Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 1947

Vol. 33 No. 11

Auctioneers and House Agents Bill, 1946—Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Douglas

I propose amendment No. 1:—

In line 34, page 2, to delete the word "purchase".

The arguments I propose to make for this amendment will also apply in general to amendment No. 2. As far as I understand, it is not intended in this Bill to give any monopoly or specific privileges to house agents and auctioneers which they did not have before. The object in the main is to protect the public. It seems to me that there is a danger that the definition of house agent may mean that ordinary members of the public in their ordinary course of business may find themselves debarred, unintentionally I think, from doing certain things they ordinarily did in the way of business. For instance, I am head of a private limited company. I am not negotiating for any property at the moment or am I likely to do so but when I did, I did not consider the best way of negotiating for private property was by doing it myself. I sent a member of the staff, very often a junior member of the staff, to make inquiries regarding the letting of a premises. He would be doing that for reward because he was a member of the company but it seems to me that in accordance with the strict definition of house agent here in this Bill he would be doing it as a house agent.

I do not know how a limited company would do this business now. I think that negotiations for the purchase of a house, certainly negotiations for the letting of a house, not ordinarily the work of a house agent for reward and not involving advertising on behalf of the client and all the other necessary work involved should not apply. I am putting this down for the purposes of calling attention to what may be a restriction. It may not be in the proper form. I think there is a very marked difference between the sale of a house which generally involves advertisement and other work which you will not send a junior member of the staff to do. The definition here in the Bill may have the effect of restricting legitimate work of the type I have mentioned.

Mr. O'Dea

I agree with Senator Douglas about this. I think his point is a very good one. Very often people are sent to an auctioneer's or to a solicitor's office to purchase a house on behalf of their employers and they would be held to "purchase" under this definition. It is a very big question and I think the word "purchase" should be left out of the section altogether.

Mr. Sweetman

Arising out of Senator Douglas's most apposite amendment will the Minister explain how a limited company will sell a house at all? Supposing I am a paid director of a limited company that has a house for sale and somebody comes directly to me. What am I to do?

Mr. Hearne

Go to Stokes and Quirke.

Mr. Sweetman

We could, of course, discuss it on those lines, but perhaps Section 6 would be more appropriate for dealing with the Senator's remark. Allowing for the fact that I did not want to go to this firm of auctioneers, how would I proceed to sell? I think the Minister will have to tighten up his definition. I think Senator Douglas has made an unanswerable case.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

The position is that a servant is not an agent.

Mr. Sweetman

Oh yes, he is.

Mr. Boland

I discussed this with the draftsman and he says that a servant is not in the same position as an agent. A person sent by a company is the servant of the company or a director of the company. He certainly is not an agent and, consequently, it is not a restriction. I am advised that that is the case and to me it seems reasonable. An agent is a person who may have no connection with the firm at all. He may hold a deposit and we want to make sure that anyone who is an agent of that kind is a person who can be safely entrusted with a deposit. If a person is a director of a firm or a servant there is no need to put him in the same position as an agent.

Mr. Sweetman

I agree.

Mr. Douglas

Will the Minister put that definition in the Bill?

Mr. Boland

The draftsman assures me it is not necessary and I have got to be satisfied by my legal advisers. That is the legal position.

Mr. Hearne

There seems to be some confusion between house agent and agent.

Mr. Sweetman

I think it would be perfectly clear if we state that it means a person who is not a servant. Servants can also be agents. Take this point of view for the purpose of getting it on record so that it can be discussed with the draftsman afterwards. If director of a company goes along to an auction and bids for a property, he is acting as a servant of the company. If he is the highest bidder and signs a contract for his company he is still a servant of the company, but the moment he signs a contract he also becomes an agent of the company. The same applies to private negotiations. He may be negotiating as a servant, but there will come a time, if his negotiations come to fruition, when the vendor may ask him to bind his principal company as agent, and then he will be both servant and agent. If, as Senator Douglas suggests, the definition was extended to include an agent who is not a servant, it would make the matter clearer.

Mr. Duffy

May I ask whether the Minister gains anything by retaining the word "purchase" in the place from which Senator Douglas proposes to delete it? He has already in the definition section a prohibition against purchasing, against inviting offers to purchase and against selling. Is there any advantage in retaining the word "purchase" where it has reference to negotiation for purchase only?

Mr. O'Dea

If the Minister accepts the amendment, I take it he will delete the word where used in that connection altogether. The amendment suggests that it be deleted from line 34, but I think it also ought to be taken out of lines 32 and 33.

Mr. Duffy

No, they are different matters.

Mr. Douglas

I draw a very clear distinction between the two uses of the word. It seems to me that inviting offers to purchase is the work of a house agent and I do not want to stop that. Negotiating for purchase is not necessarily, or even frequently, the work of a house agent. With regard to the other point, the Minister says it is met because the employee would not be an agent. I am not satisfied that a person cannot be both, but, apart from that, I do not think there is any need to restrict to house agents the negotiating for purchase, and that is the reason I propose to delete the word in that particular place. In the earlier case, the inviting of offers for purchase in the form in which we have it is pretty generally known and regarded as house agents' work. I agree entirely with what Senator Duffy says.

Mr. Boland

It is desirable to prevent loopholes. If we do not leave the word "purchase", people styling themselves house finders or something of that kind may take deposits and defeat the whole object of the Bill which is to protect the public. There is the danger that a person may call himself a house finder and take deposits while being unlicensed. All he is required to do is to take out a licence and give an opportunity for any one who may think he is unsuitable to make an objection before the court. It is not a very big obligation to place on a person who proposes to engage in this business. I can see little reason for leaving anything which appears to provide a loophole and that is why I think we ought to make it as difficult as possible for undesirable people to evade these provisions.

Mr. Douglas

In providing against such a person, you are also taking from the public what is their ordinary function and putting them to unnecessary expense.

Mr. Boland

I have already dealt with that point and have undertaken to look into it, with regard to a company or its servant. If that is cleared up, what other extra expense is there?

Mr. Duffy

I take it that the Minister does not want to prevent the ordinary citizen negotiating the purchase of a house for a friend, if there is no deposit?

Mr. Boland

That is the point—for reward.

Mr. Duffy

A person may take a deposit and get no reward or payment. The Minister is concerned to protect the public against the fraudulent agent, using that word in its broad sense, who handles the money of other people and who defaults.

Mr. Boland

That is the intention.

Mr. Duffy

He has no interest in prohibiting me from negotiating between Senator Douglas and Senator Hayes in relation to the purchase of a house?

Mr. Boland

None whatever.

Mr. Duffy

That is what the amendment is primarily aimed at and that is the interest I have in it.

Mr. Boland

Surely there cannot be any point there. I do not see how it arises, because an agent is a person who, for reward, undertakes to sell or to purchase a house for somebody. I do not want to leave any loophole for the type of undesirable person whom we want to keep out of this business and that is what I am afraid would be the result if we accepted these amendments.

Mr. Douglas

The best thing I can do is to withdraw my amendment, but I shall probably put down another for Report. I ask the Minister to look into it to see whether he cannot make it clear that an employee would not be regarded as an agent and whether he can make quite clear the form in which a limited company is to operate.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Dea

Line 14 of the section says: "An auction shall include a Dutch auction." I looked up the definition of Dutch auction in Webster's International Dictionary——

Mr. Sweetman

Dictionaries again!

Mr. O'Dea

——and I find that it means a public offer of goods or property at a price more than the value of the goods or property.

Mr. Boland

An auction which starts at the high price and comes down.

Mr. O'Dea

Until somebody buys. On the basis of that definition, one is not entitled to advertise a property for sale at a price. Is that the intention?

Mr. Boland

The idea of an auction is to get as much as possible for a property.

Mr. O'Dea

But this is not an auction at all. A house is advertised for sale at a price of £1,000.

Mr. Baxter

"Or best offer."

Mr. O'Dea

Is that not a Dutch auction? I think it dangerous to leave in the words and I suggest that they be deleted.

Mr. Hayes

The Senator's case is that "£2,000 or best offer" is a Dutch auction because £2,000 is the high price and you may come down. It is also a public offer.

Mr. Boland

The phrase was used in Emergency Powers Orders with regard to the sale of spirits during the emergency. It was then considered necessary, in case there might be evasion. If a Dutch auction were not included, there might be a way of evading the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Hearne

If I want to sell my house, why should I be compelled to go to an auctioneer, as will be the case if this Bill, unaltered, becomes law?

Mr. Sweetman

We know what the Senator would do.

Mr. Hearne

I am all for the rights of individuals in this matter. Am I to be prevented from putting an advertisement in the newspapers that my house is for sale for £2,500 or best offer?

