Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 may be discussed together.
Committee on Finance. - Street and House to House Collections Bill, 1962—Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, lines 18 and 19, to delete "or an attempt to collect money".
During the course of the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill, Deputy M. J. O'Higgins pointed out that, although Section 1 of the Bill defined "collections" as meaning a collection of money or any attempt to collect money, in Section 2 there were repeated again and again the words "collections of money or attempts to collect money" when the reference was obviously to "collections". He considered the repetition unnecessary. The official amendments from No. 1 to No. 10 are designed to rectify this purely drafting defect. No change is involved in the sense of the sections concerned.
Later on in the Bill, there are penalties and different procedures laid down. Various powers are given to the Garda in respect of unauthorised collections. The point has been put to me that in the case of a number of organisations —the case mentioned to me was that of the N.F.A.—it is often the custom to canvass for membership at fairs and markets. Quite obviously, it is not intended to crush out in the Bill that sort of thing but I would ask the Minister to look at it from that point of view and see that that kind of activity will remain legitimate.
I have written to the N.F.A. assuring them that the Bill does not cover collections from their own members or even looking for new members.
Could the Minister say in what way does he think it does not cover? I know it is not intended to cover.
It is collections from the public that are involved.
Until a person becomes a member, he is the public.
He is a prospective member. I shall look at it again.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 24, to delete "or attempted to be collected".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 26, to delete "or attempted to be collect".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, line 29, after "alms" to insert ", and references to a collection include references to an attempt to collect money".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
A church does not come within the definition of "public place". Does that mean that no action can be taken against a person collecting inside a church gate? In many parts of the country where there is a large piece of ground around a church, collections are carried out within the area of the church. Can you do that and get away with it?
Church grounds and the church are outside the scope of the Bill.
Then members of any illegal body can stand inside the church grounds and do anything they like in this connection?
You will have to bring it to the notice of the church authorities.
Some of these grounds are very large.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, lines 7 and 8, to delete "of money or attempts to collect money from the public."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 11, to delete "and attempts".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, lines 13 and 14, to delete "of money or attempts to collect money from the public".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, lines 15, 18 and 19, to delete "and attempts" in each place where it occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, lines 23 and 24, to delete "of money or attempt to collect money from the public".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, lines 25 to 27, to delete "or attempt" in each place where it occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, lines 40 to 49, to delete subsection (3) and insert the following subsection:
"( ) In any proceedings under this section in relation to a collection a certificate purporting to be signed by a Chief Superintendent and to certify that on a day or days specified in the certificate a person named therein was not the holder of a collection permit authorising him to hold that collection on such day or days or (as the case may be) during a specified time or times on such day or days 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."
This is a drafting amendment which the draftsman considers desirable in the interests of clarity. No change is involved in the sense of the subsection.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 5, to delete lines 37 to 42, and to insert the following:
"either—
(a) grant a permit in respect of one application only, or
(b) if—
(i) all the applicants whose applications do not fall to be refused under any other section of this Act consent, and
(ii) the Chief Superintendent is satisfied that the holding of the collections would not result in the public being excessively importuned, grant a permit in respect of each application that does not fall to be refused under any other section of this Act."
This amendment has a twofold purpose. Firstly, it provides for the redrafting of the subsection so as to clarify that where a Chief Superintendent gets a number of applications for permits to hold collections on the same day in the same locality, he must either grant only one permit, or, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, grant permits to all the applicants who do not fall to be refused under the other provisions of the Bill. The subsection envisages that, in the ordinary way, only one collection will be permitted to take place in a locality on a particular day. However, more than one collection will be permitted where all the applicants agree and the Chief Superintendent is satisfied that the public will not be excessively importuned.
