Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1962

Vol. 193 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Street and House to House Collections Bill, 1962.—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The object of the Bill is to provide for the regulation of collections of money from the public by way of what are commonly called flag days and by way of house to house visits. Such regulation is becoming increasingly necessary, in the public interest, both to prevent collections becoming a public nuisance and to enable some control to be exercised over the objects for which collections may be held.

At present street collections are subject to a certain measure of control under regulations made by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána pursuant to Section 5 of the Police, Factories, Etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916. These regulations provide for the granting of collection permits by the Gardaí and for the prevention of inconvenience to the public but they do not empower the Gardaí to refuse permission to collect even to the most unsuitable persons. Furthermore, the regulations do not apply to house to house collections. The present Bill is designed to remedy the defects in the existing law by providing a modern comprehensive enactment to regulate both street and house-to-house collections and to enable the holding of such collection to be prohibited in specified circumstances.

"Collection" is defined in Section 1 of the Bill so as to exclude street trading, ordinary trade or business, collecting in accordance with a licence or permit under the Gaming and Lotteries Act (which covers collections for non-stop draws, pools, etc.) and begging. Accordingly, the Bill does not apply to these types of collecting. Furthermore, it will not apply to house to house collections unless and until an order is made by the Minister for Justice under Section 2 extending the proposed Act to such collections. I am satisfied that while house-to-house collections at the present time may be a source of annoyance to some householders they do not constitute a widespread nuisance and that, generally speaking, the public is not being excessively importuned by them. Accordingly, I do not envisage the making of an Order under Section 2 in present circumstances. At the same time I think it is desirable that I should have the power to regulate such collections if this becomes necessary in the public interest.

Deputies will observe that an Order under Section 2 may apply the provisions of the Act to house-to-house collections generally, that is to say, throughout the entire country, or merely to such collections in a particular district or area. Moreover an Order may exempt specific house-to-house collections or classes of such collections from control. If it ever becomes necessary to apply the Act to house-to-house collections I envisage that collections made for religious and other obviously legitimate purposes would be so exempted.

Section 3 of the Bill prohibits the holding of any collection in respect of which a collection permit has not been granted by the Chief Superintendent of the Garda Síochána for the locality in which the collection is to be held. Section 5 provides that applications for permits will have to be made in writing in the prescribed form and be accompanied by the prescribed particulars. Generally speaking applications will have to be made not more than six months and not less than 14 days before the collection is due to commence. A Chief Superintendent will be obliged to grant every permit applied for unless in his opinion grounds for refusal exist as specified in Sections 9, 10, 11 or 12 of the Bill. These grounds are: that the holding of the collection would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; that the collection is for an illegal or immoral purpose or for an illegal organisation; that the proceeds would be used to encourage unlawful acts; that the proceeds would not be used for the purported object; that the organisers would derive personal gain, or the collectors' personal gain other than a reasonable commission for their services, from the collection; that the applicant for the permit is not a fit person because he has been convicted of one or more of certain offences specified in the Bill; that the applicant, in organising a previous collection, failed to exercise due diligence in having it properly conducted in compliance with the Act; or that the applicant has withheld or has failed to furnish information requested by the Chief Superintendent. Where the Chief Superintendent is of opinion that any of these grounds exist he will be obliged to refuse to grant a permit.

In addition to refusing a permit, a Chief Superintendent may attach conditions to a permit, and he may revoke a permit granted in his division. However, where a person is aggrieved by the Chief Superintendent's decision, provision is made in Section 14 for an appeal to the District Court and the Court is given power to direct the Chief Superintendent to grant a permit with or without conditions attached to it. The Court may also amend or delete conditions attached to a permit by the Chief Superintendent.

The Bill makes it an offence for a person to act as a collector unless he is in possession of a written authorisation from the holder of a collection permit. The issue of such authorisations to collectors under the age of 14 is prohibited. The Bill also provides for the marking on collection boxes of the object for which the collection is being held and also for the keeping of full and proper accounts of the amounts collected. Specific powers of entry and arrest and specific powers to seize money and collection boxes in certain circumstances are given to the Gardaí. The Bill makes it an offence for the owners of certain public places to allow unauthorised collections to be held therein. The penalties for offences under any of the provisions of the Bill are set out in Section 26. They are a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both such fine and such imprisonment.

I am satisfied that the proposed powers and the penalties are no more than adequate to ensure compliance with the law. Deputies will appreciate the difficulty which might arise in enforcing the proposed Act if organisers of unauthorised collections choose to ignore the law. It is for this reason that the Bill includes the additional deterrent in Section 21, namely, the power given to the Gardaí to seize money and collection boxes in the case of an unauthorised collection.

