Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Nov 1979

Vol. 93 No. 3

Occasional Trading Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

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

Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

Faoi réir na n-eiseacht a luaidhtear san Bhille ní bheidh sé dleathach d'éinne tar éis tosach feidhme an Achta earraí a mhiondíol in aon fhoirgneamh nó áit nach bóthar nó áit phoiblí eile é gan cead a deonfar dó faoin Acht.

It was the original intention to introduce a single Bill to regulate both occasional and roadside trading but it has been found necessary to proceed on the basis of two Bills. Legislation in this general area impinges upon the rights of individuals and great care has had to be taken to ensure that the constitutional rights of persons are not infringed. Very complex problems which could not be solved quickly were encountered when the question of regulating roadside trading was examined. In particular, in the case of outdoor trading which is carried on at public markets and fairs by virtue of royal charters and letters patent granted in previous centuries it was felt that it would take a considerable time, in view of constitutional difficulties, to arrive at an acceptable method of modifying, or perhaps even extinguishing, these rights and making suitable alternative provision for such classes of street trading as are deemed not to be contrary to the public interest. For instance trading in livestock is one class of roadside trading for which adequate provision must be maintained. It was in these circumstances that it was decided to proceed with two Bills rather than one. However, a draft of a Bill to regulate roadside trading is being examined in consultation with other interested Departments and I hope to have it ready for circulation at an early date. It is my intention to avoid unnecessary delay.

For some years past representations have been made by and on behalf of established traders, their staffs and their customers about the activities of traders who hire hotels, dance-halls, vacant shop premises or other places for a short time—sometimes a day or two, sometimes several weeks—for the purpose of retail selling. These traders frequently advertise their activities as monster sales or auctions. Provided these traders take out hawkers' licences and provided their use of premises' as shops is not in contravention of the Planning Acts, they are not committing any offence. A hawker's licence costs only £20 and, therefore, this requirement is not a significant burden on occasional traders and could not be regarded as an adequate control of them.

As regards the Planning Acts, it will often happen that premises are occupied and vacated by an occasional trader before anyone has a chance of challenging the statutory right to use the premises as a shop. Quite often it will be obvious from previous use of the premises as a shop that no contravention of the Planning Acts arises and, at times, the position of premises under the Planning Acts can be quite obscure. The overall situation is that if a person takes out a hawker's licence he or she has little if anything to fear from the law. It will be apparent, therefore, that virtually no controls on this form of trading exist at present.

A study of occasional trading was carried out by the Restrictive Practices Commission at the request of the Minister in 1976 and their report was published. All of the submissions made to the commission and all the representations made to the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy have been critical of occasional traders. None has made a submission supporting them. Those who made submissions to the commission and to the Department included trade unions, trade associations, individual traders, chambers of commerce, local development associations and local authorities.

Occasional trading was described by the Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks as a form of piracy which took a considerable amount of trade out of a town, affected sales in particular goods for a considerable time ahead and threatened employment in the distributive sector. All bodies who made submissions to the Restrictive Practices Commission agreed in saying that occasional trading was unfair because the organisers of such trading were in a privileged position since they did not incur the expenses of overheads, taxes and other commitments which local traders have to meet. Selling at dumped prices was also alleged.

It will be recalled that the Minister for Finance included a provision in this year's Finance Act for the collection of VAT at the point of importation from traders who have no permanent place of business in the State. Furthermore, I am assured that the Revenue Commissioners have taken steps to collect the appropriate taxes from occasional traders. However, it is clear that, even if these traders pay their full taxes, they do enjoy a competitive advantage over established traders and, on account of their mobility, it is frequently difficult for consumers to get any sort of after-sales services from them.

The Restrictive Practices Commission were urged by the Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks and other bodies to recommend prohibition of occasional trading. I think it is a fair summation of the Restrictive Practices Commission report to say that, in several respects, the complaint about occasional traders was found to be over-stated. Nevertheless, the commission accepted that there were particular risks to the consumers in occasional sales and that such sales can have a severe if temporary effect on local traders in the goods concerned. The commission did not consider the total prohibition of occasional trading to be feasible. They pointed out that manufacturers and wholesalers regularly rent rooms in hotels for the display of their goods and their sale to traders. But the commission recommended that where a person engages in retail trading for a brief period in a place where he does not usually reside or carry on business he should require a permit from the local authority in respect of each day's trading.

This recommendation has, basically, been accepted but it has been decided that the permits to engage in occasional trading should be granted by the Minister rather than by the local authority.

The Occasional Trading Bill proposes in section 2 to define occasional trading as retailing at a premises or place—other than a public road or other place to which the public have access as of right—of which the person so selling has been in continuous occupation for less than three months. A very limited range of selling activities which are deemed not to be contrary to the public interest are excluded from the definition.

Sections 3 and 4 provide that persons proposing to engage in trading to which the Bill applies will be required to apply in writing to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy for a permit which will cost £50 plus £25 for every day or part of a day on which he proposes to trade at the one place. This application for a permit will have to be made 30 days before trading commences. The Minister may attach conditions to the permit. A person who proposes to trade at the one place for longer than three months—that is to say a person who proposes to be a permanent or established trader at the one place—need not take out a permit if he makes a statutory declaration of his intention and gives the statement to the Minister.

