This is a Bill to amend an Act of the Irish Parliament dealing with pawnbrokers. The Act of 1788 provided for the appointment of four auctioneers for the sale of unredeemed pawnbrokers' pledges in the City of Dublin. The Act provided that each of the auctioneers should be assigned to one of the four divisions into which the city was divided at that time, and prohibited any auctioneer from having his auction room outside the division to which he was assigned. It was discovered recently, however, that for at least 70 years one of the auctioneers has had his auction rooms outside his division. A case was taken in the courts, but it was dropped. I thought it was only fair when approached by these people, seeing that we were taking nothing from anyone else, to confirm them in what they had been doing for so many years. That is simply what this Bill does. There was a suggestion in the other House that we were taking something from other auctioneers. That is not so. We are simply allowing something to continue that had been the practice for 70 years—allowing them to sell outside their own division. I am told, as a matter of fact, it would be difficult to trace the actual divisions into which the city was divided at that time. During the course of the debate in the other House—which did not take very long—I was asked would I agree to the appointment of a select committee to consider the whole question. I said I would be prepared to do that. It will be necessary some time or other to overhaul the whole thing, but it will take some time before it can be got under way, and this is merely an interim Bill to provide that what has been going on for years may be continued.
Pawnbrokers (Divisional Auctioneers) Bill, 1943—Second Stage.
I understand that it is considered that the time is now ripe for overhauling the old Act of 1788, and I think there is a danger here of some of the corporation officials, possibly, losing by this transaction. There were four pawnbrokers' sales-shops in the city. Two of them were under the control of the Dublin Corporation officials. The City Marshal has something to do with one of these pawnbrokers' auction rooms. The danger now is that the pawnbrokers may turn their whole business over to the favoured auction rooms and leave the other auction rooms vacant. The Minister has stated that an opinion was expressed in the other House that there was a necessity for a revision of the old Act. If so, could not this matter be dealt with in connection with the revision of the old Act, if a revision is thought desirable? I do not believe any Senator or the Minister would desire to injure any citizen, but the argument is put forward that that may happen, that some of the old pawnbroking auction rooms may be left derelict while the favoured ones get all the business. That is the point I wish to make.
I think there is a good deal in what Senator Healy has said. The City Marshal's position is a sinecure and I believe his remuneration comes from this source. He controls at least one of the auction rooms and has a good deal to say in the disposal of unredeemed pledges. It is a fairly important matter to take away that privilege and to confer it on some other person. I think we ought to hear more from the Minister about this. It has been suggested that there is a good deal of favouritism and privilege behind this move. Some people are concerned as to why it is felt desirable to change a practice which has gone on for so many years, while it is admitted that the whole system of pawnbroking and the disposal of unredeemed pledges should be inquired into. I do not propose to go into it, but I do know that there are some very grave abuses behind the unredeemed pledges. I understand this is a comparatively new premises in Capel Street.
The old Trades Hall.
I know that, but I did not want to mention it.
There were plenty of unredeemed pledges there before.
It would be following the old precedent. I would like to know who is behind this new move, who will get this business, and why? I think the Minister in his own interest ought to go into greater detail because there is a very sinister suggestion behind the whole thing.
Surely the position is that a number of people who follow a particular trade, the trade of pawnbroking, in this city, found themselves hampered by an Act of 1788, and it is not that there is a change being made in the practice, but that the Minister, in his anxiety to be entirely lawful, is legalising something which took place over a period of 80 years, in contravention of an Act of the old Irish Parliament, passed in the year 1788. So that, instead of doing something new, the Minister is following a tradition.
That is perfectly right.
He is making it legal now to do something which was permitted but which was really in all probability against the law. In other words, certain people have acquired by prescription a right which the Minister is now conferring upon them by passing a positive Act in their favour. There is one other thing that strikes me about this, that is, the question of privilege. Surely people should have a right to choose their own auctioneer to sell their own goods. I do not profess to be an authority on pawnbroking but I did make some inquiries into this matter and into the system generally and I do not know that there is any ground for saying that the pawnbrokers as a body are people who commit grave abuses or that there are grave abuses in their system. Their system is, I understand, very minutely laid down. What they can do and what they cannot do is very carefully stated and they operate under very considerable restrictions. There may be necessity to inquire into this particular old Act and considerable improvements may be possible in the whole scheme but I do not think that we should discuss the matter on the basis that pawnbroking as a business is something which is riddled with abuses and that it needs the same kind of inquiry, for example, as was necessary in regard to certain forms of moneylending, which undoubtedly were subject to abuses.
It seems to me that this Bill does a right and proper thing—a thing which we should do. I should regret if, as Senator Healy says, some individual is injured as a result. The Minister might, perhaps, assure us that there is no authority at all for saying that we are introducing something new in this Bill. What we are doing is clinging to something which is at least 80 years old. If there has to be an inquiry, that inquiry is not necessitated by the existence of grave abuses.
