Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 1947

Vol. 33 No. 10

Auctioneers and House Agents Bill, 1946.—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The object of this Bill can be stated, I suppose, to be to safeguard the public from dishonest auctioneers. Luckily, there have not been many of them. It is really to keep undesirable people out of the business of auctioneering. There have not been many cases of dishonesty, only about 12 or 13 during the past 12 or 13 years. The position now is that it is possible for anyone simply by getting an auctioneer's licence to become an auctioneer. That is an undesirable state of affairs and it is to remedy it that this Bill was brought in. There are two principal points in the Bill: a certificate of qualification must be obtained from the court each year, and each auctioneer will be required to take out a certificate of qualification and deposit £2,000 or a bond to that amount in the High Court in case of defalcation. Auctioneers themselves have been trying for a long time to get a sort of council which would be a statutory body that would give them power to control the business. Certain people had proposed this but it was not acceptable generally and I think the auctioneers themselves realised this and did not press for it. There were certain difficulties in the way. There are a variety of things which auctioneers have to deal with and there would be great difficulty in training an auctioneer to become expert in regard to all the things that auctioneers deal with. Several points were raised in the Dáil and amendments were put forward which I think have improved the Bill. I think it is a very acceptable Bill from the point of view of the auctioneers and the public. It is not complicated: on the contrary, it is rather simple, and if there is anything the Seanad can suggest to improve it I will be happy to hear it.

I have very rarely heard a Bill condemned with so much faint praise as the Minister has given it. I hope it is really as simple as he makes it out to be. There is one thing I would like to say at this stage and it is this: when the kind of Bill such as we have here comes before either House of the Oireachtas only one consideration should be present in the minds of the members and that is the public interest. It is not a Bill for auctioneers. It is a Bill for the public. That is the Minister's point of view too and I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the only point to be considered is the public interest. It does not matter whether we are dealing with auctioneers or architects or accountants, the matter must be considered from the point of view of the public. We must see whether the public needs to be protected and whether the steps proposed to be taken will protect the public. I do not profess to have an intimate knowledge of the auctioneering business but that is the first principle. I would like to mention another principle and that is that as few closed corporations as possible should be created. There is a great tendency for people who get into certain positions no matter how humble their origins may have been, to try to make it harder and harder for other people to get into the same circle. Nothing should be done in this Bill to prevent the small man from making a living, the small man of integrity and industry well known in his own area, from going into this business and making an honest living in it. I do not know whether this £2,000 fee is too big or too small for Dublin. As the Minister has said, this house agents' and auctioneering business is a very complicated one and it causes a great variety of objections. I do not know whether this amount of money— the fidelity bond—could be got in the country. I do not know whether it could be issued to protect the whole public against an individual. I know if I am working for an employer I can get, by paying a certain amount of insurance for a fidelity bond, a guarantee against my defaulting against my employer but I do not know whether you can get a fidelity bond which may guarantee against defaulting against the general members of the public.

The principle we should consider is whether it is good for the public or whether it does put an undue restraint on the poor man or the small man who has integrity and ability and wants to get on. As the Minister for Industry and Commerce said here one time, it is very difficult to protect all classes of the public. You cannot get legitimate measures to protect every, so to speak, amadaun, and prevent him making mistakes with his money. I think it is worth while that anybody who is endeavouring to get this kind of protection for his profession should know that he must be able to prove it is for the good of the public before he can get any legitimate protection for himself.

There has been a notoriously strong agitation carried on for a number of years by the Association of Auctioneers and House Agents for some charter to regulate the conditions of the trade or business. This Bill, so far as I understand it, does not purport to meet the demand made on behalf of the organised body of auctioneers and house agents. Personally, I think the Minister was justified in saying he was not going to meet that demand, because it seemed to me entirely unjustified. I think I agree with Senator Hayes in saying it is wrong to set up a code of law which has for its purpose the object of preventing the ordinary worthy man doing the kind of thing that he is competent to do. There is probably some difficulty in regard to this Bill in relation to that type of man. I have in mind the ordinary man down the country who calls himself an auctioneer, who pays his £10 licence and is engaged mainly in auctioneering meadows, grazing, conacre and all that kind of thing. The proceeds—the commission which he earns — would probably do no more than pay his auctioneer's fees. There is a number of people in this House who are familiar with the country and know that that type of man is found in various places —the man whose whole business consists of putting up meadows and conacre and things like that for sale and gets a very small revenue from it.

On the other hand, I think we must face this: that where auctioneers and house agents are handling large sums of money there must be protection for the public. In that connection, I do not know whether the sum of £2,000 is in fact adequate protection. I was speaking to an auctioneer recently who told me that people in a very small way of business as auctioneers handle vast sums, sums much in excess of £2,000 and that if one of these auctioneers or house agents were to fail or default, then in fact the public would be losers to the extent of several thousands of pounds; that this figure of £2,000 does not cover the case at all. I draw attention to this fact that there are two distinct types of people concerned in this Bill. There is first and foremost the small businessman, the man with very small turnover, who handles no money at all in fact, because I think the auctioneer who puts up for sale the meadows and conacre of his neighbours never handles money. He simply collects a few shillings for doing the neighbourly turn for his fellow-farmer and the matter ends there so far as he is concerned, whereas, on the other hand, in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, you have people handling very large sums of money in respect of deposits paid on foot of sales conducted by them. There is then another type of auctioneer and I feel that there is nothing at all to regulate his business or protect the public in relation to it. I speak now of the type of auctioneer who opens a place down on the quays or in a side street in Cork and Limerick, imports furniture, buys furniture locally and puts it up for sale, and side by side with that offers for sale the furniture of somebody who is giving up house. There is no check as to what is being done in relation to that business, and I understand that the public who utilise that form of sales room are being mulcted in very large sums of money. I understand the auctioneer charges 10 per cent. to the vendor, 5 per cent. to the purchaser, in other words, 15 per cent. commission on his transactions. That, I think, is excessive. In fact, I would say this, that the outstanding defect of this Bill is that it makes no attempt whatever to regulate the charges of auctioneers and house agents.