Mr. Boland

There is nothing to stop the Senator doing that, but he cannot stand up and auction it.

Mr. Sweetman

He would get special terms.

Mr. Hearne

I am only going on the definition, which I have not read, as enunciated by Senator O'Dea, of a Dutch auction.

Mr. O'Dea

Any public offer in the newspapers is a Dutch auction.

Mr. Boland

Starting at an enhanced price and coming down.

Mr. O'Dea

That would apply to any advertisement which advertises a house or other property at a price which exceeds its value, I submit. A Dutch auction is a dangerous expresssion. Perhaps the Minister will look into it.

Mr. Boland

I understand that if the offer is made in public, the step down will be made in public.

Mr. Madden

I have often stood up in the market square with a Jew, and I started above and came down. But he could not do as I was entitled to do. I started and invited the first bid and all the bids were going up. I understood from some of the statements being made that we may be permitted if this Bill goes through to do as the Jews have always been doing— start above and come down.

Mr. Hayes

No.

Mr. Boland

We must include Dutch auction, otherwise that would be possible.

Mr. O'Dea

I have often at auctions seen people starting saying: "Who will bid me £5,000?" Is not that a Dutch auction? That is the way the ordinary auctioneer commences.

Mr. Boland

If you cut that out, there might be evasion.

Mr. O'Dea

Why not get some comprehensive definition instead of using the phrase "Dutch auction"?

Mr. Douglas

It seems you should define Dutch auction in the same way as house agent.

Mr. Hayes

Is it intended to stop people who sell clothes at fairs?

Mr. Sweetman

Is not the real difficulty in this case—what the Minister is trying to get at—the man who gets money as a deposit for goods or a house or furniture or anything else? It is the man who takes money into his hand, the man who holds money for somebody else, and what are wanted are certain provisions to safeguard the public who hand him that money. Any man who carries out any of these functions without there being any possible chance of his taking a deposit—I think the Minister will agree does not interest him.

Mr. Boland

That is right but we do not want to leave any loopholes for anybody to do it, and that may be the case if we accept some of the amendments.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely it would be better to do it on the lines of prohibiting a person who takes a deposit unless he is licensed rather than that you should prohibit him from doing something that you do not object to his doing. You do not object to Paddy Murphy advertising a house for sale for £2,000 or best offer if it is going to be quite certain that Paddy Murphy will not get a deposit on that house? I agree with the Minister he will have to be certain that he will leave no loophole whereby he could get a deposit. But the inviting of the offer as a means to an end does not get to the root of the matter. The root is the taking of the deposit.

Mr. Hayes

I have seen people at fairs operating this Dutch auction business. I do not know whether it is desirable but I am one of the people who object to a practice which has been going on for a long time being stopped unless there is some grave reason. Are you going to stop them here? These people by their very nature never take a deposit.

Mr. Boland

They do not advertise themselves.

Mr. Hayes

They do not advertise themselves and do not hold themselves out in any way. Are you going to stop a practice which, presumbaly, has a certain value?

Mr. Boland

I think they never have had to take out more than a hawker's licence, but no one could hold an auction now even at the present time without getting a licence from the Revenue Commissioners. That is not required from people who go round to fairs, so there is that distinction. There will be no interference with them.

Mr. Hayes

I am afraid, under this Bill, there will be.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister will appreciate I am speaking from recollection but I think the definition of an auction is there at the moment in one of the old Revenue Acts. That definition does not at present include "Dutch auction" and it is because it does not include "Dutch auction" that these people do not at present have to take out an auctioneer's licence but are able to work on a hawker's licence. Now from this on, the other auction, which is not to be found in the old Revenue Act, is to be found in this Bill, which does include "Dutch auction".

Mr. Boland

I will look into it. I think it is in the Auctioneering Act of 1845.

Mr. Duffy

In his definition I think the Minister might include a phrase something like this: a transaction in which a person effecting the sale would accept a deposit.

Mr. Boland

The best thing is for me to look into the whole thing. I do not want to rush anything. I want to make sure everything is right, and that is all I want to do.

Mr. Baxter

Supposing all that the lawyers have said here is correct. Does it mean that hawkers would have to take out an auctioneer's licence?

Mr. Hearne

In the main, 90 per cent. of the hawkers do conduct their business on Dutch auction lines. In Longford, one of the oldest auctions is a Dutch auction, which is held on the market day and at which a very substantial business is done.

Mr. Sweetman

This will mean now a hawker who bargains about his prices.

Mr. Boland

The Act of 1845 does not refer in the definitions specifically to a Dutch auction but, in effect, it refers to a Dutch auction because the words used are "either by increasing upon the biddings made by others or decreasing of sums named by an auctioneer or a person acting as an auctioneer or other person."

Mr. O'Dea

That is the accepted meaning of a Dutch auction. Perhaps that could be put in instead of the definition I quoted, so that it would cover any offer at a decreased price. I think the 1845 Act is the Act which fixes a fee of £10 for an auctioneer's licence. The whole Act is being repealed and I do not know what the position will be in that respect.

Mr. Boland

It will be dealt with by the revenue authorities.

Mr. Hearne

Will the Minister make sure, in reconsidering this matter, that, if I want to sell my house, I shall be perfectly free to do so on my own account——

Mr. Boland

But not by auction.

Mr. Hearne

No.

Mr. Douglas

That is correct, if the person concerned is not a limited company. There are cases of persons being limited companies.

Mrs. Concannon

This Bill purports to repeal the whole of the Auctioneers Act, 1845. Will it also repeal the definitions and will it be necessary to include a definition of "auction" in this measure?

Mr. Boland

We have a definition of "auction" in this Bill.

Mr. Baxter

But it is not satisfactory. The point made by Senator Hearne is important. There should be no doubt whatever that a citizen has a perfect right to advertise his property for sale in whatever form he wishes to do so and to sell it. It ought not to be open to any vested interests to challenge him on that.

Mr. Hearne

I find myself, for once, in entire agreement with Senator Baxter.

Mr. Boland

That a person should be allowed to stand up and sell his property by auction?

Mr. Hearne

No, but I should object to any body of persons being authorised by the State to compel me to sell my property through their organisation.

Mr. Boland

There is no such proposal.

Mr. Hearne

I should like to have the "is" dotted and the "t's" crossed in that connection.

Mr. Boland

I am told that our legal advisers consider that the definition in the 1845 Act is not satisfactory. I shall look into the matter and get the best advice possible.

Mr. Douglas

Plain English is better than Dutch or double Dutch.

Mr. Boland

It is very hard to get plain English.

Section agreed to.

Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Sweetman

In view of certain remarks which I made on the last occasion, has the Minister any comment to offer as to the exact meaning of sub-section (1) (h)?

Mr. Duffy

I should like to raise on this section a subject which I mentioned on the Second Reading. In sub-section (2) (b) provision is made for excluding certain persons from the scope of the Act. This paragraph states that sub-section (1) of this section does not apply to "an auction conducted by, or by an officer of, a sheriff, under-sheriff or county registrar". I am not resisting the proposal to exclude the sheriff, under-sheriff or county registrar but I want the Minister to explain what is meant by "an officer of" a sheriff. That should be defined or the phrase should be taken out completely. My view is that the words "by an officer of" should be cut out because we do not know what is meant by an officer of a sheriff. Does it mean a bailiff? Is he to be permitted to discharge the functions of an auctioneer? If he is already so permitted, I object to that.

Mr. Boland

That is too bad.

Mr. Duffy

Under paragraph (d), sub-section (1) of Section 6 will not apply to "an auction, under any enactment relating to distress in respect of rates, conducted by a rate collector or by any person authorised by him". Again, I am not objecting to the rate collector being permitted to carry on an auction but I am objecting to the addition of the words "or by any person authorised by him". That is going very far. If, in cases of distress, the auction is not to be conducted by the rate collector, then it should be conducted by a licensed auctioneer.

Mr. O'Dea

I ask Senator Duffy not to press this matter because it would put expense on very poor people. These are people who would have been seized upon for debt and it generally happens that they, or somebody on their behalf, buy in the stock—perhaps a cow or a calf.

Mr. Duffy

What is the objection to the rate collector carrying on the auction?

Mr. O'Dea

There is no objection.

Mr. Duffy

I am not objecting, either. I am objecting to an unnamed person being appointed to carry on the auction for him.

Mr. O'Dea

I am not sure that that makes any great difference, either. Certain abuses have occurred in certain counties which had an unfortunate effect on poor people. I knew of cases in which people used to make a trade of coming in and buying such stock at very low prices. These people made fortunes.