The other purpose of the amendment is to provide that, in the type of case just mentioned, where the Chief Superintendent is prepared to grant more than one permit, it will not be necessary to get the consent of any applicant whose application the Chief Superintendent must, in any event, refuse under the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, lines 43 to 52, and page 6, lines 1 to 13, to delete subsection (3) and to insert the following subsection:
"( ) Where—
(a) applications are made for the grant of collection permits in respect of more than one collection proposed to be held on the same day and wholly or partly in the same locality,
(b) no collection permit stands granted in respect of a collection to be held on the day and wholly or partly in the locality to which the applications relate, and
(c) only one permit is proposed to be granted,
the permit shall be granted in respect of—
(i) the object in relation to which an application is received by the Chief Superintendent for the locality on a day before the day of the receipt of any other application, or
(ii) if two or more applications are received on the same day, being a day before the day on which any other application is received, the object chosen by lot from among those in respect of which applications are received on the same day, being a day before the day on which any other application is received,
and where, pursuant to this subsection, it is proposed to make a determination by lot, the applicants concerned shall be informed of the time and place at which the determination will be held and be given an opportunity to be present thereat:
Provided that, an application that—
(I) is on behalf of an object in respect of which a collection was not held in the immediately preceding year on the day corresponding to the day to which the applications relate, and
(II) is received by the Chief Superintendent on the day, or on a day before the day, on which there is received by the Chief Superintendent an application that is on behalf of an object in respect of which a collection was so held and that does not fall to be refused under any other section of this Act,
shall be deemed, for the purposes of this subsection, not to have been received by the Chief Superintendent."
This is a drafting amendment the main purpose of which is to clarify and ensure that where a Chief Superintendent has before him a number of applications for permits to hold collections in the same locality and on the same day and proposes to grant only one such permit, priority will be given to an application received from what, for convenience, may be referred to as an old-established charity. In the course of the Second Stage discussion on the Bill a plea was made by Deputies that there should be no interference with the activities of these charities, which have been conducting flag-day collections for very many years. As I mentioned on that occasion, safeguards for these charities have already been written into Section 6 of the Bill, but, on a re-examination of the section, it has been found desirable to redraft subsection (3) so as to clarify the underlying intention and to remove any possible loopholes by which the old-established charities might be deprived of the priority to which the House rightly considers that they are entitled.
The proposed new subsection (3) provides that, where there is a clash of applications in respect of collections to be held on the same day and only one permit is proposed to be granted, the order of priority for the grant of that permit will be
(i) the first application received, or
(ii) where a number of applications are received on the same day, the application chosen by lot from among them.
The proviso to the subsection goes on to stipulate that, where an application from what may be termed a newcomer is received before, or on the same day, as an application from an old-established charity, the newcomer's application will, for the purposes of the subsection, be deemed not to have been received. In that way the application of the old-established charity will be accorded priority.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 6, line 17, after "locality" to insert "or in public places of a specified kind".
This amendment is designed to cater for the case where a collection permit is to be issued in respect of a collection to be taken up by means of boxes permanently fixed to the counters of shops, licensed premises, etc. In such a case it would be necessary for the permit to specify the type of place, rather than the locality in which the collection was authorised to be held. Under the definitions contained in Section 1 a shop or licensed premises will be a public place for the purposes of the proposed Act.
Is it necessary to obtain a permit for a collection in a purely private place?
Under the Bill, a licensed premises will be a public place.
I know it has been defined as a public place but it has to be defined as a public place, is that not so? I am thinking of Deputy Sherwin's point.
It is specifically excluded in the definition section:
"public place means any place to which the public have access whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge but does not include a church or building used for public worship or the grounds of a church or of such a building;
That is exactly what I mean. The public have a right or a custom, shall we say, to go into an office. There is a public invitation, by having an office with a brass plate on the door—whether it be an accountant's office, a patents office or a solicitor's office—to go in. I think that is not intended. In many private offices, they have, for the staff themselves, St. Vincent de Paul boxes or missionary society boxes. It is not intended that they would be covered?
I think they would be covered, if you collected in an office.
Amongst the staff alone? Surely that is not intended?
In other words, if a private collection, so to speak, is being taken up for some——
No. We are concerned with collections from the public. If the public have access to a place and you purport to collect from them, then you are covered.