Finally, I should like to draw attention to the provisions in the Bill for proving offences. In subsection (3) of Section 3 it is provided that a certificate of the Chief Superintendent, to the effect that a collection permit had not been granted in a particular case, will be evidence of the matters certified. This is a normal provision. In subsection (5) of Section 15 and subsection (4) of Section 16 it is for the person charged with an offence to show that he held a collector's authorisation or that the collector was not under the age of 14 years, respectively. These provisions are required for practical reasons arising out of the nature of the offences. On the other hand under Sections 4, 16, 17 and 23 a good defence against most charges under the proposed Act is provided for in cases where, generally speaking, persons charged can show that they were unaware of a contravention of the law or had taken reasonable steps to comply with the law.

I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This is a Bill which must be considered in Committee rather than on Second Reading. The Minister seems to present the Bill to the House as something in the nature of a new broom, so far as house to house and street collections are concerned. I think that is taking a rather exaggerated view of it. There may be some new bristles in it, but it is certainly not a new broom. As the Minister has pointed out, this question of street collections is, in fact, at the moment governed by the Police, Factories, Etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, and regulations under that Act have been made by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána as far back as 1930. Very many of the provisions of this Bill are, in fact, provided for in the regulations made by the Commissioner.

The Minister is quite right in stating that the 1916 Act and the regulations made under it do not deal with the question of house to house collections at all, and to that extent this Bill is a departure—and I think a very admirable departure—from the present position. It is also a departure from the present position in allowing the appropriate Garda Superintendent discretion to refuse to grant a permit. There is also a departure on the question of allowing an appeal to the court from the refusal of the Chief Superintendent.

There are a number of things in the Bill which I think will have to be considered rather more carefully in Committee. It is right that we should at least take cognisance at this stage of what the Minister is doing in relation to the age limit of people who may be authorised to collect. He is, in fact, reducing the age limit from 16 years to 14 years. I think I am correct in saying that under the regulations existing at the moment, the 1930 regulations made by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, a person under the age of 16 years is not entitled to collect. Under this Bill, that age is reduced to 14 years. I do not think that is an improvement.

I should like to call the Minister's attention to the fact that although this Bill contains the usual definition section, Section 1, the definition section is thrown overboard in Section 2. Section 1 defines "collection" as meaning a collection of money or an attempt to collect money. Section 2, when the reference is obviously to "collection", repeats again and again "...collections of money or attempts to collect money ..." It seems to me that the use of the phrase "attempts to collect money" is already covered by the definition in the definition section and need not be repeated.

I think we should take another look at Section 3 to which the Minister referred. Subsection (3) of that section provides that:

In any proceedings under this section a certificate—

That is, the prohibition of unauthorised collections—

purporting to be signed by a Chief Superintendent and to certify that on a day or days or during a period specified in the certificate a person named therein was not the holder of a collection permit authorising him to hold on such day or days or during such period a collection or a collection for the benefit of a particular object, as the case may be, shall, without proof of the signature of the person purporting to sign the certificate or that he was a Chief Superintendent, be evidence until the contrary is proved of the matters certified in and by the certificate.

I think we are going altogether too far along these lines and they have been laid down in recent legislation in this House. We are providing here that evidence will be accepted by the courts on the certificate signed by a person who need not be a Chief Superintendent. Provided it is purported to be signed by the Superintendent, it must be accepted by the courts and all it contains must be accepted by the courts and that document must be accepted without proof that it is signed by the Chief Superintendent and without proof that the person who signed it is, in fact, a Chief Superintendent.

There are two other provisions in the Bill to which I certainly would take exception, unless the Minister can convince me that it is vitally necessary to retain them. One is in Section 14, dealing with the question of an appeal to the district court. It seems to me that the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 14 completely take away any benefit which might accrue from this provision regarding an appeal to the court from the refusal of a Superintendent to grant a permit, because this section solemnly sets up the machinery whereby, in the event of a refusal, an appeal will lie to the court and then it goes on to provide "without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the District Court to disallow on other grounds an appeal under this section, an appeal under this section shall be disallowed, if, on the hearing thereof, a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Inspector states on oath that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeds or any portion of the proceeds to which the collection permit the subject of such appeal relates would be used ..." for the other purposes then mentioned.

I do not think it would be going too far to suggest that the officer of the Garda Síochána concerned should be required to satisfy the court in some manner that he has reasonable grounds for feeling that the proceeds of the collection might be used for the undesirable purposes set out in the section. I do not think it is right that we should arrive at a state where all an Inspector of the Garda Síochána has to do is to get into the witness box and say that he "has grounds for believing," without presenting any evidence whatever in support of his statement, or without making any effort whatever to satisfy the court that his grounds for belief are reasonable.