Mr. Duffy

I hope that, on the strength of a plea on behalf of the poor, we are not going to set up any scoundrel in the country to act as an auctioneer.

Mr. Boland

I do not think that there is much point in the argument which has been put forward. If there is no objection to a sheriff or a rate collector acting as auctioneer, I do not see what objection there can be to one of his clerks so acting. That happens at present. I should be glad if there were no such things as seizures but, as long as there are, we must have provision for auction of the seized property. My memory is not sufficiently good to recall the point which Senator Sweetman made on the last occasion regarding paragraph (h) of sub-section (2). I think that it had to do with forestry officials.

Mr. Sweetman

And the Department of Defence selling lorries.

Mr. Boland

I think that the best thing for them to do is to get the man who will get the best price for them.

Mr. M.J. Ryan

I should like to know the meaning of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6. That paragraph states that sub-section (1) of Section 6 does not apply to "an auction conducted by, or by an officer of, a sheriff, under-sheriff, or county registrar." I should like to know what is the meaning of "officer of". Officer of what? There is no such thing as an officer of a sheriff or an officer of a county registrar.

Mr. Boland

It is a drafting point.

Mr. M.J. Ryan

I would like to know what it means. Does it mean a deputy, a clerk or an assistant? There is no such thing in law as an officer of a county registrar. He is an officer of the State. I raise it because it is not clear to me.

Mr. Boland

I will have that drafting point examined.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendment No. 3:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent a person who is an architect from negotiating for the purchase of a house or the taking of a letting on behalf of a client or a person who is a regular employee of a corporate body negotiating for the purchase of a house or the taking of a letting on behalf of that corporate body.

This amendment has some bearing on the discussion which has already taken place, which shows the importance of public discussion in Committee of Bills of this kind and the important points that might arise—and which generally are far better dealt with in this House than elsewhere. As I am passing bouquets, I will add that that is so particularly when we have a Minister who meets us like the present Minister. Even what start as small points often turn out to be important ones. Part of this proposed new section deals with a matter which the Minister has said already he will consider. The other portion deals with a matter which is of some importance.

This would be quite unnecessary if the Minister did not consider that he must keep the words "negotiates for the purchase of". It is not unusual, and in some cases it is desirable, that a person interested in property would employ an architect to examine it and estimate the cost of the necessary repairs. He finds out the price. He is not paid for negotiating but is paid as an architect. The Minister may tell me he is an employee in that case and not an agent, but I think it is the usual practice and should not be excluded. It is very often the best and safest way to tackle the question of buying such property. The amendment would not do in its present form, so I will not press it. It should not be impossible to employ an architect and send him to negotiate for the purchase. In the question of sale, I do not see any need for a house agent coming in at all. The architect is a competent person and the best one to do the preliminary negotiations. We obviously have to exclude the solicitor, as he has to act for the purchase and sale, but the architect should not be excluded. He certainly gets no deposit and there is no ground for excluding him, but I think he is excluded under the Bill.

Mr. Hearne

There is nothing to prevent an architect being employed and giving a report as to the structure of a house and as long as that right is preserved there is no attempt in the Bill to infringe on his functions. I disagree with Senator Douglas when he goes so far as to say that, after the examination by the architect, the architect could become a negotiator for the purchase of the property. I do not think that should be his function at all. He is perfectly free to examine the property and make a report, and take a week over it if necessary. A lot of the things which it is most essential that the prospective purchaser should know about are more within the engineer's ambit than the architect's, but while either the engineer or the architect is perfectly free to be employed by any prospective purchaser, it would not be at all proper that they should continue as negotiators for the purchase of the property.

Mr. Douglas

I am taking the view which I understood from the Minister in the beginning, that is, that he is not proposing to change the law or the practice, in so far as he can safeguard the public against the taking of deposits without doing so. He may have to change the practice but does not want to change it at the moment. In some cases, where you know the price that is being asked, you send an architect to make a report on the value at the particular price, but in other cases the person who is thinking of purchasing does not want to disclose himself at all or make known the price. In some cases, an architect simply sends a report and nothing more is heard about it. Senator Hearne has no objection to that. In some cases, the architect is sent to the country and finds out the price and does something in the nature of negotiations. He does not finalise it and do the solicitor's job, but in this Bill there seems to be the danger that he would find himself caught. A very simple amendment would prevent that and I think the first part of my amendment would be perfectly safe to have in the section. I have no objection to adding the word "engineer". If I had been drafting this amendment after listening to what Senator Sweetman said, I would probably have put in the words "but cannot take a deposit" in order to make it clear, although it does not arise in practice.

Mr. Boland

There is nothing wrong with the practice of sending a man to vet a house, but as far as I know any man could sign himself an engineer or an architect, as there is no registration for either. He might be any type of engineer or architect and have no legal standing and no one might contradict him. We are trying to prevent such people taking deposits. In fact, it would be entirely wrong for us to try to prevent people employing competent persons to examine a house.

People often send someone who knows something about buildings, although he may not be an architect at all; and they may value his opinion more highly than that of a well-known architect, as they may think he would take more care. That would be a very wise precaution. We want to prevent those people negotiating the purchase, as that would give them the loophole to take deposits and would bring in undesirable people. We are not trying to change anything but to prevent dishonest people getting money they should not get. I am satisfied the other part is not necessary and I will look into it. As regards the second part of the amendment, dealing with a corporate body, I undertake to look into that.

Mr. Douglas

I am not going to press the amendment, though I do not pretend to be satisfied. It is quite true that there is no State registration of architects. That is not my fault. I introduced a Bill to achieve that purpose, but it was opposed by the Government of which the Minister is a member. Therefore, as far as we here are concerned, we are not responsible for the present situation.

Mr. Boland

I did not blame the Senator for that.

Mr. Douglas

The Minister is a member of the Government that opposed the principle set out in that Bill. I think the Government were wrong in doing so, and that architects should be registered. The Minister says they cannot be recognised now because they are not registered. I do not know what the general practice is in this matter, but I know that in the courts architects and engineers holding certain degrees are recognised as witnesses in their professional capacity. Therefore, it is true to say that they are recognised by certain institutions of the State. I am not going to press this particular point because the Government will not agree to it. The Minister has promised to look into the second part of the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Dea

I move amendment No. 4:—

At the end of sub-section (2) to add a new paragraph as follows:—

(d) a person collecting rents not exceeding in value £200 per annum which he has collected on behalf of the same landlord or landlords, or his, or their predecessors, for a period of at least seven years before the operative date.

The Bill sets out that there are certain persons to whom sub-section (2) does not apply. They are a licensed auctioneer, a solicitor, a person acting as an agent for a Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works, the Irish Land Commission or any person authorised to acquire land compulsorily. I want to add to the list of exempted person collectors of rents dealing in small sums. There are a great many of them in the different towns. I was rather conservative when drafting the amendment, and set out in it persons collecting rents not exceeding £200 a year. I think I should have taken a very much bigger figure. A person collecting rents that do not exceed £200 per annum, and who has been collecting them on an estate for a period of at least seven years should not, I think, be obliged to give a bond. It would be rather difficult to ask a man who is collecting small weekly sums to give a bond for £2,000. His whole commission on collecting £200 would be only £10 a year. If he had to give a bond, the cost to him would be not less than £15 a year. Therefore, if the sub-section were to be operated as it stands it would exclude those people who collect small sums annually. Perhaps, instead of £200, I should have put into my amendment £800 or £1,000. I do not think the man who has been collecting small sums in rent over a period of seven years should be asked to give a bond. It is probably because he is an honest man that he was selected for that position. I should point out that the amendment will not entitle him to collect rents for any estate other than the estate on which he has been collecting rents during the past seven years. The amendment is a mild one, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept it.

Mr. Boland

With regard to the amendment, we had something on the lines of it in the Bill as originally drafted, but it was deleted in the Dáil. It was this:

"A person who acts as agent for the owner or lessee of a house in the collection of rent and the general superintendence and management of the house who, as an incident thereto, acts as the agent of such owner or lessee in the sale or letting of the house."

Mr. O'Dea

That was a very wide provision.

Mr. Boland

The Senator says that, without his amendment, some people who have been engaged in this business of rent-collecting will be put out of it. I do not want to shove anybody out who is legitimately engaged in this business.

Mr. O'Dea

I am prepared to accept what the Minister says, that he will look into the matter.

Mr. Douglas

If the amendment were accepted in its present form it would, I think, enable a person to act as a general house agent. I do not think that is the intention.

Mr. Boland

I will look into the matter and see what can be done about it.