In other words, the missionary boxes in plenty of newsagency shops in Dublin——
This is specifically designed to cater for them.
Similarly, supposing a person has been in an office for a very long time and is retiring and a presentation is being made to him and the members of the staff collect for that presentation. I am quite clear that if they collect among the staff themselves, it is not included. Suppose these are customers who have been regularly coming in and out and they see that name and say: "I want to be associated with it." I think that is covered and I do not think that is intended.
I do not think it would be covered.
I do not think it is intended to be covered.
No, except if you left a box on the counter. But where a person would come in like that and the person in the office would say: "Old O'Higgins is retiring and we are making a presentation," in that case, I think, the customer would be approached as a private person and not as a member of the public.
Well, he has a big public.
I take it there will be no interference with organisations like the Irish Commercial Travellers' Association that have dinner boxes in the hotels?
They are all caught, definitely.
This particular association, of which I am honorary secretary, has been in existence for about 80 years and its entire funds have been derived from the dinner collections and subscriptions given by commercial travellers.
You will have to get a licence for them in future.
Boxes in public dining rooms?
Yes, they are covered.
He must get a licence for them.
This association has been established for a large number of years. It is small but purely charitable and I think some provision might be made not to interfere with it. Would the Minister look into that?
I shall.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 6, lines 19 to 22, to delete "(being, in the case of a collection permit in relation to a collection of, or attempt to collect, money in the course of house to house visits, days occurring within a period not exceeding six months)" and to insert "(being either all the days specified in the application for the permit or such one or more of those days as the Chief Superintendent considers reasonable in all the circumstances)".
The object of this amendment is to remove the limit of six months on the period within which house to house collections may be held and to provide, instead, that in granting a permit either for a street or house to house collection a Chief Superintendent will have discretion to confine the collection to a shorter period than that applied for.
On the question of limiting the duration of collections, either of the street or home to home variety, it is felt, on reconsideration, that it is desirable to keep the Bill as flexible as possible and to leave the matter to the discretion of the Garda authorities. If it ever becomes necessary to apply the proposed Act to house to house collections it is envisaged that collections made for religious and other obviously legitimate purposes would be exempted, and a period of six months would probably be too long for the type of collections which would be subject to control. On the other hand, the exceptional case could arise in which six months might prove too short.
As regards street collections, the position will be that the normal collection will not extend over more than two or three days but here again it is desirable to provide for the exceptional case where a much longer period would be appropriate. For example, it has come to my notice, since the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill took place, that not all the collections made by the St. Vincent de Paul Society after Mass on Sundays actually take place inside church grounds. There are at least a few instances in the Dublin area where, for one reason or another, the collections have to be taken up on the footpath outside the church. I have considered whether there is any way in which the Bill could be amended so as to exempt these collections but I am satisfied that this cannot be done without also exempting other types of collections which we would clearly want to control.
Consequently, in these isolated cases in which after-Mass collections are taken up by the Society on the public street it would be necessary for the local Conference of the Society to apply for a collection permit and I would envisage that in such cases the permit issued might authorise the taking up of the collections over a period of, say, twelve months.
The granting of discretion to Chief Superintendents to confine a collection to a shorter period than the one applied for is necessary to cover the case where an application for a collection permit is made which does not fall to be refused under any of the other provisions of the Bill but which seeks to have the collection held over an excessively long period. Under the Bill as it stands the Chief Superintendent would have no specific authority to grant a permit restricting the collection to a shorter period than the one applied for.
A Cheann Comhairle, might I draw your attention, in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to the fact that the Minister has just read his speech without circulating a copy, having regard to our last meeting?
I did not read the speech.