Again, in Section 15 and Section 16, we are once more legislating that with regard to a particular offence under this Bill a person is to be presumed to be guilty unless he can satisfy the court that he is innocent. That kind of provision was incorporated in the Road Traffic Act which was passed by the previous Dáil. Reasons were given then regarding particular difficulties involved by way of proof and so on, and the fact that there was no undue hardship being imposed on the defendant if he was in the right. That generally was the type of argument put up in favour of a similar type of provision. I do not think those arguments apply here. We should preserve as far as we possibly can the ordinary pattern and code of legislation that a person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. In Sections 15 and 16 we are doing quite the opposite and we are saying that until a person satisfies a court that he is innocent he is presumed guilty. Subsection (5) of Section 15 reads:

In a prosecution for an offence under this section, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that at the time he acted as a collector in the collection, the defendant did not hold a collector's authorisation granted to him by the holder of the collection permit relating to the collection.

That, to my mind, is tantamount to saying that the defendant, the person being charged with the offence, is presumed to be guilty until he can show that he is innocent. That is a complete reversal of the ordinary pattern of legislation in respect of those matters, in either statutory law or common law. An exactly similar position appears in subsection (4) of Section 16. I should like the Minister to have another look at those subsections before Committee Stage.

I should also like to raise with the Minister the question of the general obligation of accounting in respect of collections, which is dealt with in Section 24. The authorities are entitled to be satisfied that the person who is applying for a collection permit is bona fide, or the organisation or body which he represents are bona fide, and that they are going to use the proceeds of the collection for the purposes for which they applied for it. The authorities are entitled to be satisfied on that before they issue the permit and I have no doubt they will discharge their duties adequately in that regard. I do not appreciate then why it is necessary also to include provision in this Bill that after the collection has been made, presumably by a person who has, or a body which has satisfied the authorities of his or their bona fides, a strict account must be rendered to the authorities regarding the proceeds of the collection on demand or, as I think it is provided, within a month of demand being made.

I think I am right in saying that under the present regulations, the 1930 regulations, the Superintendent has authority to require some type of accounting and I think there is generally a request in the form of application made for a permit for some kind of break-up of how it is intended to dispose of the proceeds; but here in Section 24 a very strict accounting is going to be required. I have had association with collections of one sort or another from time to time, some charitable, some political— whether they are regarded as being——

Mr. Haughey

Charitable.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

——in the same category or not, I do not know, but I do feel in relation to some of these collections, it would be imposing a very undesirable burden on those who undertake the collections, if they were required to make a strict accounting in this manner. I feel that if the authorities are satisfied with the objects of the collection and the character and bona fides of the people carrying it out, that section is not necessary.

This might be unworkable, but I should like to find out if the Minister might be able to provide in this Bill for the possibility of some central authority issuing a general collection permit for the country as a whole. I appreciate that might involve some administrative difficulties and might involve the Commissioner, or whatever officer might have such authority, in making inquiries to make sure that collections did not clash in different Garda areas. I think it would be a very great convenience for the person or body—again, I am assuming they are perfectly bona fide in character and everything else—to be able to get a general collection permit from a central authority which would entitle them to collect in all areas.

I do not think there is anything else I want to say at this stage. It will be necessary to give the Bill more detailed consideration on Committee Stage.

Mr. Haughey

Then we will not be getting all Stages to-night?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I would not say so. By and large, any measure which will tighten up this question of street collections will be welcome, and I should say particularly in the city of Dublin.

Mr. S. Dunne

This Bill is timely, particularly from my point of view, because it affords me an opportunity of giving expression to a grievance under which the citizens of this city have been-labouring for a long number of years; and as each year goes by the grievance increases in size. Like Deputy O'Higgins, I welcome these provisions. But I am surprised that the Minister proposes to reduce the age of collectors, if what Deputy O'Higgins contends is correct. I think that would be a very bad move.

What I have in mind in relation to collections is the mass attack which is made practically every week-end on the unfortunate citizens of Dublin who repair to public houses for a quiet evening. Many members of the House will agree with me that very often those who have recourse, as I have, to such places of public entertainment see children coming in at late hours with collection boxes or flags for many and varied causes. Many of these causes are good, some obscure and some with vague names on many occasions known only to the organisers. We see the public house tenantry on these week-ends importuned, pressed, persecuted and interrupted by these people in their very often weighty deliberations. There is no provision in the Bill to eliminate that abuse; and it is a definite abuse. I am sure the Minister himself has some experience of it.