Mr. Sweetman

The objection to the amendment, as it stands, is that if any person is collecting rents of less than £200 a year for one estate he can act for the letting of houses not merely on that estate but on other estates. What Senator O'Dea is anxious about is this —and I agree with him—that where a person has been acting as rent collector on an estate that he can continue to make lettings for that estate, but for that estate only. I do not think that, point is quite covered in his amendment, but that, I think, is what is in his mind. All this brings us back to the point on which I stated, that the real kernel of the trouble is the taking of a deposit and not the making of a letting.

Mr. Boland

As I have said, I will look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Madden

On that question, I would like to put some points to the Minister arising out of some remarks that he made to-day. He said that the purpose of the Bill was to see that no undesirable people got into the auctioneers' business. Every right-thinking man will, of course, subscribe to that principle. Is there not, however, the danger that when this Bill becomes law quite a number of very desirable auctioneers will be forced out of business under its provisions? Within the last week or so quite a number of auctioneers, as well as the representatives of some insurance corporations, have interviewed me. Judging by what some of the representatives of these insurance corporations have said to me, they would seem to be getting rather dubious about accepting a bond for £15 from an auctioneer to cover the very serious financial obligations that may arise under this Bill.

That is one aspect of the matter. Let me take another. I have been an auctioneer for quite a long time—since 1915. I have knowledge of the whole western part of my county and I have known only one person in this long period who defaulted in his obligations to his clients. I have before my mind four auctioneers, each with a small plot of land, four or five cows and a small shop. They do a small but very satisfactory auctioneering business as well, and have got the confidence of the people in their district. Combined with their little business the auctioneering enables them to maintain themselves and their families in a proper atmosphere and to educate their families. I also know of a rate collector who is also an auctioneer but he, of course, had to get bonds to submit to the county council and, in addition, the names of two people of good financial standing willing to sign a guarantee that if he defaulted they would make good the deficiency. It is going to be difficult to get the insurance people to supply the necessary bonds. Take the small country auctioneers. They must be in good financial standing and in a position to get the necessary imprimatur from their bank manager. They may not be able to get that and the Minister, in their case, might force them out of business, even though they are respectable, decent people and in their business dealings have the respect of the community. So far as the insurance corporations are concerned, I discussed the position with one auctioneer who was about to sell a property. I asked him what it would make, and he said about £9,000. The deposit on that would be £2,250, plus the fees. I asked him how long he would be in possession of that money, and he said he would have it until the sale was completed, which was often unreasonably long, due to the dilatory tactics of the legal profession.

Mr. O'Dea

That is not so.

Mr. Madden

I had thought that there would be no difficulty in getting the necessary bonds from an insurance corporation. I thought that all an auctioneer would have to do would be to fill up the necessary forms, pay his premium and take them to the court for his licence, but since this Bill was discussed in the Dáil and in the Seanad the position seems to have changed. I think that this House should be slow to do anything that would have the effect of putting decent people out of business, people who have always discharged their obligations. I have been in this trade or business since 1915, and the fact that only one person in the business defaulted, so far as I know in my district, is evidence of the integrity and capacity of the people engaged in this business and of whom I am proud to be one.

Mr. Boland

On inquiries I have made there will not be any difficulty in getting these bonds. Some companies do not want this business but other companies are quite prepared to take it at reasonably low terms. The very type of person to whom the Senator refers would have no difficulty whatever. People in the business and well respected will have no difficulty. I think the Senator is unduly apprehensive in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Dea

Section 8 states that the Revenue Commissioners shall grant to a person who applies therefor a licence to carry on the business of auctioneer. Section 9 states whenever a licensed auctioneer applies to the Revenue Commissioners, the Revenue Commissioners shall grant a licence. I wonder is it the intention that auctioneers who are now in the business will have an advantage over new applicants.

Mr. Boland

The application under Section 9 is for an auction permit. The auctioneer can get a person to get it for him. He must be a licensed auctioneer already and if he wants someone to do the work for him and for whom he will take responsibility he can get that person to apply for an auction permit but the auctioneer himself pays the fee and takes responsibility for the person.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

I would like the Minister to confirm first of all that my reading of this section is correct. I take it that once a person applies under Section 11 for a certificate of qualification, he is then entitled to practise as an auctioneer for the rest of his life or until he is convicted of one of the offences mentioned in Section 18.

Mr. Boland

He has to apply every year. Section 8 makes that clear.

Mr. O'Dea

The licence remains in force until July the 1st.

Mr. Sweetman

I appreciate that, but does not the certificate of qualification carry on?

Mr. Boland

He must renew it every year.

Mr. Sweetman

He must put in an advertisement each year?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

It seems harsh to ask a small man to advertise each year in respect of this. His application to the court is going to be granted automatically unless certain objections are made. Once a man is given a certificate of qualification he should continue to hold it until there is an objection. When there is an objection he would have to go back into court. Take the present circumstances in regard to the intoxicating liquor licence.

If a person purchases a licensed premises he has to advertise in the papers and go before a district justice to show that he is a fit and proper person. After that he applies automatically each year for a renewal of the licence, without advertising, and gets it as a matter of course. When there is an objection, however, he must again go before the court. I think it is rather unfair for a mall man to have to go through this procedure set out in the Bill each year to get his licence renewed when there is no objection. Unless the Gardaí serve notice of objection he should be able to have his licence renewed without going through this procedure. The district justice could, if necessary, direct that an advertisement be inserted, but compulsory advertisement every year appears to be unnecessary.

Mr. Baxter

I support Senator Sweetman's view. We frequently hear the lawyers abused in this House, and I think it is commendable that we should have Senator Sweetman and Senator O'Dea agreeing on this point. What would automatically happen is that most of these auctioneers would not attend the court at all, but would brief a solicitor going there to seek a renewal of their certificates. In addition, it will mean advertising in the Press as in the case of dance halls. I do not know what the position in other counties is, but, in respect of one particular session of the court every year, our local paper carries scarcely anything but advertisements with regard to applications for renewal of dance hall licences. This provision is unnecessary, undesirable and onerous, and unless the intention is to penalise the auctioneer, it is not a method which should be adopted.

Mr. Hawkins

I support the suggestion made by Senator Sweetman, with the proviso that it would be necessary to make some arrangement for an examination to see that the auctioneer's or agent's bond was covered yearly. I could quite see a man making his application in the first instance, having the required bond, and then, if there were no examination, allowing that bond to lapse.

Mr. O'Dea

Senator Sweetman and I are speaking against the interests of our profession in arguing that it is too bad that an auctioneer should have to apply every year, particularly if he has to engage a solicitor and go to the trouble and expense of going to court to give evidence on his own behalf. Perhaps the point could be met in another way. A licence is renewed every year as a matter of course, unless at least seven days before the date of the court before which the application is to be made, notice is served of an objection, and if a section were added to the Bill to prevent the making of an objection to the renewal of an auctioneer's licence, unless seven days' notice had been served, it would get over the difficulty. The applicant would then not have to appear either personally or through a solicitor.

Mr. Ryan

An answer to Senator Sweetman's contention may be found in Sections 12 and 13. Section 12 provides that a certificate of qualification shall be granted, subject to Section 13, which sets out the several grounds upon which a certificate may be refused. It may so happen that, since the previous grant of the certificate, an auctioneer may have become bankrupt or his licence may have been suspended under Section 18, and a situation may have arisen which, in order to safeguard the public, requires that the position of each individual auctioneer should be scrutinised at regular intervals. Yearly intervals are a reasonable provision to make. I am personally of opinion that the provisions of the Bill are far preferable from the public point of view to the suggestions put forward by Senator Sweetman. The object of the Bill, namely, to protect the public against fraudulent auctioneers holding deposits, would be defeated if these provisions were not included. In fact, these provisions are the essential machinery of the Bill and, without them, the Bill would be worthless.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not at all agree with Senator Ryan that the Bill would be worthless without these provisions. It is possible to provide safeguards to ensure that a person will not have committed any of the offences set out in Section 13 without putting him to the expense of advertising and of making application in court. Under Section 8, the certificate of qualification must be not less than 28 days old, and, further, there must be a certificate from the accountant which must not be more than 28 days old, which covers Senator Hawkins's point. Surely it should be possible to provide a system under which it would not be necessary for an auctioneer to go to the expense of advertising and attending personally in court, unless objection was taken?