Otherwise, I might be told when I raised it at the Committee that it did not happen.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 6, lines 26 to 33, to delete subsection (6) and to insert the following subsection:
"( ) A Chief Superintendent to whom an application (in this subsection referred to as the relevant application) for a collection permit is made not later than three months before the day or the first of the days on which the collection to which the relevant application relates is proposed to be held shall, not later than seven days after the date on which the relevant application is received by him, give notice of such receipt to any holder of a collection—
(a) that was held in the immediately preceding year on the day corresponding to a day to which the relevant application relates,
(b) that was in respect of an object other than the object to which the relevant application relates,
(c) the holder of which has not been notified under this subsection of the receipt of any other application relating to a day to which the relevant application relates, and
(d) in respect of which an application for a collection permit in respect of a collection to be held on a day to which the relevant application relates has not been received by the Chief Superintendent.
( ) (a) A Chief Superintendent to whom an application for a collection permit is made shall, as soon as may be during the appropriate period, either grant the application and send the collection permit to the applicant or refuse the application and inform the applicant in writing of the fact of his refusal and of the ground therefor.
(b) In this subsection `the appropriate period' means—
(i) in relation to an application notice of the receipt of which is required by subsection (6) of this section to be given to any person or in relation to an application made by any such person, the period beginning on the fourteenth day after and ending on the twenty-fourth day after the day on which the first mentioned application is received by the Chief Superintendent, and
(ii) in relation to any other application, the period of fourteen days immediately following the day on which the application is received by the Chief Superintendent."
This is a very lengthy amendment. Would the Minister not explain it?
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the old-established charities and I think, if Deputies read it, the meaning becomes quite clear. "A Chief Superintendent"—I presume by reading out the amendment I am not actually reading the speech?
The Minister is not so naïve.
"( ) A Chief Superintendent to whom an application (in this subsection referred to as the relevant application) for a collection permit is made not later than three months before the day or the first of the days on which the collection to which the relevant application relates is proposed to be held shall, not later than seven days after the date on which the relevant application is received by him, give notice of such receipt to any holder of a collection—"
Then it sets out the people who are to be notified; any holder of a collection——
"(a) that was held in the immediately preceding year on the day corresponding to a day to which the relevant application relates,
(b) that was in respect of an object other than the object to which the relevant application relates,
(c) the holder of which has not been notified under this subsection of the receipt of any other application relating to a day to which the relevant application relates, and
(d) in respect of which an application for a collection permit in respect of a collection to be held on a day to which the relevant application relates has not been received by the Chief Superintendent."
The gist of that is that if an application is made by a newcomer, it goes on to say:
"A Chief Superintendent to whom an application for a collection permit is made shall, as soon as may be during the appropriate period, either grant the application and send the collection permit to the applicant or refuse the application and inform the applicant in writing of the fact of his refusal and of the ground therefor."
Then it goes on to define the "appropriate period".
In this subsection "the appropriate period" means—
(i) in relation to an application notice of the receipt of which is required by subsection (6) of this section to be given to any person or in relation to any application made by any such person, the period beginning on the fourteenth day after and ending on the twenty-fourth day after the day on which the first mentioned application is received by the Chief Superintendent, and
(ii) in relation to any other application, the period of fourteen days immediately following the day on which the application is received by the Chief Superintendent.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6 will be a huge section after this.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 6, at the end of the section, to insert the following subsection:
"( ) In subsections (2), (3) and (6) of this section `collection' does not include a collection in a public place in respect of which the owner or occupier of the place is the holder of a collector's authorisation."
This amendment also relates to the type of case I mentioned in connection with a previous section, where a collection is taken up by means of boxes located on counters of shops. The proposed new subsection, as Deputies will see, provides that in subsections (2), (3) and (6) of this section "collection" does not include a collection in a public place in respect of which the owner or occupier is the holder of a collector's authorisation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: That Section 14 stand part of the Bill.
Has the Minister given any further consideration to the point I raised on Second Reading with regard to subsection (4)? This deals with appeals to the district court against the refusal of the Chief Superintendent to grant a licence and it is provided in subsection (4) of this section that 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, of the collection would be devoted to purposes set out. I suggested to the Minister on Second Reading that that is carrying things a bit too far.