I made some effort to find out to what extent the auctioneer is remunerated as compared with, let us say, a solicitor, in relation to the same kind of transaction. According to the scale of fees in the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, First Schedule, the solicitor's fee for all charges, including charges for negotiation by solicitor connected with the sale of property by private contract or by auction, including preparation of contract and conditions of sale, deducing title and furnishing the necessary certificates and completing the conveyance is, if the property affected is £25,000 — which is the price now fetched by an ordinary publichouse — limited to 12/7 per cent., realising £158 15s. The auctioneer who sells that property privately is paid £625 in fees. If it is sold by public auction his fee is £1,250. I think that the Minister in introducing this Bill ought to have taken some steps to regulate fees chargeable by auctioneers and by house agents in the same way as the fees charged by solicitors are regulated as I have already said by the First Schedule to the Solicitors' Remuneration Act of 1881.

This opportunity should not be let pass without that being done. I would urge strongly that the Minister would in fact introduce in this House an amendment to the Bill regulating or helping to regulate the fees which are charged in respect of auctioneers and house agents. I want to refer to one other aspect of the Bill— the exceptions mentioned in Section 6. The Minister proposes that no person shall, after a certain date, carry on the business of auctioneer or hold himself out, or represent himself, as carrying on the business of auctioneer except he has a licence. In one case a licence can be granted under Section 8 and in another case under Section 10. It will be noted that this section requiring the auctioneer to provide himself with a licence does not apply to a considerable number of persons likely to be engaged in the auctioneering business.

An officer of customs and excise acting by direction of the Revenue Commissioners is not required to have a licence. What is "an officer of customs and excise"? Is he the gentleman who makes a list of the goods he is to offer for sale or is he a specially appointed officer? If he is specially appointed, that should be set out in the Act. The only two places in which, I think, those auctions are carried out are Dublin and Cork. What happens is the local customs officer seizes goods; he makes a list of those goods and holds himself out as an auctioneer for the purpose of selling them. I think that that is a serious abuse. I saw a couple of those auctions carried on and I am of opinion that they were not conducted in the public interest. I do not desire to enlarge on the matter beyond saying that I think it is a gross public abuse to permit an officer who has seized and listed goods to offer them for sale without any obligation to show that he is acting bona fide. Then, we have the provision that a sheriff, an under-sheriff or a county registrar or an officer of any of these functionaries can carry on an auction without a licence. Again, what is an “officer” in this case? Is he a clerk or a messenger? I do not know what is meant by the term. Is a bailiff entitled to carry on an auction of seized goods? If so, I protest against it. I think that there should be a regulation in this case, as in every other case, to ensure that the person carrying on the sale is a properly recognised auctioneer.

In the same section, we have a reservation in favour of a collector of income tax or his deputy. A collector of income tax is not a public servant at all. He is not an established civil servant. The Revenue Commissioners may appoint anybody to the office of collector of income tax and an exception is here made in favour of the person so appointed. The collector may claim the right to seize the goods of some person alleged to owe money in respect of income tax. He can list those goods and offer them for sale without any obligation to apply for a licence or to apply for a renewal of a licence, which would provide an opportunity for revealing his imperfections. The public are offered no protection whatever. It is a gross abuse of the public interest to exempt officials in this way, some of them established civil servants and others unestablished. Then, we have an exemption in respect of an auction relating to distress as regards rates. A rate collector or any person authorised by him may conduct such an auction without a licence.

What is the aim of this Bill? It is not a Bill to promote the public interest. It is, I think, a Bill to satisfy some of the demands of the Auctioneers' Association. The Minister, I presume, said: "There is an agitation for a charter. I shall not give them a charter but I shall give them this Bill instead. It will, at least, prevent some people coming into the auctioneering business, but I shall take very good care that anybody authorised to sell goods on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners, rate collectors and sheriffs will have a free hand." Not only is a rate collector exempted from the obligations imposed by this Bill but any person authorised by a rate collector to carry on a sale by auction is exempted. There is also an exemption under subhead (h) in favour of an officer of the State who is selling State property. What is an "officer of the State"? What rank must he hold? Is he to be a junior clerk or a senior officer? I think that there should be some definition of "officer of the State". He ought to be a responsible officer and his rank should be mentioned in the Bill. Then we have an exemption in respect of the selling of fish. The information I have as regards the selling of fish is that the manner in which it is done is disgraceful and is not in the public interest. I am informed that, in certain places, a foreign trawler bringing fish to a port chooses the auctioneer, who may be a Swede or a Frenchman; he is hardly ever a local auctioneer. That practice is to be continued under this Bill. The Minister imposes no obligation on the person selling fish by auction to have a licence. I am told that, except in one port, all the auctioneers so appointed are foreigners and represent foreign interests. The points I have made are, I think, of substance and should receive the attention of the Minister before he finally disposes of the Bill in this House.