While saying that, I want to make another point which arises on this section but which is perhaps also covered by Section 13. It hangs on the point of annual application. Is it suggested by the Minister that this application for a certificate of qualification should be every year a court hearing at which it would be open to an objector to adduce evidence of the fact that, during the previous year, the auctioneer had been guilty of such disreputable behaviour, without having committed an offence under Section 18, as would debar him? Although I think an auctioneer should not be put to the expense of advertising and employing a solicitor every year, I claim equally there should be a provision by which the position could be safeguarded, and by which, if anybody had evidence that a particular auctioneer had been guilty of improper conduct, he could bring that conduct before the district justice. The only way of dealing with it that I can see is that there should be some procedure by virtue of which a person, on giving so many days' notice, would be enabled to ensure that there would be no renewal for such an applicant, unless the district justice heard the application in open court.

I think the Minister will agree with me in this, that the situation which will arise under the section, as he has framed it, is that an auctioneer, Patrick Murphy, will put an advertisement in the local paper, and will then have to put in an application for a licence. He is going to have to get that application filed in the District Court and is going to have to put a stamp on it. He is going then to have to bring along an advertisement to the District Court clerk and then he is going to have to come along on the day of the court and pay Senator O'Dea or myself a fee for saying: "Will it please your worship to grant Patrick Murphy's licence." That is all that will happen. The justice will say, "Yes," and we will sit down. It is going to be dealt with on a purely routine basis like that and I do not think it is reasonable to put the auctioneer to that expense in a routine matter. I would suggest that the routine should be that the licence is granted by the district justice in his office as a matter of course. Then there will be no necessity to advertise or to employ a solicitor; but if there is any objection, then the district justice must hear the application in open court and, if the justice is not quite satisfied, that he will have power to direct an advertisement to see if it was only Sweetman who was objecting to the licence or whether there were ten or 20 other people objecting as well.

Mr. O'Dea

There is a great deal more to be considered in this section. The section does not say who can make an objection. Is it only the Superintendent of the Civic Guards or the State solicitor?

Mr. Boland

Sub-section (4) of Section 11 says that "any person who appears to the district justice hearing the application, to be interested therein, may appear and be heard in relation to the application and may adduce evidence in support of his submissions to the court."

Mr. O'Dea

Can anybody appear without giving notice?

Mr. Boland

An objection to an application for a certificate of qualification shall not be entertained by the court unless the intending objector has, at least seven days before the hearing of the application, given notice in writing of the grounds of his objection to the applicant and the District Court clerk.

Mr. O'Dea

Suppose there is no objection lodged. Would an existing auctioneer be entitled to send in a formal application and get a renewal without appearing in court, without having a solicitor?

Mr. Hearne

I do not think so. I know where a district justice has refused to grant an application because there was no solicitor.

Mr. Boland

About the advertisement, the trouble I see is that if there is not an advertisement, how are people to know?

Mr. O'Dea

Have the advertisement by all means.

Mr. Sweetman

There must be an advertisement on the first occasion.

Mr. Boland

Yes, and there may be something which has gone wrong, and if that was not there as a deterrent and if the applicant had not to appear every year, there might be doubtful people who would chance their arm. I think the annual notice and the annual renewal in order that any objector might know that the person is applying for a licence are necessary.

Mr. Sweetman

Who, in fact, could know anything?

Mr. Boland

There might be some obscure individual who would have very good reason to object to something done.

Mr. Sweetman

That is—done by the person applying as an auctioneer in the previous year?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

He knows because of his experience, not because of the advertisement.

Mr. Boland

But the advertisement tells him that the man is applying for a licence. I think it is valuable.

Mr. O'Dea

The advertisement is no harm.

Mr. Boland

As to whether it should be necessary to have a solicitor in all these cases, it is another matter. It is good to see the self-sacrificing attitude of Senator O'Dea in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Mr. O'Dea

I move amendment No. 5:—

In line 52, page 6, after the word "applicant" in paragraph (a), to insert the words "or the person nominated by him".

Under Section 9 the applicant can nominate another person to conduct an auction for him, and apparently it is the character of the applicant only that is to be considered. I think the character of the person who is to conduct the auction should also be considered.

Mr. Sweetman

What about paragraph (f)?

Mr. Boland

That covers it.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not think it covers it. It is a different person altogether. A different person may conduct the business from the person who carries out the auction. I should have added: "To those nominated to carry on the auctions on his behalf". That could have been added. I think if that amendment is not made a district justice will have no power to consider the character of the person nominated and it is the person nominated to conduct auctions who is capable of doing undesirable work. You can have a different manager and a different person carrying out the auctions. You may have the manager very good and the person carrying out the auctions very bad, and it would not do if the district justice has not power to inquire into his character as well as the character of the applicant. In other words, the person nominated to carry out the auctions should not be able to shelter himself behind the name of an individual of good character. Supposing, for example, a man wants to get a licence and he says to himself: "I am not a man of good character. I can go to John Brown", and he says to John Brown: "You are a man of good character. I want you to apply for a licence and nominate me to carry out auctions on your behalf". This man then carries out the auctions and nobody knows what arrangements exist between the two. Possibly the man carrying out the auctions will have everything to do with the auctions, including the handling of deposits and the receiving of commissions. That is what I want to ensure, that such a person will not be able to get a licence under the name of a person of good character.

Mr. Boland

I think that is well covered. The fact that the firm is responsible means that if a person connected with the firm defaults, the firm will be held responsible. You cannot check up on everybody. Some minor clerk in the office may get the money into his hands and he may make off with it, but the firm itself is responsible and that is the main thing that you want to cover.

Mr. O'Dea

There are matters to be considered over and above the question of deposits. For example, a person who conducts auctions is able to do puffing of an improper nature. He may know that certain persons will bid any price for a particular property in order to get it. He may dishonestly extract money from one of those persons by pretending he has got bids which he has not, in fact, got. That has happened time after time and is a practice which ought to be stopped. Such an auctioneer may say that he has a bid of £5,000, without having any such bid, and induce an anxious purchaser to give a price entirely beyond the value of the property. Apart from mere embezzlement, such a person can do a tremendous number of things.

Mr. Boland

That is one of the things which, I think, should prevent a man from getting the necessary certificate of qualification. If it could be shown that a person had engaged in such practices, it would be a good ground for the district justice refusing him a certificate if somebody would come forward and make the case.

Mr. O'Dea

But he would have been operating for a year then and nobody knows what damage he might have done.

Mr. Boland

You have to wait until the thing is done.

Mr. O'Dea

It will be too late then.

Mr. Boland

But you cannot deal with it beforehand.

Mr. O'Dea

You could judge by the character of the man whether or not he would be likely to do that.

Mr. Boland

A man coming out of jail can get a licence at present. We are ending that.

Mr. O'Dea

Will the Minister look into the matter?

Mr. Boland

I do not think that I can do anything more than is provided here.

Mr. O'Dea

Paragraph (f) refers to "an individual responsible or proposed to be responsible for the management of the applicant's business." What is the "applicant's business"?

Mr. Sweetman

A house agency in one case and auctioneering in another case.

Mr. O'Dea

It might be wholesale groceries.

Mr. Boland

We are dealing with auctioneers. I shall see if the provision requires tightening up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Dea

I move amendment No. 6:—

At the end of the section to add a new paragraph as follows:—

(g) That the applicant is not a citizen of the State.

Amongst the objections that can be raised against a person who applies for a certificate of qualification, no provision is made for the objection that the applicant is not an Irish citizen. If the Minister does not like my wording, he can choose his own wording.

Mr. Boland

Such a provision would hit both ways.

Mr. O'Dea

It would be unfortunate if persons coming in here were entitled to act as auctioneers and deprive Irish citizens of their livelihood.

Mr. Sweetman

Problems would arise along the Border. It might operate against us as well as for us.

Mr. Boland

An alien cannot come into the country without the permission of the Minister for Justice. So far as citizens of Britain are concerned, there is a reciprocal arrangement. Irish people can go over to Britain and engage in auctioneering or any other business. I think that we get more advantage from that arrangement than English people get by coming over and engaging in business here. Doctors, engineers and others can go across and practise in Britain and British doctors and engineers can come across and practise here. I think it is desirable that that should continue.

Mr. Sweetman

It is a change to have the Minister admitting that.

Mr. Boland

It is no change.

Mr. O'Dea

The district justice has no power to object that a man is an alien?

Mr. Hearne

Is it not correct to say that an alien cannot carry on any business here under the Aliens Act?

Mr. Boland

An alien cannot enter the State without the permission of the Minister for Justice and he cannot engage in business without the permission of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. People from Britain can, however, engage in business here and our people can engage in business there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

On the section, I am in a little difficulty in regard to paragraph (a). I am afraid it will be construed in different ways in different parts of the country. A possible construction is that the applicant has done nothing which is prohibited by Section 18—in other words, that he has not been guilty of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty or breach of trust. One district justice may take that interpretation. Another may be of opinion that he had touted for business and may strike his application out. Another district justice might take a mid-course between the two. What the Minister really wants to say in that paragraph is that the applicant's character is such that the district justice thinks he is sufficiently reliable to be entrusted with somebody else's money. That is what the Minister wants to say but he does not say that. There is far too much possibility of divergence in practice in the various district court areas under this paragraph as it is framed. It should be possible to insert a more clear-cut phrase which would make for more uniform practice and leave less to the opinion of the district justice, though leaving him a proper discretion.

