This is a drafting amendment the purpose of which is to make it clear that the Bill does not apply to the collecting of money for any lottery, including a sweepstake, that is not unlawful. As at present drafted, Section I merely exempts the collecting of money for lotteries held under permit or licence, whereas the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, provides that a lottery shall not be unlawful if (1) it is held in accordance with a permit or licence under the Act, (2) it is a private lottery, or (3) it is promoted as part of a dance, concert, circus, travelling show, carnival, bazaar or other like event and fulfils certain conditions. The Act of 1956 does not apply to the Hospitals' Sweepstakes, which, of course, are lawful.
Street and House to House Collections, Bill, 1962—Committee and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to delete "in accordance with a licence or permit under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, or" and substitute therefor "for a lottery (including a sweepstake) declared by the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, not to be unlawful or to which that Act does not apply, or collecting money."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister might take amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In subsection (2), page 4, line 11, before "An order" to insert "Subject to the provisions of this section,".
The purpose of these two amendments is to provide that an Order may not be made by the Minister for Justice under Section 2 applying the provisions of the Act to house-to-house collections that are for a charitable object under the control of a recognised religion and that are held in accordance with the laws of that religion. On the Second Stage of the Bill I stated that if it ever became necessary to apply the Act to house-to-house collections I envisaged that collections made for religious and other obviously legitimate purposes would be exempted. Having given the matter further thought I feel it is desirable that ordinary parish collections held for ecclesiastical purposes should be specifically exempted from control and this is achieved by the two amendments now proposed. I should explain that the term "charitable object" in its legal sense includes the advancement of religion, the advancement of education, the relief of poverty and other purposes beneficial to the community.
I am sure this amendment will be welcomed by the religious authorities. There is just one very small question that I think should be asked. In subsection (b) of amendment No. 3, we read "held in accordance with the laws, canons and ordinances of the religion concerned." I imagine some of the more recent religions, if I may put it that way, may not have all these three things. In law, would they be entitled to benefit under that section if they have not got laws, canons and ordinances? If they are not so entitled, should we not say "or ordinances" rather than "and ordinances"?
I do not think it matters. The Senator will appreciate that we are dealing here with religions recognised by Article 44 of the Constitution. Presumably if a religion has not got ordinances or canons or laws or any one or two of these three, then the subsection would not apply.
I see.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
To add the following subsection:
"(5) An order under this section shall not apply in relation to a collection that is—
(a) for the benefit of an object that is charitable and is under the control of a religion recognised by the State under Article 44 of the Constitution, and
(b) held in accordance with the laws, canons and ordinances of the religion concerned."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Government amendment No. 4:
In subsection (1), page 7, line 50, to delete "he thinks" and substitute therefor "are, in his opinion,".
Again, this is a drafting amendment which is desirable in the interests of uniformity. Elsewhere throughout the Bill, for example in Sections 9, 10 and 11, reference is made to "the opinion of the Chief Superintendent" and it is preferable to use that phrase in sub-section (1) of Section 8 instead of the phrase "he thinks".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister has a statement to make with regard to Section 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I have re-examined the provisions of the Bill which impose obligations in regard to the furnishing of information to the Gardaí by applicants for collection permits and by holders of such permits and I have come to the conclusion that Section 12 is unnecessary and should be deleted.
The matters on which a Chief Superintendent will normally require information for the purpose of considering an application for a collection permit will be those mentioned in Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill, and I feel that he should be able to satisfy himself about these matters independently of any information which he may obtain from the applicant. If an applicant were to furnish information which was false or misleading, the Chief Superintendent would be in no better position than if he had received no information from the applicant. Furthermore, the section might be construed as enabling a Chief Superintendent to insist on the production of accounts of a previous collection and this would be at variance with what is proposed under Section 24, as I will explain in relation to amendment No. 7.
The deletion of Section 12 will not prevent a Chief Superintendent from asking an applicant for a collection permit to furnish information in connection with the application.
Question put and declared lost.
Section 12 deleted.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Government amendment No. 5:
In subsection (4) (a), page 10, line 22, to delete "organisation or".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 may be taken together.
These are really only drafting amendments and their main purpose is to establish uniformity in the Bill. The wording of paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) is being brought into line with the wording of paragraph (b) of Section 9.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:—
In subsection (4) (a), page 10, line 23, to delete "which is".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Under Section 15 a person is prohibited from taking up a collection unless he holds "an authorisation in writing relating to the collection and granted to him in accordance with the provisions of this section by the holder of the collection permit relating to the collection".
It is unwise to put Acts on the Statute Book which are impossible to enforce, and which indeed will never be enforced. A political Party or the Gaelic Athletic Association could decide to take up chapel gate collections all over the country, and under the section as it stands the name of the person who is to stand at the table to take up the collection must be known beforehand, and he must hold or have in his possession an authority signed by the holder of the permit. Amongst the details which must be contained in that authority is the name of the person standing at the table and his age. Admittedly, if he is over 21 years it is sufficient to say he is of full age. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that the power to give this authority may be delegated by one person to another but surely it may be delegated at, shall we say, county level? If anyone here tells me that he knows in advance the name and address of every person who will stand at a chapel gate to take up a collection on a particular day, I find it hard to believe but I congratulate him. I should like the Minister to explain—perhaps there is an explanation—exactly what this section means. I may then have another word to say.