All an inspector has to do is to swear that he has reasonable grounds for believing and, once he swears that, this discretion of the district court to grant a permit where it has been refused by the superintendent goes by the board and, in fact, no discretion at all is being left with the district court. Once the inspector gets into the witness box and says he has reasonable grounds for believing, the district justice, under the Bill as it is framed, will have no authority at all to require the inspector to satisfy the court that his suspicions are reasonable, or to adduce any evidence or proof whatever. It seems to me this is a matter which should be capable of some proof and that the inspector should be required to satisfy the court that he has reasonable grounds for his belief. It should not be sufficient simply that he states he has reasonable grounds.
I have considered the point raised by the Deputy on the Second Stage and I feel that in this case the provision is necessary. Deputies will appreciate that this provision relates only to a very limited number of collections, in other words, collections:
(a) for the benefit of an organisation or object which is unlawful or which is contrary to public morality or for the benefit of an organisation membership of which is unlawful, or
(b) in such a manner as to encourage either directly or indirectly the commission of an unlawful act.
Surely "indirectly" leaves that very wide open?
I agree it does.
It might seem to be stretching it a bit, but presumably there are cases where the proceeds are to be used partly for the payment of commission and the person when he receives the commission may decide to blow it in a publichouse and become disorderly, and there you are coming to the question of an unlawful act. It seems to me to leave it very wide indeed.
I agree that it is very wide but I think it is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I do not like subsection (5). I referred to it on the Second Stage and I think it is necessary to make some protest whenever this type of subsection appears in our legislation. Subsection (5) says:
(5) 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.
In bringing in that kind of provision, we are running completely counter to the normal pattern where a person is innocent until he is found guilty by the court. Here we are saying he is guilty until he satisfies the court that he is innocent.
Not quite. It will still be necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused person acted as a collector in a collection. That onus of proof does not shift.
It would be extraordinary if you did not have that.
Subsection (5) only shifts the burden of proof in relation to the affirmative fact which is known to the defendant, whether he possessed a collector's authorisation or not. If I were on the Deputy's side of the House, I might be inclined to agree with him but I do put it forward as being necessary for the practical applition of the provisions of the Bill. It is the same sort of provision as is included in the Road Traffic Act, 1961, in relation to driving licences.
If my memory serves me, I objected to the provision in the Road Traffic Act, 1961. One of the reasons was precisely what is happening now, that it would be used as a precedent for the enactment of other provisions of this sort. I think it is wrong. It is capable of proof by the prosecution as to whether a person had a collector's authorisation or not.
No.
It is, of course. The prosecution should not assume that everybody who goes into the witness box will commit perjury. All the prosecution has to do is to issue a witness summons to the holder of the collection permit and require him to give evidence as to whether or not he issued a collector's authorisation to the defendant. That is all that is necessary and for the sake of saving trouble to the ordinary pattern calling an additional witness, it is not worth while that the ordinary pattern of law to which we have been accustomed since before the State was established should be upset.
The only trouble about that is that the holder of the collection would not necessarily keep any record of the authorisations he would issue. He might not be in a position to say whether a particular person had it or not.
Then the defendant under this section would be badly in the soup. Suppose he has lost it? How can he establish his innocence? The Minister's justification for the section was that the defendant would be in a position to prove he had an authorisation. Supposing he has lost his collector's authorisation and the situation is such as the Minister envisages, that the holder of the permit has not kept a record, how can the defendant discharge the onus of proof that has been put on him by this subsection?
If he has lost it, he could still call the holder to witness that he had one.
And the Guards, on the other hand, could call the permit holder to give evidence that he had not issued one, if that is the case.
Shall we record the Deputy as agreeing to it under protest?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 18:
In subsection (1), page 10, line 11, to delete "fourteen" and substitute "thirteen".