I must say that I agree with Senator Duffy in what he says about customs and excise officers carrying on business as auctioneers. There may have been an argument for such a procedure many years ago, when, owing to the situation that existed, an auctioneer would not accept such sales. Now that a native Government has come into power, that situation no longer exists. Generally speaking, auctioneers would be more than willing to accept auctions of that kind, particularly at present. We have passed from the stage when auctioneers, for one reason or another, would not accept such auctions. In certain cases, they might have been afraid to do so. That situation no longer exists and a great deal can be said for Senator Duffy's argument.

While I agree with Senator Duffy in certain things, I do not agree with him in other things. He referred to the "agitation" carried on by the auctioneers to obtain a Bill. I am one of those who took a small part in the so-called agitation and I am the son of one of those who started the agitation. My father was the first President of the Auctioneers' Association many years ago and I do not see anything wrong with what the Senator referred to as an "agitation". All that is wrong is that, having agitated for a number of years, we find the Minister for Justice telling us that he has given nothing to the auctioneers but has produced a Bill to protect the general public against the auctioneers. The Minister is notorious for his candour and I think that he has not let himself down on this occasion. Taking it on that basis, I do not think he has gone far enough——

To protect the public.

To protect the public against the auctioneers. Somebody may make some use of that statement but I say that the auctioneers, as a body, have been less guilty than the members of most other professions of malpractices. The number of auctioneers who have defaulted is much less than the number of the members of other professions who have defaulted. You will always have a few persons here and there who will fall down on the job.

Generally speaking, the auctioneers have given very good service to the country. Senator Duffy compared the rate of commission with the rates charged by solicitors, but surely he must know that auctioneers generally take a greater risk than a solicitor takes. While I do not say that solicitors are charging too much, I certainly say that, if an auctioneer did not get his regular commission as laid down by the Auctioneers' Association, he would not be very long in business or causing anybody very much trouble.

With regard to differentiation, I think it was Senator Hayes who said he was not sure that the same thing should apply to the city auctioneer as to the country ones. I quite understand people thinking on those lines, but I can assure the House that it would be quite impossible to differentiate. While there are auctioneers in the city doing what may be considered a fairly good business, there are auctioneers in the country whose names are practically never heard of in the daily papers but whose business would far exceed that done by city auctioneers and it would be quite impossible to differentiate between one and the other.

Regarding the bond, I am quite sure I will be accused of backing up the big man when I say I think it is too small. Any man really doing business at all and calling himself an auctioneer would certainly have more than £2,000 of the public's money in hands, or he would have no business worth talking about. Besides the bond, there should be some qualification. It may be said that at present the bond is a protection to the Auctioneers' Association or to the public generally, but it is very small protection, as any man of standing can provide for that bond. I do not know what it takes to provide it by way of insurance, but there is some method by which it can be got over for a very small sum. Some qualification should be insisted on.

There is no qualification at present. A man comes before the court and, if there is nothing against him by the superintendent, he is all right. It is only a question of his integrity. If he comes under the heading of a fairly decent fellow down the country, he can go into the business. I do not think it necessary to tell the House that any man in the auctioneer's business is likely to be asked a dozen or so extraordinary questions inside the space of an hour. He must have a fairly good knowledge of law and accountancy and a good knowledge of businesses of various kinds which normally do not come under the heading of auctioneering business at all. Someone says he should have a glib tongue. It seems to me that one of the things he must learn is to keep his tongue in his cheek.

I believe that the auctioneers as such welcome the Bill. As one of them, I welcome it as a step in the right direction. If anyone thinks that the Government have given anything to the auctioneers under this Bill, I would like to disillusion them. It is a step in the right direction, but I do not think it has gone far enough, either on the basis the Minister set out in his opening remarks in giving protection to the public or in the matter of satisfaction to the Auctioneers' Association, but it might improve later on.

I supported the principle of an Auctioneers Bill, with what has been described as a charter for auctioneers and house agents, some years ago and I am still of the same opinion. I am not enamoured of this Bill and it does not impress me very much. Like most half measures or quarter measures, it may achieve some good or it may do some harm. I agree with one thing which Senator Quirke said, that is, that £2,000 is not sufficient.

There is the danger, when you mention a sum of £2,000, that the public will think that because So-and-So is a licensed auctioneer he is perfectly safe with their money, as there is a deposit. If they knew that the deposit was only £2,000 and that in the ordinary course of business he would have anything up to ten times that amount on many occasions, they would not be by any means so sure. £2,000 without integrity is no protection to the public— that is the plain truth of the matter. Probably it is better that there should be some bond or deposit and I can understand why the Minister starts in a small way, and he may be wise to do so; but I would like as much publicity as possible given to the fact that it only means that the particular person has £2,000.

When we are dealing with other trades — as the auctioneers claim to be a profession, they may despise the term "trade"— in manufacturing and distributing, there is considerably more capital required. While it is not always easy to know exactly, one can obtain a fairly good idea from the look of a business as to what capital is employed in it, and it is not very difficult to find out through moderate inquiries what the situation is. In the case of the professional man, it is very different, as he may go into business with no capital. Probably that is one of the reasons why the Government thought fit to introduce this Bill.

I was very interested in Senator Duffy's remarks regarding the principle of a closed shop and I have a good deal of sympathy with them, but we must face the fact that the day in which every man was free to be just what he liked has practically gone. If the State does not introduce restrictions, someone else will. Probably there would be a trade union of auctioneers which would make it impossible for anyone to be an auctioneer — and that could almost have been possible without the Bill at all, if a little more organisation and a little more money were spent.

