I shall read it again:

The Minister may by order provide for the regulation and control of the hire-purchase, sale upon credit and letting of goods or of any class or description of goods.

It then details certain points on which it may be necessary to bind by Order. Everything in connection with hire-purchase is given to the Minister to do by Order. I suggest he should have another look at it to see is there a mid-way course, accept the ideal that the Order has to be confirmed in the main, and meet the exceptional cases by the provision I have suggested to him, borrowed from the Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Act, where a thing is made valid for a certain period only but must be confirmed if its validity is to be continued.

I do not see how that could impede the Minister if he does as Deputy Cosgrave suggested and ensures that the confirmation must be carried out within a certain period. That will get over the difficulty of a long vacation. I do not see why, when we are breaking new ground in a bad way, it should not be done in a better way, by having the addition of the type of Order I have suggested, borrowed from the Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Act.

Mr. J. Lynch

We are not breaking new ground.

Mr. McGilligan

So far as you are breaking new ground, it will depend upon Orders.

Mr. J. Lynch

I should like to refer again to the Order made in 1956 which was in operation for a period of only seven, eight or nine months—I forget which——

Mr. McGilligan

It lapsed after six months.

Mr. J. Lynch

During that period, that Order had to be amended no fewer than four or five times because of people who were able to evade its provisions.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. J. Lynch

If, on each of those occasions, it was necessary to bring in the Order and have it debated here before it could be confirmed, those evasions would continue and those people who were flouting the intention of the Minister, and acting contrary to the interests of the State, would have got away with it for a much longer period than they otherwise would.

I should like to correct a suggestion by the Deputy that these Orders are brought in quietly. There is no intention of bringing them in quietly. They will be given full publicity in the Press and radio and they will be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas. There is no suggestion, I am sure, that there is any attempt in doing that to try to bring them in without the knowledge of the Opposition, or without the knowledge, certainly, of the main Opposition Parties and Government Deputies who, in the ordinary course of their duties, have recourse to these Orders. I suggest the annulment provision contained in Section 6 is sufficient safeguard to ensure that nothing damaging to the community, or damaging to democracy for that matter, could or would be done.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister said there will be publicity. Where is the publicity? Section 4 says:—

Every Order under Part II of this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas....

What does that mean? It does not mean a resolution of the House, and it does not mean the Minister will make a statement. It will be placed in the Library and that is what the Minister calls publicity. The Minister should take power to bring in the Orders, give them validity and say they lapse in validity unless confirmed inside a certain period.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 40; Níl, 62.

Tá.

• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Jack.
• Burke, James.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Russell, George E.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.

Níl.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Collins, James J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Amendment declared lost.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 3:

Before Section 6, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:—

"Any person who sells or lets goods by way of a hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement shall not be entitled to enforce any agreement for such sale or letting or any right to recover the goods unless a draft of the hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement under which the goods are sold was sent to the intended hirer or purchaser by prepaid registered post at least forty-eight hours before such agreement is signed by the purchaser or hirer."

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that people will not sign a hire-purchase contract without reading it from beginning to end. It was my belief, which I have now verified by personal experience, that an opportunity is very seldom afforded to a proposed hirer to read a hire-purchase agreement or, if it is, the opportunity is accompanied by so much ridicule and inconvenience that people very seldom read such agreements.

I appreciate that the main provisions of hire-purchase contracts are understood by the majority of people. However, many hire-purchase contracts introduce clauses, the contents of which are not read or are not understood by people who put their names to the contract. As everybody here knows, be he lawyer or layman, no person can be heard to say that he did not understand or read the contents of any document which he has signed.

There are hire-purchase contracts, particularly in relation to television sets, radios or delicate or perishable equipment, which contain a clause providing that the hirer must insure the television set, the radio or the piece of mechanism in question. All too frequently, the hirer is not aware of that imposition upon him until, perhaps, some accident takes place which renders the television set or the radio or the piece of equipment in question useless. By that time it is too late for the person to fulfil the obligation of insuring the set.

There are many people who believe that under a hire-purchase contract the obligation and the practice of insurance lies on the person who is selling the set. Frequently also there are special clauses introduced into a hire-purchase agreement in respect of the goods I have mentioned which impose an obligation on the person hiring the set to contribute a certain sum towards the person selling the set as a running charge for repairs. In many cases the people are not aware of this imposition until they get a bill for the charges. In other cases they are not aware of the obligation on the person selling the set to carry out repairs.

There are many other clauses introduced by different firms for their own convenience or because of their own experience where people signing hire-purchase contracts have not an opportunity of reading before they signed the contracts. I know of my own knowledge of a case in this city where a person went into a reputable business house to hire a television set on a rental agreement. He was given a long closely printed form of foolscap size with the print as close as it is on the various Bills and documents we get.

He said he wished to have an opportunity of reading it. The shop was crowded and the assistant was almost rude to him when he insisted upon reading the form The assistant said: "Very well, you will have to wait until the end of the day to be attended to." Under pressure of that nature the man in question signed the closely printed document and it was not until some days later, after the television aerial had been erected under a hire-purchase agreement and was blown down in a storm, causing damage to the tune of £90, that it was discovered that the agreement which he signed was not a rental agreement at all but a hire-purchase contract. As a result, the sole property in the television set and aerial remained in the man selling it and damage to the tune of £90 had to be paid on that account.

I feel certain that there are many Deputies who can quote individual cases which have come to their knowledge of a like kind. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the contents of the hire-purchase agreement will be known to a person before that person signs it. As things stand at present, there is, of course, an obligation on the person selling any article on a hire-purchase agreement to send a copy of the hire-purchase contract subsequent to the contract in question having been signed but by then it is too late for any person to have second thoughts on the matter or go back on the agreement.

The amendment which I have put down would impose a new obligation on people who are selling goods under a hire-purchase agreement to transmit by registered post to the address of the proposed hirer not less than 48 hours before the hire-purchase contract is ultimately signed a true draft of the proposed hire-purchase agreement. That would have the advantage that a person would at least have a reasonable opportunity of reading the agreement from beginning to end. It would also mean that the proposed hirer would have an opportunity of getting advice on the meaning of clauses in the hire-purchase agreement which, in many cases, are phrased in quite intricate, legal phraseology which might not be understood by a layman. If a person signing an agreement wishes to have an opportunity of getting that advice, I believe that person should be afforded that opportunity.

I appreciate that the Minister's reply might be that as things are there is no reason why a person would not insist upon getting a hire-purchase agreement in advance; that he could be furnished with a copy and given all due consideration before signing it, but in the practice of the trade that kind of opportunity does arise. Any worthwhile salesman is able to urge a person to sign on the dotted line before the person leaves the shop.

That is the way in which so much hire-purchase transactions are carried out in the City of Dublin. Hire-purchase is conducted in reputable shops and stores but there are some people who are less reputable than many of the business houses. They go round from door to door and get the signature of housewives in the absence of their husband. Sometimes they sell next to worthless goods in that particular manner. Again, if the obligation is laid on such salesmen to transmit by registered post 48 hours before a contract became binding a copy of the agreement, there is a strong probability that the proposal would be considered not only by the proposed hirer but by those people who would be in close association with the hirer—a husband, wife, or other member of the family.

I think I am right in saying that the purpose of this legislation and of all hire-purchase legislation is to prevent marginal cases where people make fools of themselves by entering into commitments which they cannot really afford on the one hand and, on the other, to prevent sharp practice on the part of dealers. I cannot see any more effective way of doing that than by adopting my amendment which would allow people a reasonable opportunity of seeing what they are incurring before they sign the hire-purchase agreement.