I put down this amendment by reason of experience of a great deal of prejudice by adults against children. When they think of children, they think of them in terms of young fellows in knickerbockers making a nuisance of themselves. They are thinking of children of eight or nine years of age. The average young lad of 12 or 13 is grown up and could look 15. The average lad of 12 or 13 wears long trousers. That is important in the make-up and mentality of a boy. As soon as he begins to wear long trousers, he begins to feel he is a man. Now, we should not misjudge these lads. Theirs is the teenage world. Some people think these lads are a lot of irresponsibles. They, on their part, think adults are a lot of old fogies. We should not lose sight of that. It would be as well for us to try to understand these lads a little and not take the attitude that they are here just to do what they are told, and "Mother knows best". These boys have plenty of sense. We should not mix them up with the little nippers in knickerbockers dodging in and out through the queues in O'Connell Street, trying to knock down a "tanner" or a threepenny bit.
The most successful collections for charity are done by boys of 12 and 13. If we make the age limit 14, we will kill half the collections in Dublin. I invite the Minister to consult with the managers. I bought the badge I am wearing from a young lad of 13. A fortnight ago, I bought another badge from a boy of twelve. The best collections are done by the boys in sixth standard in the national schools. They are free at three o'clock and they have nothing to do for the rest of the day. When they leave school at 14, they become sex conscious. Indeed, when they leave, the managers lose valuable contacts from the point of view of collections for charity. If this is made law, the national schools will be out. On whom then will people depend for the success of collections? There may be a handful of dedicated people who will organise, or elderly well-meaning people, but they are useless. I have two boys myself; one is 13 and the other 12. I have but to say: "Fill that box and I will give you half a dollar" and the box is filled.
I know what I am talking about. I know boys. The moment they leave school, they become sex conscious. They want to dance. I do not want this legislation to be another Dance Halls Act. I am an authority on dance halls. According to the Act, persons under 16 must not be admitted. Half the dancing public in Dublin are under 14. The moment the girls leave school and get a job, they want to go dancing. The Dance Halls Act is a joke. Boys and girls of 14 are dancing in clubs. They may not enter a public dance hall.
We are not discussing dance halls.
I do not want this Bill to become another public joke like the Dance Halls Act.
Having said that, the Deputy might now come back to the Bill under discussion.
Recently boys of 13 were asked by a school manager to make a collection and they were told that, if they were asked their ages, they were to say they were 14.
Sixteen is the age at the moment. Fourteen did not do him any good.
After 14, they are all dancehall mad and sex mad. They have no time for going out collecting for charities. The best collectors are the 13- and 12-year olds, the well educated boys in the sixth standard. I appeal to the Minister not to misjudge these lads. I am taking the common-sense point of view. We do not want another Dance Halls Act joke.
The Deputy should not repeat himself.
I want to drive the point home. I do not want this legislation to be a joke. I will say no more. Let the Minister ask the school managers.
That is a reasonable request and, in so far as it is possible, we shall try to implement it. I should like, however, to point out one fact. The age at the moment is 16. We propose reducing it to 14. We discussed this matter at some length on the Second Stage and I should imagine public opinion was focused on it to a certain extent. We have not received so far any representations asking that the age should be reduced still further. Indeed, as the Deputy knows, the only representations we have had are to the effect that it should be increased to 16. I am fairly clear in my mind that we should not increase it to 16, because I think 14 is a reasonable age. We have arrived at that after consultation with the school managers and other persons concerned. Fourteen is also the age of criminal responsibility. A young person is regarded as capable of accepting criminal responsibility at that age. It was logical from that point of view, therefore, to fix on fourteen.
My recollection of these collections is much the same as Deputy Sherwin's. I think the majority of charity collections in the cities are taken up by secondary schoolboys. I remember myself on a number of occasions being drafted for that task. Boys are at secondary school until 16 or 17. With the age of 14 you still would have in the secondary schools a considerable pool of young lads who would be available to undertake these collections.
I am not sure there is a great deal to be gained by going down to 13. If it were a case that you would not have a sufficient number of boys of the age of 14 there might be something to be said, but I do not think it is a problem. However, if the Deputy wishes, we will have a chat with some of the school managers and see what they have to say about it. But I would reiterate to the Deputy that the only representations we have are to the effect that the age should be increased.