If there is to be control and if there is to be a charter with certain privileges, one cannot expect those privileges from the State unless one pays for them. With the privileges, there must be very definite restrictions. The difficulty in having any test as to qualifications is that the only way you could register an auctioneer or a house agent because he was qualified would be by taking an examination, presumably of the Auctioneers' and House Agents' Association. I do not think the State could take that, unless it first introduced some form of regulation as to the nature of the examinations and the tests and what body would control them. Therefore, it seems almost impossible to go very much further than the Bill suggests, except by way of having a larger deposit, unless the Government is prepared to introduce something in the nature of a charter. The Government might have been wise in starting this way. If I were to prophesy, I would suggest that it will not stop there, as it is almost certain that, with some experience, further legislation will be necessary.

In regard to prices, I think that someone in addition to Senator Duffy should voice the comment, which may be grossly unfair — as a great deal of comments in regard to prices are — that there is a generally accepted principle that, in an inflation period where prices have doubled, a smaller percentage should be sufficient. I find it hard to believe that 5 per cent. on a £7,000 house does not bring considerably more to the auctioneer, even with more expenditure, than 5 per cent. on the same house at £3,500. I can imagine that would be a matter for the Prices Commission if it occurred in any other trade and great care would be taken to have the rate of profit reduced. The auctioneers do auction certain commodities also — they auction a lot of rubbish as well and a great many things which are not absolutely essential. It may be extremely difficult to draw the line but there is some comment abroad on the fact that 5 per cent. on the inflated price of a house is very high particularly in the City of Dublin. I am not in the business, I have never examined into it and I do not feel competent to pronounce judgment upon the accuracy of that opinion but I feel that in a debate of this kind someone should mention it.

There is one matter in regard to which I should like in particular to ask some information from the Minister. I agree with Senator Hayes that our principal function is to see that the public are protected and that we should not give to a body of persons who are described as auctioneers and house agents any exclusive powers which they ought not to have. I do not know enough about the matter to make any comment in regard to the definition of an auctioneer, but when we come to the definition of a house agent I am not by any means so sure, and I should like to put a specific question to the Minister. The definition of house agent says that "the expression means a person who, as agent for another person and for or in expectation of reward, purchases, sells, lets or offers for sale or letting or invites offers to purchase or take a letting of". So far, I think, that is probably all right, but the definition goes on —"or negotiates for the purchase, sale or letting of a house otherwise than by auction or attempts to effect such purchase, sale or letting". It seems to me that there is no reason why an architect should not be allowed to negotiate on behalf of his client, and I think he is debarred from doing that by this definition. I think it is a fairly common practice — I have certainly done it myself — to get an architect to examine property which one may desire to purchase with a view to seeing what repairs, if any, are required. Then, after he has reported, he is sometimes told to go to the house agent and to arrange a price. He will probably arrange with the house agent what his fees are to be, but then he will be acting for reward, and as a result, he is committing an offence under this Bill. I think if a person employs an architect—in some cases it may be an engineer — to act on his behalf, that architect or engineer should be permitted to negotiate for the purchase of the property on behalf of his client.

Another point upon which Senator Sweetman, perhaps, could put me right, deals with the position of a limited company. I presume that a limited company for the purposes of the Bill is a person in so far as the definition of house agent is concerned. A limited company might appoint one of its directors or managers to carry out negotiations. He would do that for a profit. I think he will not be allowed to do that if the definition is taken too rigidly unless he first qualifies as a house agent. The suggestion I make to the Minister is that the definition of house agent requires some examination and possible amendment. I do not see why an architect should have to be registered as a house agent to negotiate for the purchase of property on behalf of a client. Sometimes the negotiation is carried on through a solicitor, but of course the case of a solicitor is covered by the Bill. I think that the definition of house agent is one that requires to be examined by the Minister before the Committee Stage.

If I might begin at the wrong end, I think that the last point raised by Senator Douglas does appear to be of considerable importance because though provision is made in the Bill for the case of a company carrying on business by means of an auction permit, there does not appear to be the same provision in the Bill for a company carrying on business as house agents. It may be that the Minister does not visualise any company carrying on a house agency business apart from auctioneering. Of course the definition of the word "person" does not cover the particular point made by Senator Douglas. It appears to me that the discussion on this Bill is notable for two contributions. First of all, there was the contribution of Senator Duffy to which Senator Douglas has already referred. It is indeed a breath of fresh air, in these days of restrictions and controls, advocated by the Labour Party, to find Senator Duffy coming out so openly and so strongly against the closed shop and in favour of everybody being given a free hand.

Surely there is nothing new about that?

There is a great deal new about it from the point of view of the Labour Party and Labour's contribution——

We contributed substantially to smashing up the Blue Shirts.

We seem to have gone a long way from those days, but as well as I can recollect, one of the Senator's colleagues contributed considerably in the county from which I come, to preventing free speech. We might pass from that to the Auctioneers Bill. The other contribution to this Bill which I thought was notable was the contribution by Senator Quirke. I am sorry he is not in the House now because I do not like making observations about Senator Quirke's speech when he is not present, but I am afraid that I must pass some comment on it.

He will survive it.

He will have an opportunity later on of speaking again on the Bill. I differ completely from his point of view that servants of the State should not be allowed to carry on auctions, though I understand that an auctioneer might find it difficult to make any other observation. I quite frankly welcomed the provision in Section 6 which says that an auction of State property by an officer of the State would not be considered one of the things for which a permit is necessary because I hoped that one of the effects of that will be to wipe out the jealousy created during the past 12 months because of the fact that certain State auctions always went to one particular firm. If auctions are to be held by civil servants, then I think there will be no justification for that jealousy because one firm alone will not be selected for State auctions.