I am sure that the Minister's Department are well aware of the type of canvass and the type of bait which is thrown out to gullible people to enter into hire-purchase transactions which they cannot afford. I hold in my hand a sample of the type of unsavoury business dealing which is leading people into transactions which involve them in considerable hardship later on.

This is a little pink document, beautifully bordered, issued by a firm in this city. It bears on the top a green blob on which the words "Privileged customer's cheque" are inscribed. It begins and ends with considerable flattery. It was issued to a man who purchased a small article under a hire-purchase agreement. When his wife went in to pay off one of the last instalments, she was handed this to entice her, in her own name and without prior consultation with her husband, to enter into further obligations. This privileged customer's cheque goes on to read: "This is to certify that the holder of this cheque is a privileged customer and is entitled to purchase any goods in our store up to the amount which is stated below." Then in larger words: "No deposit. No increase in present payments up to the amount of £20." The person began with the purchase of a necessary household article costing £5 and because she was described as a privileged customer the lady of the house was enticed into buying unnecessary goods to the tune of £20.

In case that was not sufficient to entice the unfortunate woman, without prior consideration or without second thoughts to enter into commitments which will stretch over a much longer period, on the back of the privileged customer's cheque is another enticement, "to celebrate our annual stocktaking sale". I do not know of any businessmen who celebrate their annual stocktaking sale but apparently this particular store believe it is a way of enticing customers and the manner in which they celebrate that stocktaking sale is to give a splendid gift, a gift which is offered to every customer spending £15 or more.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be referring to the methods employed by business concerns to secure business but the amendment deals with an entirely different matter.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate that perhaps I am drifting away from my amendment but I think you will bear with me, Sir, when I explain that the purpose of my amendment is to put a brake on that type of enticement. The type of salesmanship or business dealing which I am describing is the kind which entices people to enter into hire-purchase obligations without fully considering the consequences. It is something like inducing a person with the attraction of unlimited credit without giving the person an opportunity of considering whether or not he or she is in a position to repay the credit which is being unnecessarily offered.

I can understand the Minister or his Department may feel that the course which I suggest may be open to fraud, that the proof which it would require in court in order to establish that it was a binding hire-purchase contract might be difficult to furnish, but although these difficulties are real I think they are small compared with the serious difficulties and serious abuses which I believe must be stopped and stopped very soon. I would ask the Minister to accept that very few people read the hire-purchase transactions which they sign by reason of their length and their terminology and by reason of the practice of the trade. I do not think that is a good thing. A person should not sign a contract until he has had an opportunity of reading it and understanding it. That is the purpose of my amendment.

Mr. J. Lynch

I have some sympathy with the point made by the Deputy. As he will see, and as he has already seen, this legislation is designed to lean in favour of the hirer and the customer in most cases, while at the same time maintaining a fair balance on behalf of the owner of the goods. Nevertheless, I think that the provision he now seeks to introduce is hardly likely to be acceptable either to the hirer or the owner of the goods. He knows as well as I do that even where people have legal advice in matters of signing agreements they often claim, and perhaps with some justification, that when they sign agreements they have not any knowledge of what they contain. Even though they have had an opportunity, or may have had an opportunity, of reading the form, in fact they do not do so. It is often difficult and sometimes impossible to protect people against their own carelessness.

I feel the obligation to send a copy of the hire-purchase agreement to be entered into by the parties—by the owner to the hirer of the goods—is hardly likely to induce the hirer to read the agreement unless he is a person who normally would be likely to do so. In any event, it is true that a period of 48 hours would give him an opportunity greater than he or she might have otherwise but I would say a prudent customer always asks for a copy of the agreement to read and take home for consultation before signing it.

There is, too, the difficulty, which may be big or small, as to requiring the necessary proof that the draft agreement was in fact sent to the hirer 48 hours in advance of entering into the agreement. It would, of course, impose a difficulty which it might not be possible to overcome in certain circumstances. I believe that this obligation would be regarded as an irritant not only by the owner of the goods or the shopkeeper but by the hirer or customer as well. Even though I have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment, I do not think it would be practicable to enforce the obligation in all cases. In any case, it would be impossible to protect the type of person that the Deputy wants to protect by the means he suggests.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is amendment No. 3 withdrawn?

Mr. Ryan

If the Minister will bear in mind, as I believe he will, the tenor of my remarks when making Orders setting out the form of the hire-purchase agreement, I believe that the main object of my amendment will be met. If a simpler and more easily understood form of agreement could be made available to the general public I believe they would have the necessary information before signing the agreement and we might not hear so many complaints about not having an opportunity of understanding the agreement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW SECTION.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 7 are consequential and might be debated together. The Deputy will understand that if No. 4 is negatived No. 7 may not be moved.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate that, sir. I move amendment No. 4:

Before Section 6, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:—

"Without prejudice to paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section 6, the minimum deposit to be paid by a buyer or hirer shall not be less than ten per cent."

The grounds for this amendment are, to a great extent, similar to those in respect of the previous amendment. The purpose again is to ensure that a person will not enter into a hire-purchase contract without being afforded an opportunity to have second thoughts about the obligation which he is undertaking. I can appreciate that from time to time the Minister or the Government, by reason of the financial position and the necessity for encouraging or discouraging people in regard to the purchase of particular goods, may wish to vary minimum deposits. But I really believe that no person should be permitted to enter into hire-purchase contracts for anything under the sun unless he or she has sufficient discipline to save 10 per cent. of the cost price. Take any article, say a television set and an aerial. They will in future be bought here in even greater numbers than in the northern part of the country in the last couple of years. They are available at a cost of about £90 to £100. Ten per cent. of that is only £10 and the majority of these contracts extend over a period of about two years.

For simple arithmetical purposes we can say that 10 per cent. amounts to a pound per week for 10 weeks, and then the balance is spread over a period of about three years. If a person has not sufficient self-discipline to save up the deposit represented by 10 per cent. before entering a hire-purchase contract, for his own protection, he should not be allowed to enter into a hire-purchase agreement. That is the object of my amendment.

It also has the objectives I already mentioned in relation to the previous amendment. If a person has to discipline himself to save for ten weeks to put down a deposit, then he is certainly going to consider the meaning and the results of paying out or saving the same amount for the next two years. At the moment, unfortunately, people frequently enter into hire-purchase obligations without considering any other commitments they have to meet. The lady of the house who has not got the grocer's bill or the electricity bill or the gas or telephone bills in her hand at the time can quite easily forget about having to meet these various obligations at the end of another week or month, but if she has to save the minimum deposit of ten per cent. before entering into a hire-purchase contract, then I believe she will seriously consider whether or not she can afford to meet the further commitment.

All too many people are not comfortably able to meet their commitments. I can appreciate that the Minister can quote statistics showing that the number of defaulters on hire-purchase contracts is relatively small in proportion to the number of hire-purchase transactions entered into. That is true but again, that must be set off against the fact that many homes go without the necessities of life in order to keep up the hire-purchase payments because they feel that if they do not, the particular article may be taken from them or that they may have to meet extra legal costs and may have the embarrassment of the sheriff and all that kind of thing to follow. Apart from their knowledge of the consequences of not paying, these people have a certain pride and do not wish to lose the respect of their neighbours and it is frequently the children who suffer either in relation to their food or clothing.