It is obvious this Bill will not be taken through all its Stages to-night. I would suggest that the Minister might seriously consider the prohibition of collections on licensed premises by means of boxes or alleged flag days or sale of tickets or any other form. Inherent in that are possibilities of all kinds of dangerous and evil things. It is a most unhealthy thing to see young people—say a child of 14½, as will be permitted under this Bill, or of 15 or 16—coming into a public house. Very often the debate has got to a certain stage of heat or, perhaps, conviviality; and because the reasoning of the customer is not at its best, the opportunity is taken by these organisations to send in these young people to get the maximum amount of money they can out of the customers in these places.

That is wrong and evil. Only recently I saw an advertisement in one of the evening papers offering a commission of 33? per cent. to collectors who undertake this kind of thing. The young people are hardly to be blamed for not losing an opportunity of earning what they regard as easy money. But this is a bad thing socially and it is a matter of much complaint throughout the length and breadth of this city, and I am sure Deputies are aware of it.

Mr. Sherwin

We are all aware that this Bill is aimed largely at an illegal organisation, but I hope we are not going too far. I can understand the responsibility the Minister feels, but I hope the Bill will not debar this same illegal organisation from collecting money for the care and welfare of the wives and children of people who may be in jail. A distinction will have to be drawn between collections for that purpose and collections for the attempted aims of these organisations. I am told that there are now 80 persons in jail in the 26 Counties and maybe 100 in the Six Counties.

Mr. Haughey

There are only 43 here.

Mr. Sherwin

It could be 103. We do not know. We are legislating for the future. After the Civil War, when there were large numbers in jail, members of the present Government had to make collections to help the families of those in prison. I know it will be difficult to distinguish, but the Minister will have to consider the point. If large numbers are in prison in Belfast and down here and certain groups associated with these illegal organisations seek to collect money for the welfare of the families of those in prison, it would be unfair of the Minister to state that under no circumstances will those associated in any way with illegal organisations be allowed to collect a penny.

The Act states that a collection means "a collection of money". I should like to know what is the difference between a collection of money and begging money? You can beg money but you cannot collect money. If I were charged with collecting money, what is to stop me saying to the court "I was begging money?" The Act says I can beg money. There is probably a difference, but to the simple-minded soul there is no difference. I am not simple, but I can pretend to be. Anyway, I should like to know the difference.

As regards the age limit of 14, I would ask the Minister to go further and reduce the age to 13. As Deputies know, 14 years is the age for leaving school. Schoolboys are the best collectors for charitable purposes. In fact, adults do not like collecting money. As a rule, whenever I get a box, I give it to my young fellow to do the collecting for me. He does the work and I get the praise.

Most people get their young lads and daughters to do the collecting. When boys and girls reach the age of 14, they may become employed or maybe they start their social activities. Teenagers these days want to go to dances and meet company. Accordingly, it is the boys and girls of between 13 and 14 years of age who are the best type to carry out these collection tasks. It would give a chance to the charitable bodies. The Minister must be aware that from time to time even school managers avail of the services of their pupils to carry out collections. Under this Bill, they will not be able to do so. I agree that the Bill should limit the age to 13 at the youngest, so I would urge on the Minister to subtract another year because when children reach the age of 14, they have not got time to do this work.

With regard to the provision dealing with persons who delegate their powers to others, the position arises that those others may also delegate their powers in turn. I might be asked, as a member of the Corporation to collect for a charitable body. I say I will but I give the box to my young fellow. What will happen if a Guard asks for his permit? The boy would not have a permit but I would. Very often, people are asked to collect money but they have no time or, perhaps, they are bad collectors and they delegate the task to somebody else.

Again, the age group enters in the matter of carol singing at Christmas for charitable purposes. Among those singing groups one will find a number of young children. They may not be doing the actual collecting but they are participating in an illegal act. If they are singing and the older people of the group are doing the collecting, are the younger people not part of the conspiracy in the same way as accessories in serious crime?

Mr. Haughey

They are not collecting.

Mr. Sherwin

They are part of the collection.

Mr. Haughey

This deals only with collecting, not with singing.

Mr. Sherwin

Singing for the purpose of collecting.

Mr. Haughey

It is no crime to sing.

Mr. Sherwin

I should like to refer to street begging and to say that the public should be protected against beggars. As soon as one of them finishes annoying a cinema queue, another begins. Some of them are not very polite. Some of them may be "half canned" and force the money out of one's pocket by making themselves a nuisance. What protection have the public against these beggars, these drunks who make life a misery for those in a cinema queue? Finally, I would emphasise the necessity not to interfere with people who are working for charitable causes.

Mr. Booth

I agree with the first point made by Deputy Sherwin—the point he made about the age at which a person becomes entitled to act as a collector. I would say that 14 years seems on the low side and I hope that on Committee Stage we may be able to go into it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Sherwin's point was that it should be lower.