I hoped particularly that the officer who would be selected to conduct these auctions would be an officer of the Department of Defence because it was mostly in respect of auctions by the Department of Defence that great jealousy was created. I also hoped that if State auctions are going to be conducted by an officer of the State, then there would not be the same inducement or necessity for auctioneers to have their advertisements displayed in Government Departments. I think it is nothing short of a disgrace that any auctioneer should be allowed— mind you, I am not hitting at any member of this House in that respect, nor am I hitting at the Senator who is now coming in — to advertise in any Department of State by means of calendars. I object very strongly when I go to the Department of Industry and Commerce to transact public business with an official to see up on the wall beside me a calendar advertising any particular auctioneer. It is entirely wrong.

Do you object to any sort of a calendar in an office?

If the Senator wants to know, now that he has interrupted me, I object to the calendar of Stokes and Quirke in the Department of Industry and Commerce——

That is quite understandable.

——and to no other calendar being there. If the Senator wants to discuss it in this way——

I do not know what office the Senator is talking about.

——I am quite willing to do so. We can deal with it in two ways — gently or roughly.

Very well.

I am prepared to deal with it in either way.

It might warm us up.

I remarked earlier to the Minister for Defence that we could do with a little bit of warmth to-day. I quite agree with Senator Quirke that the vast body of auctioneers have rendered really good service to the public, and that among the number of auctioneers practising there has been an extraordinarily small percentage of defalcations. It is only right that, on every occasion when we discuss restrictions on the members of this profession or the question of security for the public, we should express frankly the view that there has been only this very small proportion of defalcations. It is only in respect of this very small number of auctioneers that we are anxious to have regulations.

I do not agree with the provisions in the Bill which aim at providing security against defalcations. They are neither adequate nor reasonable. The proper method of providing that security is not by means of a fidelity bond or a deposit, but rather by ensuring that those holding other people's money must segregate that money from their own. I am quite certain that if the Minister were to furnish us with a return from his law officers relating to all the cases that have come before the courts in which there was default on the part of a solicitor, an auctioneer, or any other person dealing with public money, it would be found that in almost all cases the defalcations started off by the person concerned not knowing where he stood. His own money had got mixed up with other people's money. He was spending more than he was earning, and he gradually got into the position that he was utilising other people's money. Then, suddenly, he one day woke up as to how things were, and he found that he was in the position that he was not able to pay. I suggest that the real safeguard for the public in regard to trust moneys, such as we are speaking of, whether they are held by a solicitor, an auctioneer or any other person, is that they should be put into a separate banking account, and that it should be made a criminal offence for the person entrusted with such moneys to use them for any purpose unconnected with the trust. What I mean is that, if I have £2,000 belonging to Senator Hearne, I must put that into a separate banking account. I must use it for his business only, and if I utilise any of it for my own purposes, then I am guilty of a crime for which I can be sent to jail.

That, I suggest, is the ultimate protection for the public. It is the protection that the public is entitled to have. On the Committee Stage of the Bill I propose moving an amendment on these lines. If an auctioneer is bound by law to keep separate banking accounts, such as I suggest, he will know where he stands at any particular date. It will be a protection for him against going down a slope, which is sometimes very slippery, without any bad faith on his part, and then suddenly finding that he has overdrawn himself. I do not think that the provisions in the Bill with regard to a bond or a deposit provide sufficient cover, nor would they protect the public against the man who wants to be deliberately fraudulent. At best, they will do so only to the extent of £2,000 If an auctioneer or any other person holding trust funds knows that, if he ultilises them for his own purposes, the result for him is going to be not merely bankruptcy but that he is going to go to jail, he will think twice before he will do so. That, I suggest, is the only protection for the public that is of any use.

I hope the Minister, when replying, will give the House the figure which he must have ascertained which it is proposed to charge on the bond in the case of the £2,000 deposit. Obviously, in considering the reasonableness of the amount of the deposit, we must also consider the amount of the premium that is going to be charged. We should make every effort to see that the ordinary person is not prevented from carrying on business under the conditions which I have suggested. If separate banking accounts must be kept there will be a far greater degree of security for the public than under the provisions of the Bill, and the new man will not be prevented from coming in.

Senator Duffy made a comparison between the commission which auctioneers receive and solicitors' charges. While I appreciate very much the point of view that he put forward, I am afraid that his figures were not quite accurate. For the sake of accuracy, it is just as well that the correct figures should be given. The Senator suggested that, in the case of a £25,000 sale, the solicitor's charges were £158, and the auctioneer's commission £1,250 in the case of a public sale, and half of that sum in the case of a private sale. I want to tell him that the correct figure for the solicitor is £237 and not £158 as he stated. The comparison is, I think, a fair one in spite of what Senator Quirke suggested. I should like very much to have heard the Senator continue on what was the heavier responsibility — that of the auctioneer or solicitor — for which the former should be paid the higher fee. In regard to the auctioneer's commission, I think that where the public have a grievance is that it is not graduated on a sliding scale.

Who said there was a grievance?