A minimum deposit of ten per cent. will ensure that only those with sufficient self-discipline would be given an opportunity of entering into hire-purchase contracts. I do not believe that this would reduce the amount of hire-purchase business by any very great amount but it will undoubtedly ensure that only those who are creditworthy will be allowed to enter into hire-purchase agreements. At present many unfortunate people, for their own sakes, should not be permitted to enter into hire-purchase agreements. I quoted already from the "privileged customer cheque". That is an example of the kind of thing that would be prevented or discouraged if the Minister accepts my amendment. I kept the percentage as low as ten per cent. because I believe that is one which would not be unfair either to the customer or to the businessman. If in relation to the "privileged customer cheque" where credit is to be given to the tune of £20, if the customer had to get £2 before being given the £20 worth there is less chance of a gullible person being caught by a slick salesman before leaving the shop and less chance of a person on his own doorstep being trapped by a slick salesman if such persons could not enter into commitments without having the necessary cash to put down.

I appreciate that in relation to any deposit whether written into this Bill itself or whether prescribed by the Minister there are avenues open for fraud. Various loopholes can be availed of as in the past and I have no doubt the Minister will fill the loopholes before he prescribes any minimum deposit. It is a good thing to enshrine the principle of a minimum deposit in the Bill itself. In an earlier section we had a very sound criticism of the tendency to leave all the legislation to the administration instead of to the Legislature. I think that in relation to something like the minimum deposit the House should take its courage in its hands. The Minister should take courage and prescribe a minimum deposit below which no hire-purchase transaction would be permissible. If he does that I think he will get the support of the vast majority of the people and I should be only too glad to see him get credit for that. If he does that he will put people on guard against hire-purchase transactions and it will not prevent him from increasing under Section 6 the minimum deposit to 15 or 25 per cent. or as much as the circumstances at any particular time required.

Mr. J. Lynch

As the Deputy said in the concluding part of his speech, acceptance of this amendment would mean a legislative provision providing for a minimum deposit in respect of all goods. As the Bill stands, Section 6 provides that the Minister may by Order prescribe the minimum deposit in particular cases. In reply to the debate on an earlier amendment, I stated that there is an obligation that the Minister for Finance be consulted before the Order prescribing the minimum deposit is made and that the circumstances under which it would be made are ones in which the balance of payments problem would arise, or, as well as that, where it might be necessary to try to correct an inflationary trend.

These were the circumstances in which the Order was made in 1956, but even in those serious circumstances, the minimum deposit conditions did not apply to certain types of goods such as agricultural or industrial equipment, commercial motor vehicles, tractors, cookers, fishing boats or fishing gear. In general, I think it desirable that no minimum deposit would be prescribed in the case of at least some of that category of goods—agricultural and industrial machinery and perhaps fishing boats and gear. If there were a minimum deposit, it might be, in relation to the cost of the goods, so high as to make the possibility of entering into hire purchase transactions too remote. Therefore, I would suggest that the provisions in Section 6 of the Bill are sufficient to ensure that the objective of meeting the balance of payments situation or curbing inflation are sufficient and that in the event of a minimum deposit being required, there should be no standard minimum because of the necessity of facilitating hire-purchase in certain respects. In the circumstances, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Mr. Ryan

The prior consideration I have is not the national balance of payments but the household balance of payments. I can understand the Minister's reluctance to impose a general minimum if, in so doing, he may prevent people from acquiring necessary agricultural industrial or fishing equipment, but such cases if needs be, could be excluded from the Bill and left to Ministerial Order. The types of articles I have in mind are those which, in the main, are governed by this Bill—ordinary household necessaries and luxuries, anything from linoleum to a standard lamp, or a piano, articles which people are induced to buy frequently, even though they do not require them.

Any person entering into a hire-purchase contract with a firm which sells household goods never gets out of that firm with only one hire-purchase commitment. Such a person is invariably inveigled into entering into further and further commitments. The insidious trend not to allow a person to get out of the grip of these hire-purchase firms would be arrested, were the Minister prepared to impose a minimum deposit, irrespective of whether or not the balance of payments position or the national finances demanded it. If such a deposit is imposed, so much credit would not be needed to finance hire-purchase business. I believe that would be a good thing nationally, quite apart from the balance of payments position at all. Most hire-purchase financing comes from abroad. It is pumped in here. It has a continuous inflationary effect upon the economy. I am not one of those who is frightened by inflation, but I think the type of inflation resulting from unnecessary hire-purchase financing should be restricted in some degree. That would be the effect if this ten per cent. deposit were imposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps amendments Nos. 5 and 6 could be discussed together.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 5:

In subsection (1), line 3, before "The Minister" to insert "In respect of any hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement".

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 can be taken together, and possibly with some others as well: Nos. 8, 10 and 11. These were intended to be complementary to the amendment which Deputy Cosgrave moved with regard to these Orders. If the House did not see fit to have Orders generally requiring confirmation, they might give the Minister power to regulate by Order, which becomes effective unless negatived, and that might restrict him to certain things. The vote must be regarded as unfavourable to the amendment.

As the section stands, the Minister "may by Order provide for the regulation and control of the hire-purchase, sale upon credit and letting of goods or of any class of description of goods." Hire-purchase has been defined in earlier Acts. I understand credit sale is also defined and in amendment No. 14, in the name of the Minister, I notice the use of the term "credit-sale". He moves there to delete certain words—"letting or selling goods"—and to insert "letting goods, whether under hire-purchase agreements or otherwise, or selling goods by credit-sale agreements." Credit-sale is, I think, a term which has its definition, and that definition is narrow. What the Minister proposes to do is to take power to regulate sale upon credit. Everybody who does not pay his bill immediately enters into a sale on credit. Surely the Minister does not want to regulate the sale of ordinary household goods which are obtained on a weekly or monthly basis.

The Minister uses very wide terms when he speaks of "letting or selling goods" of any class or description. If a person takes a furnished house for a holiday, it could be said that the equipment in the rooms is let to him. I am sure that that is not intended under this Bill. I tried to restrict this and bring it down to what I thought was the real purpose, namely, that in respect of a hire-purchase agreement or a credit-sale agreement, these regulations may flow.

I am really speaking on the section now because my amendments are governed by the decision taken on amendment No. 3. I do not understand, when there is this necessity to have everything done by Order, why there is any necessity for developing the point. Why would the Minister not be content with Section 6 (1): "The Minister may by order provide for" and then follow certain general matters? Why set out the details in subsection (2) under (a), (b), (c), (d)? Now the Minister wants to add (e). If he wants to have it so broad, it seems to me it could easily be left with Section 6 (1) and subsection (4), and possibly (5). The Minister is aware that on occasion matters come in for argument before courts in which there is a general phrase followed by certain special terms, and the special terms are regarded as limited by what is in the general phrase. I am very glad that there is some restriction imposed, but I do not see why the Minister wants to put all that in. During the war, when Emergency Powers Orders were in operation, they were paraphrased in one edition of Dublin Opinion:“They really mean the Government may, when it thinks fit, do anything that pleases it.” This is the same. The Minister wants to do what he likes about hire-purchase. Why specialise then in regard to these extra points? That is an argument on the section. “Hire-purchase” is a recognised term. I do not know why the Orders should relate to sale upon credit of any class or description of goods, or the letting of goods of any class or description. That is certainly far beyond the terms of a hire-purchase Bill. It should, of course, include credit-sales, but credit-sales as defined.

Mr. J. Lynch

The use of the phrase "letting of goods" is for the purpose of preventing any attempt at circumventing the purposes of the legislation. I am informed that there are occasionally transactions in which goods are let in order to evade regulations or legislative provisions controlling hire-purchase or credit-sales. The Deputy has a valid point in relation to his reference to "sale upon credit."

Mr. McGilligan

It is not defined, is it?

Mr. J. Lynch

It is not defined.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not defined in the Sale of Goods Act. It is certainly not defined in the other Acts. I do not know that "letting of good" is defined anywhere.