Mr. Sherwin

Thirteen.

Mr. Booth

I misinterpreted the Deputy. I do not agree with him.

Mr. Sherwin

The Deputy cannot agree with me since he did not see my point.

Mr. Booth

It has now been explained in greater detail. To my view, there is a very little to be said for any restriction on the increase in charitable giving. At the same time, I do feel that people should be encouraged to give to charitable purposes for the sake of the objects concerned and not out of pity for the poor little collector who is trying to do his or her best. I think that very often very charitable bodies do exploit young boys and girls so that money can be brought into their funds simply out of charity to the collector rather than charity to the actual object for which the whole operation is being organised.

I personally would prefer to see greater restriction as far as age is concerned because I feel it would be all to the good. Furthermore, I feel that the Chief Superintendents in this operation might well be given a rather longer time than that specified in the Bill. Deputy Sherwin did refer to certain objects which might have some connection, however remote, with an illegal organisation and if a body such as that to which he referred were to make an application to a Chief Superintendent, I should imagine it would take very much longer than 14 days for the Chief Superintendent to sort out in his own mind as to whether he would be justified in giving a permit in that case.

After a collection has been taken up, accounts may be called for, but at that stage, if the collection has been improperly authorised, it might very well be too late to undo any damage that had been done. I would suggest, therefore, that this is another matter worthy of further consideration on Committee Stage, so that we might have a slight revision of the period set out for the examination of an application by any Chief Superintendent. I would say a month should be the minimum—a month's notice given to a Chief Superintendent—and I cannot believe this would be any embarrassment to any charitable organisation trying to run a collection. Any such body should be able to know a month in advance whether they intended to hold a collection and it would then be up to them to notify the authorities well in advance.

I am glad to see provision is made for some supervision of the marking of collection boxes. Very often, members of the public are approached by people with boxes, with or without flags in them, and they are quite unaware of the aims and objects of the collection. At times, the collection boxes used at the moment are given very little attention by the organisers and I am afraid that at times information is deliberately withheld in certain cases because the organisers feel too much information might persuade people to refuse to contribute. Every step should be taken before the public are asked to contribute to ensure that they are left in no doubt whatever as to the objects for which their charity is being solicited.

Deputy Sherwin has no reason for anxiety as to any confusion between collecting and begging. Section 1 refers definitely to begging or receiving alms. So long as a person is begging for some charitable object, he is all right, if he has complied with all the other requirements. Begging for alms is quite clearly begging for oneself; such begging is not normally done with a collection box. I agree with Deputy Sherwin that begging is quite a problem, particularly in the city, though it is also prevalent in rural areas and small towns. My recollection of the law is that begging is controlled to a certain extent at the moment.

This Bill is very necessary. It should receive the full support of the House. If we can restrict to some extent the number of collections, we shall be doing a good job. I cannot say that I have ever seen a collection being taken up which I would regard as improper. There are some collections one can avoid; there are others one cannot. On the whole, greater control is necessary. I should hope that there will not be too much reluctance on the part of the Minister to extend the scope of the Bill in order to impose some restriction on house to house collections. These can be quite a menace, especially when they are carried out at night. Parents may be absent from home and the eldest child left in charge. A collector at the door can be a source of great embarrassment, particularly if he is pushing, and the child may feel obliged to find some money somewhere in the house, in order to get the door shut again. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind if there is to be restriction on house to house collection.

If the Bill is passed in the form in which it is drafted, or even substantially in that form, a good day's work will have been done. I am particularly glad that appeal from a refusal by a Chief Superintendent will lie to the district court. In some legislation we have had, appeal lies to the Minister. I think it is better the Minister should have no further responsibility and that an aggrieved person should, rather, have access to the district court. I welcome that provision. There is very little danger that a Chief Superintendent will act unjustly, but, human nature being what it is, even a Chief Superintendent may err. If there is a judicial hearing as a result of refusal, there will be no difficulty in reaching a fair conclusion. All the evidence will be adduced to enable the district justice to make a fair decision.

There is always the danger of the public being defrauded. There are confidence tricksters of different kinds. I welcome the proposal that there should be a very definite restriction on the financial gain to individual collectors. I resent the advertisement to which reference was made where a very substantial proportion of the takings can be regarded as the prerequisite of the collector. That reduces charity to a very mercenary level. I should prefer that collectors would be personally interested in the charity, anxious to support it by giving up their time to collecting. Collecting is a very objectionable task indeed. We are very often at the receiving end of a collecting box. It is no fun to anyone to stand around in the streets trying to collect money.