Very recently, I came across a practice by a person who is a licensed auctioneer. I mention this case because I think the practice is so reprehensible that the district justice should be empowered to treat it as an objection if he has evidence of it. As the section stands, it might be construed too tightly by one district justice, while another district justice might hold that he had no power of refusal unless one of the actual offences as set out in Section 18 had been committed. The auctioneer to whom I referred went to a man who was not of very great education. He put before him a letter which he said he wanted him to sign. He knew that this person was looking for premises of a particular sort and he asked him to sign a letter in the following terms:—

"To ‘Patrick Murphy,' Auctioneer —Dear Sir, I hereby appoint you as my sole agent to purchase and negotiate on my behalf for the premises known as——. I agree that I will not buy those premises from anybody else but only through you. If I am to buy those premises I will pay therefor the sum of £x. If you—

That is to say, the auctioneer—

"buy those premises at less than £x, the whole of the difference is to belong to you."

That letter was put in front of a man and he was asked to sign it and the premises were not even named in the letter but were to be put in later after the signature had been put in. I want this Bill to be crystal clear on the point that, if evidence of a case like that is brought to a district justice and he believes it, that man would not be allowed to carry on as an auctioneer.

Mr. Boland

He should not be. I would say he is not a fit and proper person, and I think any justice would say the same.

Mr. Sweetman

Unless the justice felt he was bound by Section 18.

Mr. M.J. Ryan

On Section 13 I agree with Senator Sweetman that clause (a) is very wide. It must mean that the applicant in the opinion of the district justice is not a fit and proper person to hold the certificate. District justices may differ and auctioneers may suffer. In this Bill there is no provision for an appeal from the decision. Section 8 provides that the Revenue Commissioners shall grant to a person who applies therefor a licence to carry on the business of auctioneer under the name specified in the licence. The application shall be accompanied by a certificate of qualification which is defined in Section 2 to mean a certificate under Section 12. In Section 12 we find it is a certificate granted only by a justice of the District Court. Therefore, it would appear that a judge of the Circuit Court has no power to give a certificate of qualification. The Bill provides that the certificate necessary in order to secure a licence from the Revenue Commissioners is one given by a district justice. You cannot have an implied right of appeal from a decision of the district justice in this case and, if it is intended that auctioneers should have a right of appeal to the Circuit Court, there should be an express provision in the Bill enabling such an appeal to be taken.

I do not see that there should be any objection, from the point of view of the public, to the insertion of a right of appeal. We know that up to recently it was believed there was no right of appeal to the Circuit Court in the case of the refusal to grant a publican's licence, but apparently that has been overcome. I do not think the reasons which applied in that case would apply in this. Therefore, as this Bill imposes obligations and liabilities on auctioneers in the interests of the public, no auctioneers should be penalised through any chance decision of a district justice, which would be final so far as that auctioneer was concerned and which might put him out of business.

The auctioneer should be afforded an opportunity, if his certificate is refused by the district justice on any of the grounds in Section 13, to appeal to the Circuit Court. I suggest to the Minister that he consider, between now and the Report Stage, the advisability of inserting a provision to give the right of appeal.

Mr. Boland

I understand that the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, gave that right. I am so advised, but I will look into it and if it transpires that that is not the case, I will make provision for it.

Mr. Ryan

The Bill says that a "certificate" means one under Section 12.

Mr. Boland

Could the Circuit Court not order the district justice to give the certificate, if it upholds the appeal?

Mr. Ryan

I think, once it comes to the Circuit Court, the district justice functions ex officio. It should be clarified.

Mr. O'Dea

There is undoubtedly no appeal at the present time.

Mr. Boland

That is contrary to the advice I have got.

Mr. Sweetman

I am sitting on the fence.

Mr. O'Dea

I would be very astonished if I were wrong. There would be an appeal, if there were a penalty of a certain amount, but not otherwise.

Mr. Boland

Section 84 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, says:—

"An appeal shall lie in all cases other than criminal cases from any decision of a justice of the District Court to the judge of the Circuit Court within whose Circuit the district or any part of the district of the justice lies, and the decision of the judge of the Circuit Court on any such appeal shall be final and conclusive and not appealable."

Mr. Ryan

That does not alter the express words of this Bill, which provides that the certificate shall be given by the district justice.

Mr. Boland

I will look into it.

Mr. Sweetman

Will the Minister also look into the phraseology in paragraph (a), to have a more universal application?

Mr. Boland

Yes, if better can be got, though it appears to me to be quite comprehensive.

Section 13 put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. O'Dea

I move amendment No. 7:—

To delete paragraph (a) and substitute therefor the following paragraph:—

(a) the deposit shall be of the value of £2,000 when the principal place of business or the residence of the applicant shall be in a county borough or in a town the population of which exceeds 20,000, and where the residence or principal place of business of the applicant shall be elsewhere, shall be of the value of £1,000.

In paragraph (a) it is provided that there shall be a deposit of £2,000. Senator Madden was afraid there would be a difficulty in the way of certain auctioneers getting security. That would apply particularly to people in certain towns. In the smaller towns, property is not at all more than a trifle as compared with the values in the larger towns. It is impossible to get more than £1,000 or £1,500 for a house in a small town, or £2,000 at the outside. A quarter of that purchase money would be very small. It would be in the hands of the auctioneer only for about a month. Senator Madden says it is sometimes longer than a month and blames the solicitor for the delay. It is easy for him to talk.

He has no responsibility at all, but the unfortunate solicitor who has to do the conveyance for the purchaser has to be certain that he gives a good title and very often he has a case where the title is not perfect. And the people who have to be got to join may be in America. I had a case in Dublin where I purchased an estate. I found that the vendor had no title whatever. The only person who could give title was in America. We had to get a conveyance from the person in America before we could get title. That may have caused some delay, but I acted as quickly as I possibly could.

Mr. Sweetman

A lot of the delay arises from the fact that the auctioneer draws the contract instead of giving it to a solicitor to do it.

Mr. O'Dea

That happens sometimes: that the contract provides for, or does not provide for, certain matters which ought to be set out in the conditions. In any event, it does not seem fair to treat people dealing in hundreds of pounds in the same manner as you would treat people dealing in thousands of pounds. We know that properties in Dublin—some public houses—have been sold for £30,000 and £40,000, and that some very big sales take place in towns with a population of over 20,000. Take the town of Galway, for example. Some time ago a house was purchased there for £8,000. That was considered to be a very large sum of money for a house in the town of Galway. Since then a house in the suburbs of Galway—I admit there was a good deal of land going with it—was sold for £12,000. These would be considered exceptional prices in provincial towns. In the case of the £8,000 purchase—the deposit would be only £2,000—the purchase money would be in the hands of the auctioneer for say a month or six weeks, and would then be handed up to the vendor. The auctioneer would have no more responsibility in the matter. It is a different matter when you put a small man in the position of having to depend entirely on the goodwill of an insurance company. In other words, you are leaving it to the insurance companies to say who are to be auctioneers and who are not. That is the trouble as I see it.

Senator Madden has pointed out that, in the case of rate collectors, they have to apply for a bond, but that they are not given it until they get two other men who will go security for them. I suggest that it is a rather difficult matter in a small town to get men who are sufficient security for £2,000. It might be difficult for an auctioneer to find friends of that capacity. I am afraid that the Bill will put a good number of auctioneers out of business, especially in the smaller areas. Senator Duffy pointed out on the last occasion that a great number of country auctioneers auction only meadows once a year. They do not even receive the money for the auctioned meadows. It is given to the owner, so that they have very little responsibility. They just make a few pounds a year selling meadows on conacre or small patches of land. They find it very hard, some of them, to pay the auctioneer's fee of £10 a year. It would be entirely out of the question for them to give security for £2,000. That would simply drive them out of business. I think some differentiation ought to be made between the auctioneers in the large towns and those in the smaller towns.

I put in this amendment because I felt that we were rushing this Bill too much, and that it might be better if the operative date were fixed for next year instead of this year. If, as the Bill provides, it is to come into operation in July next, that will leave very little time for the forms that will have to be prepared and the applications that will have to be dealt with. Therefore, I suggest that the operative date be fixed for 1948.