I am perfectly prepared to say that there is a grievance, and I am going to say something on these lines that may surprise Senators. I do not think that in the vast majority of auctions, country auctions particularly, the auctioneers get the full percentage that they are supposed to claim in accordance with their own regulations. What happens in effect is, there is bargaining with several sets of auctioneers and, finally, the client concerned tries to get one who will accept the lowest commission. Clients generally consider that the flat fee from the bottom up, no matter how high the property goes, is not reasonable. If the fees were graded fees it would in the long run be beneficial to the auctioneers themselves because there would not be any request to them to cut their charges. It is common property that in cases of substantial sales it is considered unreasonable for an auctioneer to stand out for his full pound of flesh and in fairness to the auctioneers I must say that they do not do that. It would be much better if the grievances were removed by graduating the fees. Efforts would not be made then to have them altered one way or another.

The existing commission is 2½ per cent. on a private sale and 5 per cent. on a public sale irrespective of whether it is £100 or £100,000. The solicitor's commission is £3 per cent. on the first £1,000, £2 5s. per cent. for the next £2,000 and, I think, 30/- per cent. for the next £4,000 and after that it is 11/3 per cent. I would consider unfair, even having regard to the big transactions and the greater responsibility involved, for the solicitor's fee to be 3 per cent. flat. The graded scale is fair and I think that a graded scale is required here and it would in the long run be of benefit to the auctioneers if they decided to adopt it as adopted in the Solicitors Act of 1881. I would very seriously suggest to the Minister that between this and the Committee Stage he should reorientate his mind on the question of separate accounts and adopt some provision to ensure that those of us who handle large sums of money put that money into a special trust account, a separate bank account, and to provide that if we use that money for private purposes we commit a criminal offence.

I welcome this Bill but I am not entirely in agreement with the suggestion that the bond should be £2,000. I would much prefer that it would be £5,000. A good deal has been said about auctioneers and their work but I have noticed that in the last two or three years nearly every door in every little village and town in the country has a sign or notice outside denoting that the owner is an auctioneer. I regret to have to admit that, in a number of cases there are auctioneers who should not be trusted and I think the Minister is doing a very good act at the moment in introducing a measure that will ensure that only old-established auctioneers and men of integrity and honesty should be permitted to engage in this trade. Senator Hayes referred to the question of bonds. I think the charge for a bond from any insurance company at the moment is 10/6 per £1,000. That would be £5 5s. 0d. for a bond of £5,000. Such a bond would be a guarantee to the people giving their business to auctioneers that no matter what happens they would be repaid. Rate collectors throughout the country are covered by bonds. We must guarantee to the public that they will not suffer. No matter how good a man may be he may fall and for the benefit of the State and the individual whose money he is handling this guarantee should be asked for. As I said before I welcome this Bill and I think it has been brought forward at a most opportune time.

I, too, welcome this Bill, but I am rather sorry that it does not go further. I would like to have seen a Bill brought in here which would amalgamate the professions of valuers, house agents and auctioneers and provide for a course of education and some diploma at the end of it, and I would like to see members of the profession more closely under the control of the profession itself. I do not know whether this is coming or not. I had hoped it might be in this Bill. There is a great deal to be said for it. Subject to those remarks I think that this Bill is an advance in the right direction and I extend to it the welcome that other members have given.

I have been always interested in definitions and in trying to understand what things mean. The first definition in this Bill is of an auction and there is reference to a Dutch auction. I cannot discover exactly what a Dutch auction is, and after inquiries I made it is still double Dutch to me. I think this should be clarified so as to avoid confusion when the Bill becomes law.

Will the Senator tell me what a Dutch auction is? I must confess that I do not know.

I am not prepared to enlighten the Senator. I have stated it was double Dutch to me and I am not going to make it treble Dutch for the Senator. It is not clear to me at any rate. I did not get the definition from a dictionary, by the way, in case the Senator might ask me afterwards. The word "auctioneer" is confusing, too. Can an individual auction his own property under this Bill and is the public protected against an individual auctioning his own property? At one time a considerable amount of business was done by people going around to fairs and markets auctioning their own goods from their own vehicles. It did not amount, I am sure, to a whole lot, but still there is the fact that an individual can auction his own property and possibly deceive the public under the terms of the Bill.

We come then to the exemptions. I would like to look for some reason as to why sub-section (2) of Section 6 and Article G were included here. An auction of fresh fish is included or excluded as the text applies. I wonder how would it apply if the fish were stale? Could he auction stale fish, if the fish were bad?

No one would buy the fish if it were bad.

People will buy it and it is auctioned. The goods have further use as manure. That brings us to the question as to how auctioneers are to function in public markets like the corporation fruit and vegetable market and the fish market under the terms of the Bill. In the fruit and vegetable and fish markets of the Dublin municipality, there is a large number of stallholders to auction the products of the farmers individually every day. I cannot see that these actually come under the terms of the Bill. If they do, it will be pretty hard on some of them to lodge £2,000. It will be quite easy for others who have big businesses outside the market to make a deposit of £2,000. Really the £2,000 is not necessary for certain stallholders within the markets, because I do not think the nature of the trade would ever amount to anything in excess of £2,000—that would be from week to week at any rate, when if there were defalcations it would become apparent. I would like to have that position clarified as to whether the stallholders who auction goods in these markets will come within the terms of the Bill. They do not seem to be excluded. So far as I can see there is just one other point which, in trying to interpret the Bill for myself, I find difficult. It is in Section 7, sub-section (11), para. (c): "A person acting as agent for the Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, the Irish Land Commission, or any person authorised to acquire land compulsorily."

I am not sure if the wording of that paragraph is clear because it says at the start: "This section does not apply to a person acting as agent for a Minister of State". It does not apply to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland — if that would be the interpretation, it means that it only does not apply to them and does not include their agents; it does not apply to the Irish Land Commission or any person authorised to acquire land compulsorily.