It seems to me that the principle of making legal something which has been the practice for a considerable time, and which the responsible Minister can see no reason for changing, is a good one. Where we discover certain old Acts which have fallen into disuse, I think that the proper course is to set the law right by the simple process of introducing a Bill. It is a bad thing to continue a practice once it has been discovered to be illegal. I think that the Minister has taken the right course in introducing this Bill. I should have been glad if somebody had explained exactly what Senator Foran and, perhaps, Senator Healy were driving at.
I cannot see how the continuance of a practice which has been going on for 80 years can affect a sinecure which somebody has enjoyed unless that person is over 80 years of age. If the pawnbrokers have been using only one auction room, in the erroneous belief that they were forced by some Act to use only that auction room, and they consider that this Bill changes the law to a greater extent than is intended or that some kind of hare is being started, then it might be wise for the Minister to look into the matter, so that he will not find himself in another difficulty. When we had a similar Bill before the House recently Senator after Senator rose to explain the experience they had on both sides of the bar. In this case, we seem to be rather handicapped.
Senator Hayes must be a very innocent man——
The Senator is not in order in speaking a second time.
May I intervene by way of personal explanation? The City Marshal safeguards the people who make the pledges in respect of the prices realised.
That is not being interfered with by this Bill.
Could it possibly be interfered with by the Bill?
No.
When introduced, this Bill had a certain Title which aroused the interest of a number of people who have been knocking at the door of the Minister for a number of years. The Bill deals almost entirely with pawnbrokers but, in parenthesis, in the Title, we have the words "Divisional Auctioneers." Apparently, this Bill has been introduced at the request of some private individual or private interests. Since the Minister can find time to accede to the request of such private individuals or private interests, I think he should find time to deal with matters of public interest. The auctioneering profession——
The Senator is going somewhat wide of the mark now.
If the Chair rules that I am out of order, I must submit. I am, however, speaking in a broad, general way. If private interests can succeed in getting matters of importance to them brought before the Oireachtas, I want to urge that, in the public interest, certain reforms are necessary in connection with a matter referred to in the Bill—the question of auctioneering. I think I am within my right in drawing attention to the fact that there are other phases of the auctioneering business which require attention. I do not know whether the present administration will continue to carry on or not, but, in the public interest, certain matters ought to be attended to in connection with the auctioneering business. There are certain abuses in connection with auctioneering—matters in which the public is very much interested, and in respect of which the public is, to a large extent, swindled. I think I am entitled to refer to that aspect of auctioneering, and to say that, if the Minister can find time to introduce a Liquor Bill, which was not demanded, and various other Bills, his Department ought to go into the question of the abuses that take place in connection with auctioneering. The position at present is that a man can come from God knows where, set up as an auctioneer in the city and swindle the public.
The Senator has, I think, sufficiently ventilated that point on this Bill. The Chair has not been too strict with him.
I submit to your ruling. I shall, probably, put down a motion to deal with this matter.
Regarding the question of public interest, if the public interest had not been concerned, I would not have moved in this matter. I have been given to understand that a very poor section of the public, particularly in Dublin, is very much affected by the operation of this pawnbroking business. It was because of that that I listened to the representations which were made to me. I confess that I had a different idea of the pawnbroking business until I heard the pawnbrokers' side of the case. I am inclined to think now that they are really a benefit to those people. I was unaware of the extent to which they serve them. I was so much impressed by their case that I told them that, when the strike finished, I would consider doing as they requested me. We are, in this Bill, giving the pawnbrokers the right —a right which they have exercised up to the present—to choose between any of four auctioneers, two of whom are corporation officials. We are taking nothing whatever from the corporation officials. If the pawnbrokers wish to go to the corporation officials, there is nothing in this Bill to prevent them.
They will not go and there is nothing to compel them.
I do not see why there should be.
Why not?
If a person has goods to sell, he should not be compelled to go to one person to sell them for him. He should have some choice. If there were any point in Senator Foran's case, it would be in the direction of compelling the pawnbrokers to go to a particular auctioneer. I think that would be altogether wrong. If this were something new, if somebody were being brought in who had not exercised this right for years, it would be quite a different matter. I am not sure whether the practice which has obtained was illegal or not, but I am told that if an attempt were made to trace the city boundaries of the time, great difficulty would be found. The case has not been proved. The matter was brought to the court, but it was dropped, and it is, so to speak, hanging over these people who want to have the position cleared up.
One of the members of the other House said that he did not see why any auctioneer should not be allowed to sell these pledges. Why four people should have this privilege is a matter which can be inquired into. If certain privileges were being taken from them, they would be losing something, but when we are merely continuing what has existed for years, I see no injustice whatever in it. Whatever privileges these corporation officials were entitled to, they are still entitled to. They are entitled to sell all the pledges of the pawnbrokers in the city if they wish to send them to them, but if they do not wish to send them to them, I do not see why we should force them to do so. With regard to Senator Conlon's point, if the Senator wishes, he could put down a motion, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. I must say, however, that he did it very well. There is nothing contentious in the Bill and I suggest that the House might give all stages now.
Is it agreed that the House should take the remaining stages to-day?
I do not think we ought to rush it. I think there is a good deal in the Bill.