Mr. Boland

I did not try to rush it.

Mr. O'Dea

Possibly. If the operative date is to be some time in July next there is great danger that between the passing of the Bill and some date in July, some of the smaller men will not be able to get the security required and, therefore, will not be able to renew their licences. I ask the Minister to do one thing or the other, either to accept the amendment or to push back the operative date for another year.

Mr. Sweetman

It is rather difficult to discuss the amendment without discussing the principle of the section. The principle of this section is, of course, the principle of the whole Bill. All the registrations, all the restrictions on persons carrying on the auctioneering business, house agency or anything else, are all designed for the purpose of getting those persons within the provisions of Section 14. I made it clear on the Second Reading that, in my view, that was a wrong approach. I pointed out that the correct approach in regard to security was to prevent a man muddling up other people's money with his own money. The Minister indicated that he did not see eye to eye with me on that. I had considered dealing with this matter by way of an amendment to the section. I had regard, however, to the fact that such an amendment would have to be exceptionally involved. It would have to cut across the whole principle underlying the Minister's point of view, a principle which was accepted on the Second Reading here. Having said that I do not like this system, and that I think the other system would be the better one, I have, of course, to consider the system as I find it. In my opinion, a deposit of £2,000 will, in some cases, such as Senator O'Dea mentioned, be unduly harsh, but at the other end of the scale it will, I think, be entirely farcical.

The Minister and myself had some discussion a few moments ago on Section 11. The Minister, as I understood him, wishes to retain the provision in Section 11 by virtue of which an applicant has to put in his advertisement in the newspapers every year, and has to go before the district justice every year. He made the point that, in his view, that practice was absolutely essential. I did not think the Minister was going to take that view, but since he has taken it I am prepared to accept it and I now want to transfer it to Section 14. I think that Senator O'Dea's amendment, in one direction, goes sufficiently far and that the district justice should have a discretionary power to reduce the deposit from £2,000 to £1,000 if the applicant was able to satisfy him that he was only carrying on business in a very small way.

Of course, I equally accept it that Senator O'Dea's amendment is not quite that. But that is the principle behind it—that the £2,000 is too big a sum for the small man, and that if he is able to satisfy the district justice that instead of fixing the deposit at £2,000 he can fix it at £1,000, the district justice should have the power to so fix it. That would be a help to the small man and would keep him going.

At the other end of the scale, I would add a further provision that on the application of a member of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of inspector, the district justice would have to be satisfied that £2,000 was a totally inadequate deposit as it would be in respect of some of the big auctioneers in Dublin and that he should have the discretion, in the interests of protecting the public, of raising the deposit from say £2,000 to £10,000. Let us provide a maximum and a minimum, a maximum of £10,000 and a minimum of say £1,000. As the Minister himself has determined that the district justice must be appealed to each year and that there must be personal application in open court let us add that when this application is made to a district justice he shall have discretion of saying whether a deposit is too big or too small in relation to the business transacted and of fixing the amount of the deposit within the limits of £1,000 in the case of a small man and £10,000 in the case of a very big man. I think it would be a far more equitable arrangement and I seriously urge the Minister to accept this point of view.

Mr. Baxter

I want to support the general principle embodied in Senator O'Dea's amendment. I think the House, with considerable freedom from auctioneers to-day, should have the courage to say that through this measure we are laying the foundations for tremendous vested interest. I do not think that it is any exaggeration whatever to say that. The fact is you have here in this city numbers of people the limit of whose incomes one cannot imagine. One can only say that they must be enormous. They have their names in many of the English newspapers where they are advertising as people who can find houses and lands for Britishers with plenty of paper notes who want to come over here and exchange them for good sound Irish property. There is no limit in this Bill to the fees which these people can charge for their services and we are unquestionably closing the door to the business in this Bill. I come from a part of the country where the value of property is definitely lower than in the City of Galway, about which Senator O'Dea has spoken. I suppose property in either place would not bring one-twentieth of what it would if situated around Dublin, certainly a similar house in either place would not bring one-twentieth of what it would in Dublin. I am puzzled as to where the idea of a flat £2,000 originated. Did it originate in the council of the auctioneers' organisation or in the Ministry of Justice? Its purpose is to provide security so that if an auctioneer defaults in payment of moneys entrusted to him there will be some security. But there should be some relationship between the amount of the deposit required and the turn-over in the business of the auctioneer concerned. A man selling £50,000 or £60,000 worth of property in one lot is not at all in the same category as a man selling £500 or £600 worth. Yet that is what we are doing here. It may be very difficult for some of these auctioneers to get the security required, the security that may be asked for by the insurance company over and above the premium on the bond. There is not much to be said against auctioneers in our remote part of the country. They are poor but honest. But when it comes to anyone getting security for £2,000 it is not an easy matter.

The result may be that some of these small auctioneers may have to go out of business. At the same time you are building up vested interests. Many of the older people will be dying out and you may prevent the entry of young and desirable people into the profession. If you are going to create a vested interest in that way there should be adequate protection for the public in relation to the amount of money handled by these individuals. This House, in equity, has got to find a basis for this security in relation to the turn-over of the individual. For the big auctioneers the amount must be considerably increased and for the small man correspondingly reduced. The Minister should not be obsessed too much by the prices ruling around Dublin. He must take into consideration the prices of properties in Cavan, in West Galway and in West Donegal. I suggest this whole section should be seriously examined if justice is to be done.

Mr. Honan

Since this Bill was discussed here on the Second Stage considerable surprise was expressed by people in a position to judge, that it was proposed to have a flat rate of guarantee instead of something in the nature of a sliding scale. Some auctioneers have a turn-over of not more than £1,000 a year and I am sure there are others with a turn-over up to £500,000. It seems inequitable that the same guarantee should be asked of each. The responsibilities of a man with a turn-over of £1,000 are vastly different from those of a man with a turn-over of £100,000. I think that the guarantee should be fixed on a sliding scale, £1,000 to £5,000; £5,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £20,000 and so on in relation to the amount of business transacted. We pay rates according to the size of our premises and income-tax according to the size of our profits. I think the Minister should give consideration to this matter.

Mr. Boland

How can this be done?

Mr. Madden

I am afraid that Senator Sweetman knows little about the auctioneers' administration in rural areas. There is no analogy whatsoever between the business in the country areas and the colossal business done here in Dublin. I jotted down a few little items which may be of interest to the Minister with regard to the calls which are made on auctioneers in the rural areas. Generally speaking, these men are benefactors—it is a kind of benefaction which is anticipatory of business for themselves later on and there are many calls upon them, as these items will show. Yesterday morning, a farmer for whom I had been doing business came to me. I had advised him very strongly against a system of living with which I do not agree and I have talked him into seeing matters from a different angle, with a view to bettering his position, which he never would do, if he continued on the lines on which he was going.

Mr. Sweetman

Has he taken the pledge?

Mr. Madden

Yes, and he bought three cows. He asked me to give him £64 against the hay money, and I gladly did so. The next person who came to me was a poor cripple for whom I am also doing business who wanted £2. The third man came to me with a demand for rates of £12 18s. 10d, a man for whom I shall be doing business at the end of the year. The last item given to me was a threatening notice by the county registrar in respect of money due to the Land Commission. I had to contact the county registrar and tell him that if the man involved had not paid within a certain period—the amount was £15 —I would be responsible for it. This will be information for Senator Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

Divil a bit! He knows it all long ago.

Mr. Madden

He speaks of auctioneers holding £100 for a month or five weeks, but he fails to take into account the many hundreds with which we have to part.

Mr. Sweetman

I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Baxter

It was Senator O'Dea who said it.

Mr. Boland

He is trying to cause trouble on that side.

Mr. Madden

The Minister ought to accept the amendment. The points I have put before him will be helpful to him in trying to make an equitable adjustment as between auctioneers who, in their own way, are benefactors of the people for whom they work, as against the men in the city here who do colossal business.

Mr. Boland

This point was discussed in both House on Second Reading, and, as I said here and in the other House, the £2,000 bond is not expected to cover every case. It could not do so. I cannot see how anyone is to know that some of the small auctioneers for whom the Senator is concerned are not going to get a big job. I have known cases in backward places in which windfalls came and a man got the sale of a big house and land.

Mr. Madden

We wait a long time.

Mr. Boland

Possibly, but that cannot be covered in advance. It is not possible to say six months in advance what business will come in. If an auctioneer cannot get a bond for £2,000, which so far as I can find out, would cost no more than about £15 at a maximum, I do not see what business he has in being an auctioneer at all. We have heard about the man who makes practically nothing. If he makes nothing, he will not lose anything either. That is fair enough. It would be better to let one man get all the small jobs which will provide a living for somebody, and provide, at the same time, more security for a person's deposit.