Mr. J. Lynch

My intention is not to depart from the principle of the section, if I can avoid it.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister uses the phrase in his amendment—amendment No. 14. "Selling goods by credit-sale agreements"—I took that to mean that the term had been accepted as having a limited interpretation. Therefore, I think it should be put in here, too.

Mr. J. Lynch

Between now and the Report Stage, I shall look into the points made by the Deputy in connection with the references to "sale upon credit and letting of goods".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 not moved.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 9:—

In subsection (2), page 4, to add to the subsection the following paragraph:

"( ) the inclusion in any such advertisement or announcement of a statement of the price at which the goods will be sold for cash."

The object of this amendment is to include as one of the Orders that might be made under Section 6 an Order relating to the information that must be given by traders in advertising goods for sale by way of hire-purchase or credit-sale agreements. Such Orders may prescribe the cash price for which the goods may be purchased. I suggest that this is a desirable inclusion in the form of display that a trader will have in connection with advertising hire-purchase goods. If the customer, having been attracted by a particular Article in the display, is aware of the total hire-purchase price and the price or which the goods can be acquired or cash, as well as the period over which payments will be required of him and the amount of the payments, it will give him, the customer, full information on the amount of the commitments he is likely to enter into. In particular, it will give him the necessary information as to cash prices and total hire-purchase prices and will give him the opportunity of assessing whether or not he is getting a good bargain, whether he might do better by trying to buy the goods outright for cash or whether it would be in his interest to accept the rates of payment and the period in which these payments must be made as displayed by the owners of the goods.

Mr. McGilligan

If you want to have a special reference to it, there is nothing objectionable in that; but is that all not covered in sub-section (1) of the section generally?

Mr. J. Lynch

The intention is to illustrate the type of Order that will be made.

Mr. McGilligan

Might I ask one other question? There is the phrase "the inclusion in any such advertisement or announcement" which refers back to paragraph (d). In that paragraph, there is a peculiar phrase used "any visual advertisement or visual announcement". What is a visual announcement?

Mr. J. Lynch

One which can be perceived by the eye.

Mr. McGilligan

Suppose a person advertises on the radio. That is not a visual announcement?

Mr. J. Lynch

No; but I do not think it is necessary to cover such advertisements.

Mr. McGilligan

But the word "visual" is with "advertisement" also.

Mr. J. Lynch

I think the purpose of the section would be covered if the customer could be given that information in any advertisement appearing——

Mr. McGilligan

Then why put in the word "visual" at all? Why not say "advertisement or announcement"?

Mr. J. Lynch

To distinguish it from a radio announcement.

Mr. McGilligan

Do you mean to let the radio announcement off?

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not, no. There would be the question of difficulty of proof in relation to a radio announcement.

Mr. McGilligan

May we take it then that the radio announcement is not specially covered?

Mr. J. Lynch

Certainly.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 12:

In subsection (5), page 4, line 27, after "paragraph (d)" to insert "or (e)".

This amendment is consequential on the previous amendment I moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 4, line 30, to delete "letting or selling goods" and to insert "letting goods, whether under hire-purchase agreements or otherwise, or selling goods by credit-sale agreements".

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the Minister's power of obtaining information under the section shall be exercisable only in relation to people engaged in the letting of goods, whether on hire-purchase agreement or otherwise, and the sale of goods on credit sale terms. The section as it stood appeared to give the Minister powers far too wide for the purposes of the Bill. Anybody engaged in the selling of goods would be subject to inspection under this Bill as the section stood. I think this amendment is being moved, and rightly moved in response to the suggestions made by the Opposition during the course of the Second Reading.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister will then take this into consideration when he is looking at subsection (1) of Section 6 because there is a peculiar run of words there? This certainly gives more precise expression than is in sub-section (1) of Section 6. The amendment says that any person who carries on or who is employed in the business of "letting goods whether under hire-purchase agreements or otherwise ..." The pivotal phrase there is "letting goods". It then goes on to say "or selling goods by credit sale agreements". I take it those will be considered together?

Mr. J. Lynch

Certainly.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 4, line 33, to delete "the purposes of" and to insert "enabling him to exercise his functions under".

This is a drafting amendment. The purpose is to make the wording of this section comply with the wording of subsection (1) of Section 9. It involves no change in the sense or in the import of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 17:

In subsection (2), page 4, lines 39 to 42, to delete from "when exercising any power" to the end of the subsection and to substitute therefor "as soon as he has entered any premises pursuant to section 9 of this Act, shall produce the warrant to the person in charge of the premises".

This amendment has been submitted as a result of suggestions made during the course of the Second Reading debate. The purpose of it is that an authorised officer, on entering premises, will be required to produce immediately on entry to the person in charge of the premises the warrant which carries his authority to inspect such premises. The amendment covers, I think, subsequent amendments submitted by Deputy McGilligan.

Mr. McGilligan

Except for one thing. This says he shall produce the warrant "to the person in charge of the premises." I had put it in a different form: the phrase, already in the legislation, "if requested by any person affected." Suppose an officer enters a premises and there is a caretaker there. It is sufficient, apparently, to produce that warrant to the person in charge of the premises. He may not be a responsible person at all. I know that, later on, "at all reasonable times" and all the rest is stated. But you might have somebody of no special importance in connection with the business and he could be regarded as in charge of the premises. This now is on first entry. The authorised officer has to produce his warrant to the person. It is quite proper to have it produced on entry. This is a much better phrase. However, I think the person in charge of the premises, if it means the person then in charge of the premises, must be somebody responsible such as an owner or a member of a company. That would be all right. It depends on the interpretation given to it but this is certainly an improvement on the wording of the section.

Mr. J. Lynch

As the Deputy says, entry by an inspector, or rather the inspection itself, may be carried out only at reasonable times and it is hardly likely that the night watchman would be in charge during a time of inspection by an authorised person. If one of the Deputy's amendments is accepted——

Mr. McGilligan

I am not moving them.

Mr. J. Lynch

——every person affected should be shown the authorisation. In certain circumstances, there could be a procession of people coming up to an authorised officer with the intention of frustrating his whole function—clerks, typists, or porters. Each of them would be affected by the inspection.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the Minister's proposal.

Mr. J. Lynch

We are changing it now.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the original proposal.

Mr. J. Lynch

We are changing it and the person in charge is likely to be a person who would, in fact, have an interest in being shown the warrant.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 not moved.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 21:—

In subsection (1), page 4, line 45, before "do any one" to insert "at all reasonable times enter premises at which the business of letting goods, whether under hire-purchase agreements or otherwise, or selling goods by credit-sale agreements is carried on and".

Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 could be discussed together. Amendment No. 21 is designed to achieve three distinct purposes. It provides that the powers of an authorised officer to obtain information under Section 9, subsection (1), will be exercisable only in relation to persons engaged in the letting of goods under hire-purchase agreements or otherwise, or the selling of goods on, credit-sale terms. The subsection, as drafted, applies to the sale of goods and this is considered too wide, and rightly so, for the purposes of the Bill.

The second purpose is to provide for the deletion of the words "any activity in connection with" where they appear in line 47. In other words, if these words were permitted to remain in the section, it could happen that an authorised officer could go to a trader's bank and ask a bank clerk or teller certain questions which might have no relation whatever to the transaction the authorised officer was expected to investigate. The third purpose is that the submission of this amendment is being availed of by the Parliamentary draftsman to transpose certain words and to secure a better form of drafting.

Shall I deal with amendment No. 22 separately or shall I carry on?

Mr. McGilligan

We can discuss both together.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We can discuss both but there is only one amendment before the House.

Mr. J. Lynch

Amendment No. 22 is consequential on the previous amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

The only part left in sub-paragraph (a) is "inspect the premises?"