I hope there will be some amendment with regard to the age of those who collect. It should be raised. Particularly attention should be paid to a clear statement on the box indicating precisely the nature of the charity for which support is sought.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I should not like to think that this Bill would interfere with or curb the number of certain well-known charitable collections. I know the Minister has introduced it for the best reasons, but I think that, in curbing collections, we might go so far west as to end up east. Prudence should guide the implementation of this measure. Many of our well-known charitable organisations have done a great deal of good work for numbers of our less fortunate brethren down the years. Deputy Booth mentioned collectors getting money for collecting. I have no objection to that when a man is engaged full time in collecting. Provided everything is above board, it must be remembered he has to live the same as Pat Murphy down the road.

There is always the charitable instinct of our Irish people when misfortune strikes a neighbour. I have had experience of that in County Dublin as well as in other counties. When a neighbour is in difficulty, a few old friends will go out quietly and make a collection from house to house. It may be to bury an old friend; it may be to buy a horse or a cow; it may be some other charitable purpose. I should be very slow to interfere with that instinct in our people. They never abuse these privileges. I admit there are certain collectors who will not ask for a permit. Collections have been made in Ireland for certain causes of which possibly the people would not approve but I should like the Minister to have another look at the Bill to ensure that the organisations that have been functioning well over the years and have done so much for our people will not be curbed in any way.

Mr. Barron

I should like to ask the Minister whether it will be necessary for people who collect for the St. Vincent de Paul Society outside certain churches on a Sunday to seek a permit. This is a charitable purpose and the collectors stand beside the collection box and do not ask any person to contribute. I should like the Minister to give some undertaking as far as those people are concerned.

There are other people who make collections and those collections may be for the families of people. The Minister may not agree with the tactics adopted by those people. That is another matter but the families of those people need to be looked after. The Government and the Minister may have reason to believe otherwise, but I think that collections for that purpose are of a charitable nature. There are people who will not ask for permits. That is a matter for their organisations. What I am interested in is that the families, particularly the children and the wives, of these people should receive consideration. I hope the Minister will not allow anything to interfere with such charitable work and that he will give every consideration to these matters.

Mr. Haughey

First of all, I want to thank Deputies generally for the manner in which they have received the Bill and for the number of constructive comments which have been made. Deputy O'Higgins is quite right when he points out that this is essentially a Committee Bill and that a most useful and constructive discussion on the Bill can be had on Committee Stage.

This Bill attempts to solve a problem. We will all agree and recognise that in our society the custom whereby organisations of one sort or another are permitted to go to the public and seek funds or subscriptions for their objects is a desirable one. We all know the type of organisation, charitable, social, sporting, which is perfectly entitled to go to the general public and seek subscriptions for its purposes. On the other hand, we as the Oireachtas have a duty to the general public. We have a duty to ensure that the general public are not excessively importuned, are not annoyed or subjected to any excessive degree to a nuisance in this regard. This Bill sets out to reconcile these two conflicting factors and to solve that problem. It is an attempt to keep a reasonable balance in that situation.

We approached this matter by recognising at the outset the need for public collections. Having regard to what I have said about the interests of the general public, we went further and decided that these collections should be controlled. I think the provisions in the Bill are reasonable and fair. In that regard, we attempt to control collections in two main ways: first of all, we attempt to control them in relation to the objects for which the collections are made; and, secondly, in relation to the manner of the collections.

I think the House generally has indicated that they regard the Bill as a reasonable solution to these problems, subject to one or two individual suggestions. I also think that most of the points mentioned can be gone fully into on Committee Stage. This is a Bill which has no political implications. It is one in respect of which we can all combine our experience and pool our knowledge and try to come up in the end with the best possible measure. I think that the discussion with regard to the minimum age of collectors is a useful one and a valuable indicator as to the manner in which we can discuss the Bill generally. We have a clear conflict as to what exactly the minimum age should be.

I should like to see us pool our experience and knowledge on that point and on other points in the Bill. One can see arguments on both sides. Deputy Paddy Burke has made an eloquent plea for the old established charity. I will come back to that in a moment but at this stage I would say from my own personal experience that a lot of these very good, very old and very fine charities rely to a large extent on young people to do their collecting for them. A number of Deputies will have the same experience that I have every year in seeing the annual collection of the St. Vincent de Paul Society taken up by the schoolboys of the city. It would be very wrong to deprive these organisations of the services of the eager and willing young people.

On the other hand, we must have regard to the point made by Deputy Dunne when he pointed out that he does not want to see young people going into public houses and other places collecting and being subjected to the sort of treatment which Deputy Dunne indicated. We have a problem there. When we come to the Committee Stage, I shall be very much guided by the House as to what age we should eventually settle upon.