If it is worth a man's while to be an auctioneer, there is no good in his having to auction one field—I do not think that is done, however; they generally auction a number of them—and the amount involved would be no more than 10/- a week and is not worth talking about. I do not see how we could put on the district justice the duty of determining how much one man should pay and how much another man should pay. How could he do it? He would have no idea of what business might fall to the auctioneer in the course of a year. All we are doing is fixing a minimum.

Mr. Sweetman

You are not; you are fixing a maximum as well.

Mr. Boland

We are, I know, but the minimum is intended as a sort of protection. Our experience has been that, where there have been defalcations— there have not been many—they were defalcations by beginners, so far as the cases we have on record are concerned, who took the first few hundred pounds they got into their hands.

Mr. Sweetman

People who muddled into a mess. If they had kept separate accounts, they would not have muddled.

Mr. Boland

I dealt with that point, and I explained on the last occasion that I myself had experience of one case, a case which Senator Sweetman probably knows. It was the case of a man who was a decent man, but on whom the bank closed without warning and withdrew his deposit. The poor farmer who sold his cattle got a cheque which was returned to him. I did all I could to get that point covered, but I found it could not be done. As I said before, if a man intends to default in the matter of a deposit, he will default in keeping separate accounts also.

Mr. Sweetman

He will default deliberately, but not accidentally.

Mr. Boland

In that case, it would be necessary to have an audit every year, which would mean more expense. Even the solicitors do not want audits, and, if there is to be an audit, they like the auditor to be someone from a distance and not someone from their own locality. That all costs money. It would involve an audit and certified accounts every year.

Mr. Sweetman

It would not cost as much as £15.

Mr. Boland

That would mean another item of expense. This is a flat rate of £2,000 which will not cover the big cases, but which, we think, will cover the small cases, and a man who cannot get a bond for that amount ought not to be in the business. I have thought over this very carefully for a long time, particularly with a view to covering the point involved in the case I mentioned, because I thought it a very hard case. In the case of salesmen, the money is not in their hands for any length of time, but still that man's money was impounded, and I can find no way of dealing with the point. I think the provision in the Bill very reasonable.

Mr. Duffy

Can the Minister say if there will be some arrangement by which people will get this bond at a reasonable rate? I am informed that, in certain cases, an insurance company, which usually will be the party to issue the bond, is likely to discriminate against certain people, and that there will be difficulty in getting the bond.

Mr. Boland

That would depend on the credit-worthiness of the individual. If the company thought they were not taking much risk, they would give it for a much smaller sum. We cannot compel an insurance company to have a flat rate. They have to take into consideration what the risk is likely to be, but the information which I can get —I cannot be sure—is that in or about £15 would be about the maximum.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister cannot be sure?

Mr. Boland

I cannot. How could I be?

Mr. Sweetman

There is a body known as the Accident Offices Insurance Committee which fixes the rates for this type of business. The Minister could find out by inquiring from that body.

Mr. Boland

There are different cases and I could not find out in respect of everybody.

Mr. Baxter

I am not satisfied about this. The last point which has been raised by Senator Duffy, I think, gives rise to considerable difficulty. I have no doubt at all you have a number of auctioneers in this country perfectly credit-worthy, respectable business people, but it may very well be that their bank account may not actually be to credit. It may very well be that when the insurance company will go making inquiries about the financial position of these particular people they may be very reluctant to produce a bond at all if indeed they will produce one at all. People like these may be very reluctant to come along to public representatives to talk about their private affairs. As far as I am concerned no such person made any such representations to me but I think it may very well be that we will discover we have excluded quite a number of respectable people from the business of auctioneering that they have been carrying on for many years. Take the man, for instance, who in a poor district would be discounting a considerable number of bills and let his account be presented when he may actually be carrying £10,000 or £20,000 in bills that are being discounted. He is going to do some trade in 12 months if the grass grows or something like that, but when such a man is questioned by an insurance company as to how he stands and when a bank reference is asked for, he may have very considerable difficulty in securing the bond which we are imposing on him under this Bill and for that reason quite a number of people may be excluded from the business of earning a livelihood that they had enjoyed for many years.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not agree with the Minister at all from my point of view. I have a feeling that he more or less does not look at it as we do in the country. It is all very well to say if a man does not do a big business he does not lose much. That to an extent may be true but the little that he does earn may be the difference to him between poverty and comfort for himself and his family. Is he going to lose that because of this Bill introduced by an organisation composed mostly of people whose interest it would be to shove as many people as possible out of the business?

Mr. Boland

It is no such thing. I must object to that. It was never introduced by any organisation.

Mr. O'Dea

Well, I should say, perhaps, suggested.

Mr. Boland

No, not suggested either. They wanted a charter.

Mr. O'Dea

Perhaps I should not have said that, but we have a great number of small towns in every county. Take, for example, auctioneers in the towns of Headford, Tuam, Dunmore and Clifden. Are they going to be sniffed out of business and will people who want to have an auction in the town of Headford have to send to Galway or elsewhere for an auctioneer? Are they going to pay the expenses of those auctioneers as well as commission they generally charge for the conduct of auctions? I know that in the town of Galway itself there are probably auctioneers who will not be able to find security. Even they would have to get security of £2,000 under my amendment, because the population is over 20,000.

You have a great number of auctioneers in other places. They buy and sell furniture and auction furniture— mostly their own property. That is a case where they cannot embezzle because they would be embezzling their own funds. What they would do outside of that would not amount to anything at all that would justify a security of £2,000. They would want to have auctions to the extent of £8,000 before they would have £2,000 on their hands. Every month they would be handing up the proceeds of auctions of the previous month and it is very unlikely that they would have a good auction twice in one month. It is absurd to ask people who would not have more than £100 in their possession belonging to other people to enter into a bond of £2,000. I think the Minister should consider this between now and the Report Stage because it is of importance to the people who are going to be sniffed out. I think we ought to be very careful as a legislating body in interfering with the rights that exist of certain people who have never done anything wrong in their lives and we are doing it because there may have been one or two unfortunate instances —or four—in a very short period of time. I think it is a matter that should be considered gravely and carefully before we do any injustice to people no matter how small they are, because when there are small people a sum of £100 or £50 or even £25 means a great deal and that should not be lost sight of.

There is, furthermore, the fact that we should not debar any young man from coming into the profession. A young man is generally a man with no money in the bank to his credit. The Minister says if he is a small man perhaps he should not be an auctioneer but everybody is small until they are established. Some of us started perhaps with a negative quantity and it does not mean that a man is dishonest because he is poor. It may be the other way round. Maybe the man who has money is more dishonest than the man who is poor. Are we going to deprive honest young people of the means to make an honest living because an insurance company will say: "We have asked for your bank account and you have not produced it and it is we and not the auctioneers who are the people to decide who is or is not to come into the profession"? I think the matter is very serious and if the Minister does not accept the amendment now I would ask him to reconsider it.

Mr. Boland

I do not remember saying anything about young people because they are young but I did mention people who are not credit-worthy and a man's character is more important than his credit balance. I think a young man who is known to be an honourable person will have no difficulty in getting a guarantee. I do not believe he would from what I am told.

Mr. Baxter

If you can satisfy us on that——

Mr. Boland

Of course I cannot. An attempt was being made here for years past—I think it was first moved in this House—to get a different type of Bill and make a closed borough of the profession. This Bill is more in the interests of protecting the public and preventing people who are not fit and proper on behalf of the Bill from acting as auctioneers and not with making it a closed borough for anybody. I think that a person who cannot get a bond for £2,000 would be a very small person. A young man should not have much difficulty in getting the amount required. The whole amount be would be required to pay would be only about £26, as between the licence fee and the premium for the bond.

Mr. O'Dea

It is not what he would have to pay; it is whether an insurance company would accept him or not.

Mr. Boland

If I were to go into this question again, I do not think that I should arrive at any other result. I went into the matter very carefully. The question which has been raised here was also raised in the other House and, on the whole, the figure for which we provide was considered reasonable. It was thought that, in some cases, it might not be sufficient and that, in a few cases, it would be more than would be necessary. It is better to have a flat rate than a variable rate. The alternative to a fixed sum such as this would be a variable sum and I cannot see how you could ask a district justice to deal with the matter on that basis. A series of inquiries would be necessary and I do not see how such a provision could be worked. It would be very difficult to operate such a provision and it would be more costly than having a flat rate.

Mr. O'Dea

I did not suggest that in the amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

I take responsibility for that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The discussion can be resumed after the tea interval.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.