Mr. J. Lynch

That is right. Amendment No. 23 is Deputy McGilligan's and I think I have explained what that means.

Mr. McGilligan

The only point I have to make is that the amendment is undoubtedly an improvement because it would cut out the possibility that any activity in connection with all these people could be brought under notice and made the subject of inspection. But, even in the part as amended, there is still this peculiar phrase "the business of letting goods under hire-purchase or otherwise." I know what letting goods under hire-purchase and sale-credit is, but "letting goods otherwise" is still a little obscure and something to be looked into. Outside that, I asked the Minister to cut out the phrase "any activity" wherever it occurs. The Minister has cut it out here but he has not cut it out of sub-paragraph (b). It seems to me that everywhere the Minister sees the word "activity" in the original draft Bill, he should put in the word "business".

Mr. J. Lynch

I am accepting amendment No. 26, which will cover that.

Mr. McGilligan

Does that mean generally that the word "activity" goes.

Mr. J. Lynch

"Activity" goes.

Mr. McGilligan

That is all I was aiming at. It is substituted by "business"?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 22:

In subsection (1), page 4, lines 47 to 49, to delete "at all reasonable times enter premises at which any activity in connection with the business of letting or selling goods is carried on, and".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 23, 24, and 25 not moved.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 26:

In subsection (1), pages 4 and 5, to delete "activity" where it occurs in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) and substitute ‘business".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 27:

In subsection (2), page 5, line 16, before "subsection (1)" to insert "section 7 of this Act or".

The object of this amendment is to ensure that no one will have to answer any question or give any evidence tending to incriminate himself, when requested by the Minister to furnish information under Section 7. That is the section which requires a person to give certain information to the Minister —books, documents, records, etc., which the Minister may require for the purposes of this Part of the Bill, that is, Part II. I think this is a usual provision which provides that such information may not be required, if that information tends to incriminate the person from whom it is sought.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 28:

In subsection (3), page 5, line 19, before "If" to insert "Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section".

I put down this amendment for the purpose of getting clarification from the Minister. Under subsection (2) it is clear that the person is not bound to answer or give information that incriminates him, and subsection (3) states that if a person obstructs an authorised officer, he is guilty of an offence. I only want to have it made clear that a person refusing to incriminate himself could surely not be found guilty of obstructing an authorised officer. I know that an effort was made, though I do not know in what particular piece of legislation, to have it accepted that a person refusing to give information which would tend to incriminate him was alleged to be obstructing and impeding an authorised officer. I know that is not meant to be the case.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am advised that this amendment is not necessary but, on the other hand, it does not alter the import of the section and, therefore, I am accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 29:

In subsection (3), page 5, line 21, to delete "of an authorised officer" and substitute "under Section 7 of this Act or".

The object of this amendment is to ensure that any person who does not comply with a request by the Minister under Section 7—that is the section to which I referred a few minutes ago— shall be guilty of an offence. The powers of obtaining information under Section 7 are essential for the discharge of the Minister's functions and it would be impossible to discharge these functions, unless, in the event of a person refusing to comply with certain requests, there was a corresponding penalty. This amendment ensures that there will be such a penalty.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 30:

In subsection (2), line 29, to delete "for the purpose" and substitute "in the course".

The section sets out to prohibit the disclosure of information obtained by any authorised officer acting in accordance with the powers given to him under the Act. It states that this prohibition on the disclosure of information is not to apply to a communication by an authorised officer in the exercise of his duties and that is all right. Secondly, it is not to apply to the disclosure of information "for the purpose of legal proceedings under this Part of this Act".

One could contemplate a situation where information otherwise prohibited was disclosed when an action was contemplated but where the legal proceedings were in fact not taken. I want to ensure that the disclosure can only be made if the proceedings are in course. Clearly, one must then allow information to be given. Say, somebody is to be penalised for obstructing an officer. Naturally the officer must be allowed to say what has happened but it ought to be in course of legal proceedings, not merely for the purpose of legal proceedings. Information might be disclosed and the proceedings might not follow. It would be then a disclosure of a type ordinarily prohibited. It may not be intended that way but the phrase is rather wide.

Mr. J. Lynch

The intention is that the authorised officer would be required to furnish information to the Minister following his investigations to indicate whether or not there are grounds for bringing a prosecution. I suggest that it would be impossible to bring a prosecution unless certain necessary information were available to the Minister in advance, on which he could make up his mind whether or not a prosecution lay. If the authorised officer were precluded from giving such information in advance of the actual hearing of the prosecution, there might be many cases in which a judge might say to the person prosecuting the case on behalf of the Minister that the prosecution should never have been brought, that there was no evidence. The Minister must have access to the evidence in advance to ensure that only cases which merit prosecution will be brought.

Mr. McGilligan

I was wrong, then. I misunderstand the section. I thought the difference between (a) and (b) was that (a) was, so to speak, internal to the Department or the Government and that any communication made by an authorised officer would be made in execution of his duties. I thought (b) came away from the, so to speak, internal examination in the Department as to whether prosecution ought to be brought or not and that then one went wider and one allowed the disclosure of information for the purpose of legal proceedings. I wanted to narrow it, that the Minister, the Government or the Attorney General could get all the information they wanted for the purpose of deciding whether or not a prosecution would be brought but that when the prosecution was taken the disclosure was only to be made in the course of the legal proceedings, not for the purpose of it. I thought "for the purpose of legal proceedings" was covered by (a)—a communication made by an authorised officer to the Minister. I took it to be two sections, one the preliminary examination to see whether proceedings should be brought or not and the second, what is going to be disclosed in court.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Deputy has a good point there all right. I shall look into it between now and Report Stage.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Minister wants to say, "disclosure of information by an officer to a Member of the Government, the Attorney General" or anything like that, very good, for the purpose of legal proceedings, but surely it would be wrong to have things spoken of in court unless they were necessary, unless they really arose in the course of the proceedings?

Mr. J. Lynch

I shall look into that and make sure.

Mr. McGilligan

Very good.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 31:—

To delete subsection (2).

The section provides for a statutory limitation of 12 months. I suppose it is six months at the moment in the ordinary matter of summary proceedings?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the reason for asking for an enlargement to 12 months? The date of the offence is the pivotal point. Surely six months from the date of the offence would be quite a long enough period in which to allow proceedings to be brought. Is there any special point in enlarging it to 12?

Mr. J. Lynch

The only point is that experience in relation to the enforcement of the 1956 Order indicated in some cases that the limitation was too short. For that reason I am asking that 12 months be given.

Mr. McGilligan

Very good.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 14 agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

Amendment No. 32 not moved.

Section 16 agreed to.

Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Amendment No. 33 not moved.

Mr. McGilligan

Can we take amendment No. 35 ahead of amendment No. 34? They are on the same point. I want to delete the subsection altogether. My colleague wants to substitute.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are alternatives.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

Take No. 35 first. I move amendment No. 35:—

To delete subsection (3) and substitute:—

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 or the Courts of Justice Act, 1936 or in the rules of Court, any action in the Circuit Court or in the District Court which shall have been instituted after the commencement of this Act in the area in which the hire purchase agreement is alleged to have been made, and to which subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section relates may, upon the filing of a statutory declaration by the defendant or one of the defendants that (a) he the said defendant does not reside in the Court circuit or area in which the action has been instituted and (b) he believes he has a bona fide defence to the said action or believes himself entitled to relief under this Act or the Hire Purchase Act, 1946 and (c) applies that the action be remitted for hearing in the area in which he does reside (and which he specifies) with the County Registrar or District Court clerk as the case may be of the circuit or area in which the action shall have been instituted in a manner to be prescribed by the Minister under the powers conferred on him under the first part of this Act and provided notice has been given of the said application to the Plaintiffs and to any other party to the action in a manner likewise to be prescribed by the Minister, be, in such order be calculated to promote justice as between the parties to the action, transferred or remitted by the said Court to the appropriate circuit or area in which the said defendant has been declared to reside and the costs of such application shall be costs in the action. The necessary pleadings and a copy of any other record appertaining to the said action shall be transmitted from the office of said County Registrar or District Court Clerk to the area to which the action is remitted."