I should have thought the section was fairly straight-forward. I do not think it will give rise to any of the difficulties the Senator envisages. He is inclined to think of some national secretary or central person issuing permits for the country as a whole. That will not happen. The provision in the Bill is that permission must be got in each Chief Superintendent's area. We begin at that level. The whole purpose and aim of the Bill is to control collections. This provision is necessary if we are to ensure that that control is a reality. There is nothing whatever to prevent any organisation, the GAA or possibly the best organisation of them all, the Fianna Fáil organisation——
The Fianna Fáil GAA.
An individual will apply to become a holder of a collection permit in a particular Chief Superintendent's area. He will delegate perhaps 10 persons under him to supervise the collections in the different parishes, and the person delegated and authorised in each parish will be enabled to issue the written authorisations envisaged in the section to his collectors. There is no question of a central person even in a Chief Superintendent's area having to know every single collector right down the line at every chapel gate.
There is no change being made in the present arrangements under which these permits are issued.
There is.
Where is it?
There is a change in so far as at present the person applies to the Chief Superintendent and gets the authority or the permission to take up a collection, but he does not get the name of every person standing at the table. He does not issue a document for every person authorising him to stand there.
He has to give the authorisation.
It used to have to be in the books?
He must have authorisation from the person to whom the permit was granted by the Chief Superintendent.
With due respect to the Senator that is honoured more in the breach than the observance.
That is the law. and the regulations.
I do not think it should continue.
That is the law.
I venture to suggest that these things will be handed out wholesale. There is far too much of one thing being the law and another thing being done.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that the ancient and honourable privileges and traditions of the wren boys will not suffer under this Bill. I know that this has been raised before but I should like to raise it again in this House. I am not jesting about this matter. I lived in County Tipperary for a number of years, and it was part of the yearly cycle of events for these men —they are not all boys; they are mostly men—to go around on St. Stephen's Day and celebrate the very ancient ceremony of the King of the Birds. I feel deeply about this because there is a very ancient traditional parallel to it in ancient Greece—the Swallow Song. It is one of the oldest ceremonies in this country. Similarly, there are the mummers in Wexford, and all over the country children dress up on Hallowe'en. These are ancient and honourable traditions, and I should like to be sure that they will not be prohibited by any restriction. I notice in Section 8 (c) that fancy dress may be prohibited. However, I think it is true for Tipperary that the wren boys there do not demand money. They ask for what is best called "refreshment".
Ransom.
Exactly: "Give us our ransom and let us be gone." I am perturbed about them, and I should like the Minister to assure us that these old traditions will not be infringed by what we are enacting today.
I should like to support the Senator. I mentioned this matter on another stage. I entirely agree with the Senator. They do not look for money. They have collection boxes——
They may, like greatness, have it thrust upon them.
The feature of the Bill which worries me is that it specifies fancy dress and those people are usually in fancy dress. Like the last speaker, I would like the wren boys to be exempted.
The wren boys are as dear to my heart as to the heart of any Senator. I can give the assurance which the Senators are seeking. In the first instance, as I said on the Second Stage, I know, and most Senators would be in a position to confirm it, the wren boys as such do not collect money but if they happen to have it thrust upon them it is largely incidental. Apart from that, there is this aspect, the wren boys' operation would be in the nature of a house to house collection. The provisions in regard to house to house collections do not automatically come into operation with the passing of the Bill. They will have to be specially brought in by order. I do not know if it will ever be necessary to bring in those provisions but in the event of it becoming necessary to bring in provisions governing house to house collections by order, then we have authority in the Bill to exempt certain forms of collection. I want to assure the House that if I am the Minister in question at that time, and if that time comes, I will certainly favourably consider exempting wren boys from these provisions. I am afraid I cannot speak for my successor in office but I am sure he too would value these ancient traditions as the House does.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I should like the Minister to have a look at Section 20 in conjunction with Section 25 and see if there is something inconsistent. Section 20 says that:
A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a person acting as a collector in a collection his name and address, and if the person refuses or fails to give to the member his name and address, or gives a name and address that is false or misleading, he shall be guilty of an offence.
He shall be guilty of an offence if he does not give his name and address. Section 25, subsection (2), says that:
A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing an offence under any provision of this Act or who, when his name and address are demanded of him under this Act, gives a name or address that the member knows or reasonably believes to be false or misleading.
Under those circumstances, if you have a gentleman who simply does not give his name at all, he may be a stranger in the locality, the Garda is not enabled to arrest him. But if he gives the name of John Brown which the Garda thinks is incorrect the Garda can arrest him. I wonder is that the intention, that the Garda should not be able to arrest a person who refuses to give his name but may arrest a person who gives a name or address that the Garda knows or reasonably believes to be false or misleading.