If I can make myself clear, the wording seems to me to indicate that the section does not apply to the Irish Land Commission. That does not mean anything really. I think at least that it is not clear as the draftsman has given it, and I would like that matter to be considered by the Minister and his staff before the Committee Stage.

I think that is all I have to refer to relative to the Bill. They are mainly matters of clarification and I am endeavouring to understand them on my own behalf, and I think I may speak on behalf of Senator Sweetman.

I agree with a number of speakers who here stated this Bill is an advance and an advance in the right direction. I think it was Senator Moore who said there should be a charter. Personally, I think that should be the ultimate ideal. In connection with that object there is at present, so far as I know, a course of training at the Bolton Street Technical School for auctioneers —let us say, apprentices — and I take it that course is under the aegis of the Auctioneers' Association and that it was on their initiative that it was organised. That would seem to indicate an intention on the part of the auctioneers to achieve this charter ultimately.

The profession is one that does really involve a very considerable technical knowledge. An auctioneer is very little use unless he is able to value things. I take it that the variety of goods and types of things an auctioneer has to deal with from time to time is very great and it would be impossible for any one man to be able to give a useful opinion regarding them all. As a rule they specialise. One man would be good at furniture, another at cattle, another at houses and so on. I take it in that connection that an incorporated company would be entitled to employ specialists and to nominate such specialists. It is not clear to me whether the company would be at liberty to nominate several different specialists in connection with such work. I take it, it would be.

One of the things that always worried me about this auctioneering business is the vast number of people who have come into it. They spring up from nowhere and the next thing we find them advertising themselves as auctioneers and house agents and so on. I have not had time to study the Bill very closely and perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to state when replying if a person must be a national of this country before he can get a licence, or may any person, foreign or otherwise, become a licensee.

I am inclined to agree also with those who stated that £2,000 of a guarantee is not enough — that £2,000 is an insignificant amount. I would be inclined to advise the Minister to increase this amount for the reason that it is common knowledge that so many irresponsible people come along. I do not know whether the provision which applies to ordinary contracts would apply in this case. As a rule double the amount of the contract has to go into the bond and that might perhaps be an additional degree of safety.

I think it was Senator Sweetman who referred to the fees and said that it is a matter of very common knowledge that there is a bargaining, a kind of touting system, if you like, and the successful tout will get business where the man who is inclined to adopt a professional attitude and insists on professional etiquette will fail. That is a matter of common knowledge. Auctioneers are quite well aware of it. I do not think anyone could reasonably deny it. Senator Quirke referred to the fact that very few auctioneers fail. That is quite true and I think he was hinting at other profesisons where failures of late years are becoming very frequent.

These professions would be rather closely allied to the auctioneering profession. I think that Senator Quirke's statement is two-edged. It seems to indicate that the auctioneer's remuneration is so very substantial, compared with that given to other professions, that auctioneers are not likely to be guilty of defalcation — that there is no necessity for that because their fees are so substantial. That reply could well be made to the Senator.

I should like to stress the vocational organisation side of the matter. I find it difficult to reconcile Senator Duffy's statement, to the effect that anybody should be entitled to set up in this business, with the commonly held view that you may not set up and call yourself a mason or a carpenter or a member of any other trade without undergoing a certain training, which is recognised as a qualifying training. I think that the same thing should apply to auctioneering as to all the other professions. Once we recognise that generally, then we shall have that very large measure of agreement regarding vocational organisation which is so desirable and which would, ultimately, result, I am sure, in inducing the Government to endeavour to implement the recommendations of the very important commission on the subject which were issued some years ago.

This Bill, then, is a move in the right direction. It is only a beginning and I hope that, in the not far distant future, the Minister will be bringing in another Bill to put the auctioneering business on a really professional basis and, in that way, forge a further link in the chain which will, ultimately, result in vocational organisation being the system of the country generally. The adoption of such a system does not necessarily mean that each closed organisation will be able to fix its own charges and tyrannise over others. That system will require some general control so that the interests of the general public will be safeguarded. The idea of the "closed shop" need not, therefore, alarm us in the slightest degree, because that "closed shop" will itself be subject to general control, in the interests of the public. The Minister is there to see that such control is exercised, if not by a system which is part of a general system of vocational organisation, then as a matter arising out of the Minister's own functions, as protector of the general interests of the public.

What happened in the other House has happened in this House. There has been a difference of opinion on a number of points. Senator Hayes suggested that the deposit required was too large for a country auctioneer. A Senator from the country — Senator McCabe — urged that it was not large enough. Seeing how things went in the other House and in this House, I think that we were about right in fixing upon the sum of £2,000. That is not supposed to be a complete safeguard but we think that it will meet most of the cases which are likely to arise. In the few cases of defalcation which have occurred amongst auctioneers, the defaulters were generally persons who were just starting off. It has to be remembered that the money lodged with the auctioneer is merely a deposit amounting to about 25 per cent. of the purchase price and that that sum remains in his hands for only a limited time. A question was raised as to what the cost of the deposit which the auctioneer will be required to make will be to him. That will be a matter for the insurance companies, but I understand that the cost will be somewhere between £10 and £15.

Per cent.?

No. The premium will be in or about that amount. It will, of course, be for the insurance companies to determine that question. The question of the fees payable to auctioneers was raised here. I should have strong objection to fixing such fees. I do not see why the Government should do that. In the case of solicitors, there is a committee, I think, which fixes the fees.

A statutory committee of the judges.