The effect of Section 19 subsection (3) is to require all actions in regard to hire-purchase agreements to recover possession of the goods or arrears of payments in the circuit or district court jurisdictions—in the circuit court where the hire-purchase price does not exceed £1,000—to be brought in the area where the defendant resides. It is usual in agreements of this sort to have the agreement made wherever it is signed. These agreements in many cases are made at the head office of the company or the place of business. In other cases they are made at the agent's place of business and possibly in some cases where an agent visits the hirer's home or premises the agreement is signed there.

It seems appropriate that the action should be brought wherever the agreement is made but it is conceivable that, under the proposal in the Bill, particularly in a case where there are two defendants, if the action must be taken in the circuit court area in which the defendant resides, very considerable additional expense might be involved, that not only will the owner of the goods have to travel but that witnesses may have to travel and, if there is a guarantor, that he will be obliged to travel.

The amendment provides that the present position would continue except where it is shown that it would be to the disadvantage of the defendant to have the action heard in a place other than his own district court area or circuit court district, as the case may be. As I understand the procedure at present it is possible for judgment to be secured without taking the action in the circuit court area or district as the case may be. I suggest that this amendment would enable a reasonable arrangement to be made under which the action would be taken in the defendant's area only if it was shown that he would be under a disadvantage otherwise.

I think the proposal I make is a reasonable one which would enable the interests of both parties to be safeguarded. There is no provision in the Bill as to what will happen if the defendants, if there are two of them, reside in different areas. That may have to be clarified at a subsequent stage but the existing procedure is satisfactory and if, in a particular case, it is shown that the defendant's position will be worsened, then under the amendment I have put down the case can be heard in the circuit court district or district court area where the defendant resides.

Mr. J. Lynch

It appears that a great many-hire purchase transactions are actually made or deemed to be made in Dublin. Most of the hire-purchase companies that operate in this country have their headquarters in Dublin and while the contract may be signed and is usually signed by the hirer in his own place of domicile or at his own residence, the signing by the hire-purchase company is done usually in Dublin and at that stage the contract is made. The contract is completed, I take it, when it is signed by the second party and it is then that the contract is deemed to have been made in law.

It is true that in the case of contract generally the plaintiff can sue at his discretion either where the contract is made or in a court area where the defendant ordinarily resides. The intention of the subsection is to take away from a plaintiff in a hire-purchase transaction the right of suing where the contract is made and the purpose is again to lean in favour of the hirer. In general, hire-purchase companies are powerful organisations. In many cases they have legal advisers employed by them but they have at least legal advisers available to them in the area of their headquarters and in many other parts of the country where they do business. Many people who enter into hire-purchase transactions with them are, in the main, people who do not have recourse to solicitors in the ordinary way and who would probably avoid recourse to solicitors.

In addition to that, there are under the 1946 Act, and as extended under this Act, certain reliefs which may be given to a defendant by the Court even without the appearance of that defendant. There is the system whereby a postponed order might be made in favour of the defendant. For example, if the hirer fails to live up to his obligations and a case is brought to court, the judge or the justice, as the case may be, may make an order requiring the defendant to pay the sum outstanding to the owner of the goods by way of instalments. In such a case it is likely, and probably usually will be the case, that the person, strictly in law, cannot say in an affidavit he has a good defence to the plaintiff's claim. It will be a matter of fact that certain instalments are outstanding, that these instalments have not been met by the defendant. Therefore, strictly speaking, he has no defence.

In the affidavit to be filed by the defendant, as suggested by Deputy Cosgrave, the person, before he could ask a judge sitting in Dublin to transfer the hearing of the case to his own court area, would have to say in his affidavit that he had in fact a good defence. It is likely, in any event, that that person, having been served with a civil Bill or process of some other form, may be unwilling to consult a solicitor. Certainly if he lives in a place like Skibbereen, and if he is sued to appear in the Circuit Court or the District Court in Dublin, it is very unlikely that he will appear. Certainly it is unlikely he will defend an action in the event of the sum outstanding being a small sum.

Many of these people, apart from the fear of travelling to a place like Dublin, to defend a case, may not even appear in their own local court to defend an action. Notwithstanding that, the court could give relief but the fact is that a person might appear in his own local court and point out to the judge who is hearing the case that he has not got a defence, that he was not able to meet his commitments under the hire-purchase agreement but that if he got an easier repayment system he might be able to meet these new obligations. The subsection was designed to meet such a case.

It has been suggested, maybe not by the Deputy but in the course of other representations made to me, that the procedure suggested in this subsection could well add to the legal costs of the case, particularly a case that might go by default, which would have to be heard in a local court, in certain circumstances, that is, where an order for the return of the goods might be required. Usually these hire-purchase companies have agents in most parts of the country and would therefore have reasonable access to local courts. I do not think it would inflict any hardship upon hire-purchase companies to require their agents to attend these local courts. These agents can go and give evidence of the making of the agreement as well as anybody sitting in a Dame Street office in Dublin. In many cases they have solicitors acting in local areas who represent them in certain cases, and even if they have not I do not think it would be much of a hardship on them to ask local solicitors to represent them in court proceedings.

Having regard to the natural reluctance of people to come to Dublin to defend cases taken in Dublin against them, having regard to their fear of the cost involved and to the facilities with which hire-purchase companies can procure legal advice and legal representation in all parts of the country, I think the subsection as it reads, being in favour of the defendant, is not a hardship on the hire-purchase companies and ought to be agreed by the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

What I am anxious to protect in this matter is the defendant's costs rather than those of the hire-purchase company. I agree the hire-purchase companies can either get legal advice from their head office or get a solicitor to act for them in a circuit court area locally, but in a matter of this kind, if evidence is to be given by a person other than a lawyer, if they have to bring evidence from head office, the defendant in that case taking the action in his own circuit or district area, as the case may be, if the verdict is given against him, will probably be liable for the expense involved and the added burden of paying for evidence of that sort will fall on him. Whether that is counterbalanced by the fact that if the action is brought, say, in Dublin, or outside the area, where he will have to pay his own travelling expenses, is another matter. The purpose of my amendment is to safeguard the position from both angles while, at the same time, ensuring that, if the defendant wanted to do so, he could have the action transferred to his own area.

Mr. Moloney

I can well appreciate the Minister's difficulties in this matter. He has to consider what might be described as the over-all picture and deal with the situation in the circumstances as he finds them. I think the main fear in this matter on the part of finance houses—and I can visualise their fear in this respect—is the infrequency of sittings of the circuit court and, particularly in a large district, cases may arise which would be appropriate to be heard by that court.

I saw a document which was circulated making representations to Ministers and Deputies and I imagine from that document that it is the infrequency of circuit court hearings they were concerned with. The position appears to be that when the hire-purchase people have not got possession of the vehicle, it would deteriorate considerably if any action were pending. That is the experience of people who have any connection with hire-purchase.

The sittings of the circuit courts in country areas are much less frequent than in the metropolitan area. If that point could be met to any reasonable extent, it might be a help to the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave and it would, I imagine, give some appreciable measure of relief and assistance to the hirers in the case of the district court. The frequency of district court sittings in rural areas is reasonably good, but it is not quite as good as it is in the city areas.