Yes, I think ——
I know I have gone further than the section.
I think the intention is quite clear and that the proposal is a fairly logical one. If the member of the Garda Síochána demands the name and address of a person acting as a collector and if the person refuses to give them, then that person is guilty of an offence. The Garda may arrest such a person. I do not see where the contradiction comes in.
He cannot arrest him if he fails to give his name and address.
Subsection (2) of Section 25 says that a member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing an offence under any provision of this Act. Section 2 states that refusing to give the name or address is an offence.
I concede I overlooked the word "or". The Minister is quite right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Government amendment No.7:
Before Section 24 to insert the following new section:
"24.—(1) Upon application to the District Court by the Chief Superintendent for a locality in which a collection was held pursuant to a collection permit, the Court shall, if either—
(a) the Court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, or
(b) a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Inspector states on oath that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeds or any portion of the proceeds of the collection have been, are being, or will be used—
(i) for the benefit of an object which is unlawful or contrary to public morality or for the benefit of an organisation membership of which is unlawful, or
(ii) in such a manner as to encourage either directly or indirectly the commission of an unlawful act,
make an order directing the person to whom the permit was granted—
(I) to furnish to the Chief Superintendent, not more than one month after the day on which the order is made, a statement in writing showing the total amount collected by means of the collection and how the money so collected was applied and disposed of,
(II) to permit the Chief Superintendent, or any member or members of the Garda Síochána designated by him, to inspect any accounts kept by the person and any receipts or other vouchers relating to the collection.
(2) The District Court shall not make an order under this section unless—
(a) the application therefor is made within six months after the day, or the last of the days, on which the collection to which it relates was held, and
(b) not less than forty-eight hours before the hearing of the application, the Chief Superintendent, making the application gives notice to the person to whom was granted the collection permit pursuant to which the collection was held of his intention to make the application.
(3) A person who refuses or fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) A Chief Superintendent, or any member or members of the Garda Síochána designated by him, may, for the purposes of an inspection under this section, at all reasonable times enter and have free access to any premises where any accounts, receipts or vouchers to which the inspection relates are kept and may inspect and take copies of, and extracts from, such accounts, receipts and vouchers.
(5) This section shall not apply in relation to a collection that is—
(a) for the benefit of an object that is charitable and is under the control of a religion recognised by the State under Article 44 of the Constitution, and
(b) held in accordance with the laws, canons and ordinances of the religion concerned."
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the obligations imposed on the holders of collection permits to keep accounts and to furnish information to the Gardaí about the proceeds of collections.
The section as it stands provides that every person who has been granted a collection permit must keep full and proper accounts showing, in such detail as may be appropriate to the circumstances, the amounts collected and the application and disposal of the money together with all proper receipts or other vouchers. The section furthermore provides that a Chief Superintendent may, within six months after a collection is held, require the permit holder to furnish a written statement showing the amount collected and how it was disposed of and allow a member of the Garda Síochána to inspect the accounts required to be kept under the section. During the debate on the Bill in Dáil Éireann the view was expressed that Section 24 would impose a very undesirable burden on the organisers of collections and it was urged that the provision about the keeping and submission of accounts should be deleted. Having since given the matter further careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the section is somewhat severe and that it ought to be modified in such a way as to retain the right of obtaining information and of inspection only in appropriate cases.
Under the proposed new section a Chief Superintendent will be able to apply to the district court for an order entitling him to obtain information and to carry out an inspection on the grounds that it would be in the public interest to do so or that the proceeds of the collection are being devoted to an illegal organisation. The question of whether the public interest is involved will be a matter for judicial determination as the district justice will have to be satisfied that the granting of an order would be in the public interest.
Collections for religious or ecclesiastical purposes are being excluded from the scope of the section. In general, these are the old-established charitable collections with which Senators will be familiar. Such collections are not subject to inspection by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests, and in this connection I should like to refer to a minute of a meeting in 1866 of the Board of the Commissioners in connection with changes then considered desirable in the Charitable Donations and Bequests Act, 1884. I quote:
It should be remarked that no substantial difficulty has arisen from the want of any compulsory powers of enquiry whereas at this stage sufficient information is generally obtainable voluntarily from various sources. Such powers are, therefore, not introduced into the above suggestions. On the contrary, it seems to be the unanimous opinion of those who have closely studied the subject that it would be highly objectionable and unsuitable in the circumstances of this country and tend to defeat rather than promote the efficient work of the Board.
In the Charities Act of 1961 no powers of inquiry or inspectors are given to the Board and, indeed, the Board's attitude on this matter has not changed since 1866. Where charitable funds are improperly concealed, withheld or misapplied, the Board, with the consent of the Attorney General, may sue for their recovery and they may certify to the Attorney General any case in which it appears to them that legal proceedings should be instituted.
The new section therefore, if I may say so, gives the necessary protection against bogus collections, while at the same time not imposing any unreasonabe or onerous burden on genuine collections. I am now satisfied that the section in its original form would have allowed for inspection where, in fact, inspection is unnecessary and undesirable.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24 deleted.
Sections 25 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.