We arrived at the age of 14 years after consultation with various interests concerned and particularly with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána who was satisfied that it was a reasonable minimum age. I think myself that it is the minimum age to which we could adhere but, again, I should like to have the considered view of Deputies on that matter. I hope to approach the Bill entirely in that spirit and I am sure the House will bear with me in that and give me its full assistance and co-operation.

Whereas most of the points raised here are more relevant to the Committee Stage, I might deal with some of them now so that we may clear up a few misconceptions and have possibly a more real discussion on Committee Stage. Deputy Barron mentioned the question of the St. Vincent de Paul collectors who collect on Sundays outside churches. I do not think we need worry about that particular matter. My experience is that the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other societies of that nature have their collections taken up inside the church grounds and Section 1 of the Bill definitely excludes churches or buildings used for public worship or the grounds of churches and such buildings from the operation of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill will not apply at all to churches or church grounds.

Deputies Barron and Sherwin expressed some concern as to the fate of collections which purport to be for the use of persons committed to prison for certain offences concerned with unlawful organisations and illegal activities. I think the Bill is quite adequate to reassure the Deputies on that particular matter. If they study the section which sets out the reasons which would enable a Chief Superintendent not to grant a collection permit they will see that their fears in that regard are groundless. I refer in the main to Section 9 which states that a Chief Superintendent "shall not grant a collection permit for any collection in respect of which he is of opinion that ..." The section then proceeds to set out six distinct grounds on which a Chief Superintendent can refuse to grant a permit. I shall go into this much more fully on Committee Stage but I want to mention this aspect of it here. A Chief Superintendent shall not refuse to grant a permit unless he is of opinion that it is for one of these particular purposes. The type of collection to which Deputies Sherwin and Barron referred does not come within the ambit of any of these six grounds.

Mr. Sherwin

What about subsection (b) which states that he has power to refuse the permit for the benefit of an organisation membership of which is unlawful?

Mr. Haughey

I do not want to enter into a Committee Stage discussion but I am quite certain that that does not cover the type of collection to which Deputies Barron and Sherwin have referred. Deputy Burke was concerned, and rightly so, with the prospect that we might interfere with the activities and collections of some of the fine old charities to which he referred which have, down the years, been doing such magnificent work, work which we hope they will continue to do in the future. Deputy Burke was rightly concerned to know whether the collections organised traditionally on certain days by these organisations would be interfered with by the Bill. I am very glad to be able to give him an assurance that there will be no such interference.

Section 6 of the Bill provides that where there is a clash of applications for any particular day, the organisation which traditionally took up a collection on that day and, indeed, which took up a collection on the corresponding day in the previous year, will get priority. That should go a long way to safeguard the traditional collections. Even then, should something go wrong, there is a provision whereby the Chief Superintendent can grant authority for two different collections in the same area on the one day, if he thinks it is desirable. I feel sure that in regard to the organisations to which Deputy Burke referred the Bill will work quite satisfactorily.

Deputy Dunne touched on an interesting aspect of this Bill, one on which Deputies would be legitimately entitled to have different opinions. Deputy Dunne does not like the idea of collections in public houses. Let me say, first of all, that from the point of view of the Bill technically, public houses are public places and, therefore, collections in public houses are subject to the control of the Bill.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Public houses are public places within the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

Yes. If he studies the definition section, Deputy O'Higgins will agree that they are brought within the definition of "public places". However, apart from the technical provision at the moment, the decision the House would have to make in this regard is whether or not it is desirable that we should permit collections for charitable and other purposes in public houses. I feel that, on balance, we should. The drinking man is proverbially generous. Most charitable organisations would confirm that there is no more fruitful field to plough than public houses. Of course, one must immediately have regard to the point made by Deputy Dunne that he does not want young people going into public houses and being given scandal or coming to harm in some other way. On balance, it would be undesirable to cut off from charitable organisations this fruitful source of income.

I wonder if Deputy Dunne is really taking a broad view of the situation when he objects to the man in the public house being interrupted in his discussion? I feel that the consensus of opinion would be that he should be entitled to be got at when he is in the frame of mind which will make him generous.

Mr. Sherwin

A bit soft.

Mr. S. Dunne

He should be protected at that stage.

Mr. Haughey

However, it is a matter we can discuss further on Committee Stage. The Deputy mentioned the provision with regard to the minimum 14 day period. In that regard, we have endeavoured to make the Bill as elastic as possible. We considered a period of 21 days but we finally settled for 14 days and, of course, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána can in certain circumstances reduce that 14 day period.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Fourteen days is the present position, is it not?