In any event, most of the cases that will come to be heard will naturally be before the circuit court because they are usually for £100. The cost of small transactions of less than £100 is usually the hiring out of household domestic appliances, I think. The Minister would have a very good case for local hearings because then the people might not be as well equipped to pursue a defence and to take advantage of any facilities for defence as the type of people who would be involved in transactions such as motor cars and industrial equipment. I was wondering if I was right in assuming that when cases come to be heard before the circuit court, they could, if needs be, come up for hearing in any part of the circuit area covered by a particular judge. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on that point.

Mr. J. Lynch

So far as the fear expressed by the Deputy about the deterioration of motor vehicles is concerned, the Deputy will, no doubt, have seen Section 16, under which the owner of a vehicle having commenced an action has certain powers of seizing that vehicle in certain circumstances, one of which is if:—

the vehicle has been abandoned or has been left unattended in circumstances which have resulted or are imminently likely to result in damage to, or more than normal depreciation in the value of, the vehicle,

I suggest that in the case of motor vehicles, at any rate, there is no danger, by reason of any delay which might be experienced between court sittings, of any likelihood of damage to the owner's property.

With regard to the second point made by the Deputy, I am advised, and it has been my experience, that the circuit court area even in the case in which Deputy Moloney is particularly interested and of which he has most experience, comprising a number of counties as it does— the southwestern circuit comprises Kerry, Limerick and Clare—I am advised an action may be brought in any one of the counties, so long as it is within the circuit court area. Most circuit courts sit week in and week out, with the exception of the ordinary vacation periods. I believe the minimum number of sitting days for any circuit court judge exceeds 100 days. If one excludes the long vacation period the short vacation periods, Saturdays and Sundays and perhaps one other day, one can readily see the number of sitting days remaining.

I do not think there is much force in the suggestion that delays would be involved if the defendant had the right to have his case heard in his local circuit court area. Certainly, it has no application to district court areas, the Deputy admitted, because the district courts sit very frequently. and I think the justice has power to adjourn a case from one of his sitting towns to another. I doubt if any delays are likely to occur, so far as district courts are concerned. In all the circumstances, the fears expressed by Deputy Moloney as to delays are hardly likely to be realised.

The bringing of witnesses from Dublin to a country venue surely is likely to be no more costly than the expenses of the defendant himself who will have to come to Dublin to prosecute his case. I think that at least levels out and, if there is any hardship, it would be on the unfortunate defendant who would have to pay his expenses himself, absent himself from his work, perhaps for a day or a day and a half, in order to travel to Dublin and return home, whereas the person acting for the hire-purchase company and giving evidence for them will be acting in the course of his own ordinary work, and would, therefore, incur no hardship from that point of view. In all those circumstances, a provision requiring a case to be brought in the area in which the defendant resides is a good one and the fairest to all the parties.

Mr. McGilligan

It is only a matter of self-deception to talk in terms of saving costs. The costs will be bigger but they will be better shared. Solicitors in the country will get more arising out of hire-purchase actions than they got when those actions were mainly confined to Dublin. So far as costs are concerned, take the case of an individual in a remote part of Kerry who enters into a hire-purchase transaction and who is involved in an action. The hire-purchase company may have four or five witnesses who will have to go to Kerry. There is no saving there at all. It is an enlargement of the cost of hire-purchase transactions.

Deputy Cosgrave made the point that the person defaulting on the agreement may suffer. I do not think he will because most of the people who default have not got very much out of which costs may be levied and, in the end, the expenses will be reflected in the charges made for these transactions. The Minister has spoken about the case that goes by default. I do not know what the circumstances are now but not very many years ago, very few cases went by default. The courts are very alert to see that the facts are proved. The witnesses have to be brought to Court. Very few cases go by default. I understand the ones that really go by default are those in which the person involved writes to the hire-purchase company and says he does not want to contest the matter. Such a communication is not always accepted by the judicial authority.

One might see an occasion for letting the place where the defendant resides be the venue for the trial. I think Deputy Cosgrave's amendment puts that quite fairly: "... upon the filing of a statutory declaration by the defendant or one of the defendants that (a) he the said defendant does not reside in the Court circuit or area in which the action has been instituted and (b) he believes he has a bona fide defence to the said action or believes himself entitled to relieve ... and (c) applies that the action be remitted for hearing in the area in which he does reside ...” Lower in the amendment it says “... if such order be calculated to promote justice as between the parties to the action ...”

The Minister says a man may not have a great defence but may indicate he would like a longer time in which to pay. That is something which the Courts often consider. A statutory declaration is not a very expensive transaction. Surely, before an action is transferred, it would be right to insist on some such thing as Deputy Cosgrave indicated in his amendment? I think it ought to be modified. We shall now have an enlarged jurisdiction. If every action will now be shifted to areas where the prospective defendants reside it will make very serious increases in the cost of hire-purchase transactions.

Mr. J. Lynch

I would remind the Deputy that there is the procedure of marking judgment in the Office. In undefended cases, in which the return of goods is not in question——

Mr. McGilligan

Does that cheapen hire-purchase?

Mr. J. Lynch

To mark judgment in a circuit court office in Cork or Galway would not be any more costly than to mark it in the circuit court in Dublin.

Mr. McGilligan

I did not know that that was contemplated.

Mr. J. Lynch

There is an amendment later which withdraws the necessity to go before a judge in cases where the liquidated sum only is involved and not the specific return of the goods. Therefore, such cases may have judgment marked in the appropriate office except in the district court which offices have not got that power.

Mr. McGilligan

Amendment No. 39?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Question: "That the subsection proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. McGilligan

Amendment No. 34 is negatived by the previous decision.

Amendment No. 34 not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.

Sections 20 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 10, to delete subsection (1) and insert the following subsection:

( ) The jurisdiction of the High Court to remit or transfer actions under Section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, may, in relation to an action pending in the High Court by the owner of goods let under a hire-purchase agreement—

(a) to enforce a right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer, or

(b) to enforce payment of a sum due under the hire-purchase agreement or under any contract of guarantee relating thereto,

at any time before judgment is given in the action, be exercised by the High Court of its own motion and without application in that behalf having been made to it by any party to the action.

During the course of the Second Reading, the provisions of this section as to the power of remittal of judges in appropriate cases was discussed. The section is now redrafted in the present form. Its purpose is to ensure that a High Court judge in an appropriate action will have the power to remit or transfer actions to the appropriate court.

It may happen from time to time and for the convenience of hire-purchase companies that they bring actions in which the district court or the circuit court may have jurisdiction in the High Court in Dublin. It may be possible, even though it is not likely, that they will make claims above the circuit court jurisdiction. Evidence will subsequently show that the claims they make are much higher than in fact they could hope to sustain and that the cases should more appropriately have been brought to the circuit court. The purpose of the section is to ensure that, under these circumstances, a High Court judge on his own motion will have power to remit the action to the appropriate court (1) as to jurisdiction and (2) as to the place of residence of the defendant.

Therefore, if an action is brought in the High Court for the recovery of payments due under a hire-purchase transaction of sums exceeding £1,000 and if it appears in the High Court, in the course of the hearing, that the payments involved do not in fact exceed £1,000 the judge may remit the action immediately to the appropriate circuit court or, if the amounts involved are low enough, to the appropriate district court. I understand that some time ago an action was taken on the question of the power of remittal of a High Court judge of an action of his own motion. That action was appealed to the Supreme Court but the decision on appeal had no relation to this particular point and it was not in fact ever decided. This section is intended to ensure that under the circumstances I have already outlined a High Court judge would have power to remit such an action of his own motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is an amendment by Deputy McGilligan to amendment No. 36.