I appreciate Deputy Sherwin's arguments, and he made them in a very telling manner, but I disagree with him. I think the Minister is making a mistake to reduce the age limit from 16 to 14, and I hope he will not go any further than that. There is this point to be considered in connection with the temptation to get people to break the law and say they are of age when they are not of age. Under existing provisions, which were the regulations made under the Police Act of 1916, the penalties imposed are comparatively light, I think £2 for a first offence and £5 for a second offence. The penalties under this Bill will be far heavier. There is provision made for a fine of £50 or imprisonment up to six months. I do not think there is going to be any very great attraction held out to people to break the law when this goes through.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I suppose I will have to withdraw it. But I would ask the Minister to consult with the school managers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 10, lines 22 and 23, to delete paragraph (c) and to insert the following new paragraph:
"( ) in any other case, the person by whom the collection is held shall, unless he is also the collector, be guilty of an offence."
Subsection (2) of Section 16 provides for offences where a person under the age of 14 acts as a collector. The person who will be held responsible in such cases will be either the person who granted the collector's authorisation or the organiser of the collection. It is not intended that the young person concerned should be made guilty of an offence and the object of this amendment is to remove any doubts on this score in the exceptional case where the collection is organised by the young person himself. In theory, of course, the young person in such a case could be charged with an offence under Section 3 for holding an unauthorised collection, but, in practice, it is unlikely that such a charge would be brought, as, apart from any other consideration, it would be necessary for the prosecution to show, firstly, that the child had the ordinary mens rea required by law for the particular crime and, secondly, that he knew his act was wrong.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In subsection 3 (a), page 10, line 30, to delete "fourteen" and substitute "thirteen".
I shall take the opportunity to say this. The Minister said there would be plenty of help available among those attending secondary schools. Those attending secondary schools are usually young people with ambition.
Or whose parents have ambition.
Having sacrificed the chance of earning an income by not leaving school at 14, they try to make the best use they can of their time by studying at home or going to technical schools and so on. The number that will have time to undertake collections will not be as great as the Minister thinks. But there is this large body of young fellows of 13 in the Sixth Standard who cannot leave school. They would love to leave— at 12 they think they know as much as you do—but they are not allowed to leave. If the Minister goes down O'Connell Street and sees the kids of nine and ten selling newspapers, he will know they have as much "savvy" as a lot of adults. Do not confuse young lads of thirteen with kids. They are young men, restless and anxious to leave school and go to work. And only the law prevents them. Many people express opinions about youth. I do not mind that at all. I judge by experience and I have bags of experience. There are thousands of dance halls full of kids aged 14 and 15 having a good laugh at the law.
The Deputy went over that before.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I do not want to repeat myself but I make the same protest with regard to subsection (4) as I did in regard to subsection (5) of the last section.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I ask the Minister to look into this a bit more fully. It seems to me a very grave onus is being placed on the holders of collection permits if they are going to be required to keep and possibly furnish detailed accounts such as are visualised here. A certain amount of give and take should exist under the Bill. If a person or body satisfies the superintendent or, on appeal, the district court they are satisfactory persons to get permits and that the objects of the collection are all right, they should not be then harassed in any way to furnish accounts such as set out here.
I think it is not an unreasonable request, nevertheless, that we should ask people who collect money from the public to account for it. I have no doubt this will work out all right in practice. The majority of cases will never give rise to any difficulty but it is necessary to have provision for the odd case where there is something funny going on. Subsection (1) says: "... in such detail as may be appropriate to the circumstances." I think that is a fairly reasonable approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 25 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
Does the Minister not think it might be better if instead of "other places" as we have here, it said "other places to which the public have access"? That might make it clearer that we do not intend to cover private places.
As the Deputy knows, the realm of the drafting of Long Titles is a mysterious territory into which only a brave man would venture.
Or a foolish one.
I shall ask the draftsman to have a look at it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, March 28th, 1962.