Senator O'Reilly referred to the operations of what he described as the "tout". We were all aware that that was happening. I do not think that, on the whole, it is a bad thing. From the professional point of view, it may not be advantageous but, from the point of view of the public interest, which we most consider, there is something to be said for it. If there is a great deal of profit to be made, there will be a great deal of competition and the matter will regulate itself. I examined the whole matter and I came to the conclusion that there was no necessity to take action—that the matter would settle itself. Senator Duffy referred to the exemption of customs officers, sheriffs, rate collectors and others from the necessity of taking out a licence. I do not see why they should not be exempt. I am not prepared to admit that the time has arrived when goods seized by a sheriff would be sold by an auctioneer. These officers are acting for the Government and they do not hold any deposit moneys. We are trying to guard in this Bill against the deposits of purchasers being embezzled by auctioneers with whom they are lodged. There is no such lodgment in the case of those public officials; consequently, I see no reason to interfere with the practice which at present obtains. The reason why fish auctioneers are not included in the Bill is that the Minister for Agriculture proposes to deal with the whole matter in a Fishery Bill. As to the difference between fresh and other fish, the fresh fish have just been landed and the other fish are salted. As to the rotten fish, they might be sold as manure but I do not think they would fetch a big price, though they might.

They are very valuable as manure.

As to the qualifications, an applicant has not to go to court and show what his qualifications are but an opportunity is afforded to anybody to object to an applicant on the ground that he is not a proper person to hold a licence. For instance, the Garda could make such an objection. One of the complaints made at a meeting of auctioneers — and I think they had every reason to complain — was that a man who had just come out of jail could, by taking out a £10 licence, become an auctioneer. It will not be possible for that to happen when this Bill is law. That is why this certificate is necessary. It gives an opportunity to the superintendent of the Garda, or to somebody else, to object to a man obtaining a licence on the ground that he has defaulted in some respect. Senator Douglas was not sure about the definition section and he thought that the use of the word "negotiate" might prevent an architect from acting on behalf of a would-be purchaser. We do not think that that would happen. If we had not the word "negotiate," there might be a loophole. People might negotiate, take deposits and yet maintain that they were not acting as agents. There is no question of interfering with an architect who is simply giving professional advice as to the structural condition of a house.

I referred to the case of an architect who is directed by his client to go down the country, examine a house and, if he found it suitable, negotiate with a view to getting it for his client. I think that he is debarred from doing that.

If it is a question of his selling a house, I think he ought to be debarred.

It is not a question of selling. It is quite a common practice for a man who does not know much about the value of property to get an architect to examine it, decide on its worth and endeavour to effect a purchase on his behalf. That is a perfectly proper procedure; that is negotiating for purchase; the architect had nothing to do with selling. That is a different proposition. The other point I made was that where a limited company wanted to buy, it would have to appoint one of its own people to act and do the purchase. It is only a small point for examination, and I am not going to press it.

We will examine that. Senator Douglas thought the deposit too small, while others thought it too large, and I have dealt with that. Senator Sweetman spoke of a separate account. I suppose that is desirable, but it would be very difficult. I personally was anxious to have it, as I knew of a case where a salesman put the money into his own account. He was quite honest as far as I know but the bank closed on him that day and all that money was held and the man who actually got the cheque from him, who had sold his cattle, found the cheque returned. To enforce that, one would require some sort of public audit and where an auctioneer was becoming shaky you would have no way of enforcing it until the damage was done. If he holds on to money, he is guilty of an offence, and the only safeguard I see is to have a deposit. If he is likely to hold on to the money, he is just as likely to put it to his own account and take the chance, unless we have the audit. I know that the solicitors object to something of that kind, to requiring solicitors to have audited accounts, including costs and all the rest of it.

There is also the point that, in the case of auctioneers, they do not hold the money for as long a period as solicitors do. They generally hold it until the sale is completed, a matter of a few weeks, sometimes not as long, and in some cases it may be only for a day or two, as in the case of salesmen. I was most anxious to have this included, on account of cases that came to my notice, but I am afraid it would not work. In regard to the premium, as far as we can find out, it would be from £10 to £15.

In regard to Dutch auctions, I understand that the auctioneer starts at a high figure, perhaps three times what he hopes to get, and goes down until he gets someone to take what he considers a satisfactory price. If this provision were not there, there would be someone trying to evade the law by carrying out Dutch auctions. In regard to auctioning your own property, that cannot be done either, as the difficulty would be to prove a thing was not the person's own property. Anyone who wants to auction his own property could sell it all right but not auction it, as there would be too much evasion there. The fruit and vegetable salesmen must be licensed and the fish people would have to take out a licence also, only that the Minister for Agriculture intends to legislate for them.

What about sales-masters in the market?

They will all have to have it. In regard to firms employing agents, as in the case of big businesses, the position is that the agent has to have a licence but need not get a certificate of qualification. The firm gets that and is responsible for its own agents, who do not have to go to court.

On the question of nationals, there is nothing to prevent a non-national being an auctioneer, but in the case of an ordinary alien, first of all the Minister for Justice has to admit him into the country and he cannot come without permission, and when he is in he cannot take up employment unless the Minister for Industry and Commerce allows it. So far as people from England are concerned, there is nothing to stop them, any more than people from here are stopped in England.

Would the Minister say where the provision relating to the excise fee is dealt with? The Bill says that the applicant for a licence has to pay the excise duty payable on an auctioneer's licence and I think the Act under which that excise duty is payable has been repealed.

The next Finance Act will have that. It is a revenue licence.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for next sitting day after this week.
Top
Share