Mr. McGilligan

Shall I take them all together? They are all much the same. I had previously put down amendments but they have had to be changed because of the new subsection proposed by the Minister. I have amendments Nos. 37 and 38 and then an amendment to amendment No. 36. I shall take them all together. They are all on the same point. I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 36:

1. To delete all words after "High Court" where it thirdly occurs.

I wanted to omit this remission of actions of the High Court by its own motion. First of all, if the High Court were to remit and it would involve extra cost, the defendant would have to go security for such costs. That would be recognition of the fact that it was going to cost more. Therefore the defendant would not have to pay costs unless he lost the action but he will have to pay the extra costs incurred by the hire-purchase company in case the action went against the hirer. I want to put that in to prevent attempts to get cases remitted where there is no defence at all and no substance in the allegation.

The other point was to take out the word "not" in subsection (2), line 16. I want to reinstate what is in the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, where part of the power remitted is confined in this way. The person may object to the remission or transfer but he has to satisfy the court that he has something in the way of a good defence. Apart from a good defence, he must disclose facts which, in the opinion of the court, are sufficient to entitle him to defend the action. He must have a good defence or show some set of facts upon which the High Court can say that is a good reason why that action should be defended.

I am personally against this power of remission on the part of the High Court. That is why I move this amendment to the Minister's new section. By cutting out all that follows after the words "High Court", you would restore the original situation. That would mean that the High Court could not move on its own motion. At least, there would have to be an application made. Therefore, the High Court could not move on its own. I would still prefer that to be the situation.

Mr. J. Lynch

I found it difficult to hear what the Deputy said. As far as security for costs is concerned, I am inclined to quarrel on that point. The Deputy seemed to suggest that the party to the action whom the remission assisted should be required to give security for costs. I think in the case where a judge has power of remittal on his own motion, it would be unfair to require any party to give security for costs when the judge would be doing nothing other than carrying out powers which have been given to him by legislation. In any case, security for costs is sought only in circumstances where it is feared that the party to an action who is seeking certain relief may not have the means of paying the costs, if the action goes against him.

The usual case is where a party who is not resident in the country brings an action against a person domiciled here in an Irish court. The person domiciled here is, in these circumstances, empowered to go to the court and ask the court, before he submits his defence, to make an order requiring the person who lives in a foreign country to deposit a certain sum by way of security for costs, in the event of the case being decided against the foreigner.

The intention, too, is, I think, to discourage what I might describe as "chancy" actions by asking for certain security. I do not think it would be fair—in this case, the defendant will now have a statutory right, in the event of this legislation passing, to have the appropriate action tried in his local court—to require him to give security for costs when a judge ensures that the statutory right is being observed. I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister's last remarks beg the question. There is a right of the citizen to get security for costs from another citizen in certain circumstances.

Mr. J. Lynch

I cited the case only as an illustration.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister speaks of the hardship imposed on a person exercising a statutory right. We are only giving him that. We should give it to him on conditions. If the High Court thinks it is proper that security should be given, for extra costs that would be incurred, it will have to be given. He has not got that right yet.

Amendment to amendment No. 36, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. J. Lynch

I move amendment No. 39:

Before section 26, to insert the following new section:

Notwithstanding anything contained in rules of court, in an action in the High Court or the Circuit Court commenced after the commencement of this Act by the owner of goods let under a hire-purchase agreement claiming, whether solely or together with any other claim, the enforcement of a right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer, judgment may be obtained only from a Judge or, where appropriate, from the Master of the High Court.

This is an amendment to procure something to which I referred a little while ago. Under the Bill as it stands, it would be necessary in certain cases to go before the court for judgment even in cases where the defendant defaulted in appearance or defence; in other words, in cases where the defendant has not exercised his right to defend the action at all. As the Bill stood, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to go before the judge even where he claimed only a specific sum for arrears of repayments arising out of a hire-purchase transaction.

If this amendment is accepted, then in so far as payment of arrears and actions brought for such payments without the specific return of the goods are concerned, where there is a default in appearance or defence, the plaintiff can go to the appropriate office in the High Court or circuit court to have judgment marked by default in the office. He will, of course, in the case of the specific return of goods, be obliged to go before the court for the appropriate order. It is restoring the status quo as far as arrears of payment are concerned and I recommend the amendment to the House.

Mr. McGilligan

It practically meets what I have in Amendment 40.

Mr. J. Lynch

I think so.

Mr. McGilligan

It is very much the same.

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 40 not moved.

Section 26 deleted.

SECTION 27.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 41:—

To add at the end of the section "and that the hirer has discharged his obligations to the owner under the hire-purchase agreement".

The explanatory memorandum dealing with Section 27 says that where a dealer sells goods which are let to him under hire-purchase agreement, the sale shall be as valid as if he were expressly authorised by the owner, that is, the hire-purchase finance company, to make the sale in good faith. This is supposed to meet what is called the "stocking" agreement. I think that this provision should also be in.

Mr. J. Lynch

If it were put in, the section might be deleted altogether, because the purpose of the section is to protect the hirer of goods who, bona fide, comes to a person holding himself out as being the hirer of a certain type of goods. As is generally known, people stock goods under what are called “stocking” arrangements, goods in respect of which they already have, themselves, a hire-purchase agreement in being with a hire-purchase company. Nevertheless, it is often not possible—in fact, in general, it is not possible—for a customer going into such a premises to buy goods on hire-purchase to know whether or not such goods are already the subject of a hire-purchase agreement between the owner of the premises and a hire-purchase company.

In these circumstances, the customer buys goods under a hire-purchase agreement from the shopkeeper or the garage owner, as the case may be. He pays his full obligations under the hire-purchase agreement and if at a later stage the garage owner or the shopkeeper defaults in his payments to the hire-purchase company, the hire-purchase company can have recourse to this bona fide customer not only for the default in repayments but for the specific return of the goods for which the bona fide customer has already paid in full.

The section is designed to achieve the purpose whereby if such a bona fide customer believes that the person from whom he buys the car or the radio is in fact the owner, and if he discharges his obligatons to that person, then the hire-purchase company who have certain claims on the shopkeeper or the garage owner will not be able to follow the customer for the return of the goods for which that customer has already paid. I think it is only fair that such a person should be protected and that the hire-purchase people themselves should follow the shopkeeper with whom they did business and should not be permitted to have recourse to this unfortunate person who has paid in full his obligations to the shopkeeper or the garage owner.

It is only fair that the bona fide customer should be protected in that way and that he should not, having paid in full for the goods, be liable for the return of the goods to the hire-purchase company, if the person with whom they have already done business defaults.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the difference between this and the bona fide purchase of goods that have been stolen?

Mr. J. Lynch

The difference is that——

Mr. McGilligan

I am talking about the man who has paid the full price.

Mr. J. Lynch

As a general rule, when a person buys goods that have been stolen, he does not buy from a recognised or reputable trader. A person who holds himself out as a recognised trader will have premises to which the ordinary person would have access but if that person ultimately gets into trouble, at least the person who has purchased a car or a radio will have the satisfaction, having paid him, of keeping it and will not be obliged to return it. The circumstances are altogether different from buying from a receiver.

Mr. McGilligan

I am speaking about goods which have been stolen and which have found their way into a shop and are bought from the shop for full value. The person cannot give title so it is the same thing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 27 agreed to.

Amendment No. 42 not moved.

Section 28 agreed to.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Ceann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Mr. J. Lynch

Provisionally, this day week.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister will circulate anything that arises from to-day's debate?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Minister is going to suggest anything that arose out of the debate here, will that be ready?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, or, if necessary, we can put it back.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th May, 1960.