Mr. Haughey

Fourteen days is the present provision in the Bill. Does the Deputy refer to the existing regulations?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

One of the things to which we must have regard is the collection that political Parties take up in relation to general election campaigns. The 14 day period might give rise to some difficulty there. It is principally in that regard that the provision was inserted in the Bill to enable the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána to reduce that period, if necessary.

Deputy Booth touched on a matter which is of considerable importance in connection with the Bill, namely, house to house collections. I indicated in my opening remarks that we do not propose to make the order contemplated by the Bill or to make any order contemplated by the Bill immediately. I would certainly be open to persuasion in that regard in relation to a particular area, if there were any considerable volume of opinion in the House to that effect. There is a great deal in what Deputy Booth says with regard to a house to house collection in an urban area at night time. Again, in this regard, I should be very glad to get the cumulative view of the House, to pool our experiences and see whether or not this problem is more serious than I believe it to be. I believe at the moment that it is a nuisance but that it is not sufficient nuisance to justify our making these orders immediately. However, I shall be glad to hear more views from Deputies in that regard.

I have a disagreement with Deputy O'Higgins about Section 24. I think Section 24 is an excellent section and a very necessary section in the Bill. There is a similar type of provision in the existing regulations—No. 15— but it is desirable to have this provision and I do not think that the section which is framed fairly elastically will impose any undue hardship on organisations.

Deputy O'Higgins quite rightly pointed out that the Garda Chief Superintendent should satisfy himself before the issue of the permit as to the bona fides of the applicant. I fully agree. Nevertheless, it is very easy to visualise a situation where a reputable, or seemingly reputable, body of persons or an organisation would apply for a permit and whose bona fides were beyond question and the collection would be taken up and subsequently the Garda had reason to believe that something went wrong, through some action on the part of an individual member of the organisation, or otherwise. It is possible to conceive of a deterioration, if you like, in the bona fides of an organisation between the time of collection and the time when the proceeds were distributed. In the event of a case of that kind coming to the notice of the Garda, it is very desirable that they should have the authority set out in Section 24 to call for accounts and to satisfy themselves that the proceeds were distributed as they should have been.

Deputy Sherwin asked me about begging. Of course, this Bill does not deal with begging. That is logical. Apart from the fact that the Bill sets out to deal with a particular problem and is confined to that problem and various aspects of it, the machinery of the Bill is designed to issue licences to enable people to collect. We could not possibly envisage a situation where we would issue licences to enable people to beg. For that reason, the machinery envisaged in the Bill is completely inappropriate to any problem which begging creates.

Mr. Sherwin

It makes all the difference between begging and collecting. What are people doing but annoying other people when they are collecting?

Mr. Haughey

Begging is something which we want to prevent. Here, we want to legitimise collections for lawful purposes. Deputy Sherwin also asked about an authorised collector being enabled further to delegate his authorisation to another person. It is not envisaged that that should happen. Under the Bill, there will be persons to whom permits are issued. They will authorise collectors and only those collectors who are authorised will be entitled to collect.

Mr. Sherwin

Lots of those people will not do the collecting.

Mr. Haughey

If Deputy Sherwin is approached—and, being the charitable man we all know he is, I am sure he is frequently approached — by a charitable organisation and asked to assist in the collection surely it would be a simple matter for him to say to the permit holder: "I cannot collect for you myself but my son, James, or Frank Sherwin, Junior, will collect for you and make out the authorisation in his name."

Mr. Sherwin

It would be difficult. Maybe Joe will not do it and Bill will. It goes round.

Mr. Haughey

I am sure that the parental Sherwin influence is such that whichever son is designated to collect will do so.

Mr. Sherwin

The Minister will find there will be difficulty in operating the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy O'Higgins raised a couple of points of principle with regard to the onus of proof. I feel sure he will return to the attack on Committee Stage and I shall not attempt to go into the merits of the question now. I shall confine myself to saying that the provisions are not new to the law. Similar provisions exist in statutes. One of the provisions to which he refers can trace its ancestry to the Road Transport Act, 1933. We are doing no more in the Bill than we think is necessary for its practical working. When we come to examine the provisions on Committee Stage I think we shall find that they do not really threaten the whole basis of our system of justice, as Deputy O'Higgins would seem to suggest.

We shall have an opportunity on Committee Stage of going fully into all the points raised in the debate and, indeed, others which have not been made as yet. I trust we shall reach substantial agreement as to the best type of Bill.

I think the Bill is a reasonable attempt at a solution to a rather difficult problem. We do not want to go too far one way or too far the other way. We want to keep a balance between the interests of the general public, as such, and the deserving and well-intentioned efforts of a number of valuable organisations in our community. I commend the Bill to the House on that basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28th February, 1962.