Section 5 provides that a person engaging in occasional trading will be required to display his occasional trading permit at or near the place where the trading takes place. Section 7 requires an advertisement relating to occasional trading to contain the number of the trading permit and the name and address of the person to whom it was issued.

These are the main provisions of the proposed legislation. A person intending to engage in occasional trading will have to give reasonable notice of his intentions; he will have to make a reasonable contribution to the Exchequer which, while it may seem large to some people, is unlikely to go further than meeting the cost of administering the Act; and an occasional trader will have to let his customers and other interested parties verify that he has paid for a permit and they can make a note of his name and permanent address in case they have any reason for wanting to get in touch with him at a later date.

Mar a mhínigh mé cheana, ní fhéadfaimís trádáil ócáideach a chur faoi smacht ar fad. Dá bhrí sin bhí orainn leibhéil na dtáillí a shocrú ionnas go mbéadh síntús trádálaí gar a bheith codrom le meán bhuan-íocaíochtaí siopadóra seasamhach. Measaim go bhfuil an freagra ceart againn ach más rud é go bhfuil na táillí luaidhte i mír 4 ró-íseal—no i gcásanna fé leith—ró-árd féadfaidh an t-Aire é sin a cheartú. Bille an theicniciúl atá ann agus bhí fhadhbanna fé leith ag baint leis. Bhí sé an-deacair trádáil ócáideach a mhíniú agus, ag an am céadhna, siopadóirí seasamhacha a fhágáil lasmuigh de fhoráileacha an Bhille. Tá mé lán tsásta gur éirigh linn é sin a dhéanamh.

Tríd is tríd tá mé sásta go réiteoidh an Bille an fhadhb atá ann faoi láthair agus molaim é do Seanadóirí.

Mr. Staunton

I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking to this Occasional Trading Bill, 1979. In the first instance I want to re-echo some of the remarks made in Dáil Éireann when this subject was debated. We are talking about occasional trading, which is in itself important, but it is of very much lesser significance than the main road area which is causing public disquiet, namely the roadside trading aspect of this issue. The Minister states that there were difficulties in bringing in the two matters in the same Bill and that for this reason we are dealing with occasional trading first. I emphasise, however, that roadside trading is by far the more important issue and numerically would probably account for about 97 per cent of the type of trading in general which we are discussing.

It is regrettable that we have not had legislation in regard to roadside trading so far. The background to it is that the Restrictive Practices Commission issued a report in July 1976, about three and a half years ago, and various promises of legislation emanated from that study which have yet to be fulfilled. The promises were made in November-December, 1978. A year later this legislation has not emerged and that is a much more serious issue than the relatively slender matter which we are discussing here today. One has to have reservations about the slowness of pace in public life in this country. Of course, I am not attacking the Minister personally in this regard, but complex problems that cannot be solved quickly and issues regarding royal charters and letters patent are not sufficient excuse for such terribly long delays in introducing legislation. Is there to be any dynamism in Irish public life? When people outside the public arena can motivate themselves and get their affairs moving in so much more quickly a fashion than we do, Parliament is going to be held in contempt if we continue these delays. I have in front of me the Official Report of the Dáil for 17 October when the Minister stated that the two issues could not be brought in together and also that the other matter was being looked at and would be introduced as quickly as possible. It is now 21 November which is about five weeks subsequent to that, and if we are serious about this other matter, then some reference should have been made to it in the Minister's speech.

What we have is a stereotyped reiteration of what the Minister said in the Dáil on 17 October. There has been no reference in this House to what happened in that five weeks and what the updating of the position is on roadside trading which is the most significant part of this entire issue.

We welcome the Bill for many reasons. It attempts to regularise a position which was very unsatisfactory from many points of view. If we take this matter of people moving into dance-halls or town halls to sell goods, coming in off a wagon and moving off the next day, as a broader issue of roadside trading, established traders in this country have had very genuine grievances. I am glad that the Bill is not going to abolish street trading, or occasional trading. That would not be its purpose and such action would not be democratic, but control is necessary. The established traders make regular returns of their accounts and pay value-added tax and social insurance regularly. They are working under a trade union structure where they are paying decent wages. They are in the business of paying rates and rents and all that goes with being part of the establishment of a town. What was not referred to in the Dáil speeches was the fact that the existing traders in a town are part of the social fabric of that town, and if they are making profits, these profits are being spent in their own community, and are contributions to the social organisations and Churches of which they are members. They have had to face a type of trading which has been unfair, where some traders in the occasional category have been abusing their democratic right in areas of tax, social insurance and wages and in some instances in the selling of shabby goods without the consumers having any guarantee of compensation or any ability to fight back if they got a raw deal. This still is very necessary, and on this side of the House we welcome it and have very little quibble with it.

It is better, as contained in the Bill, that permits are issued by the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy rather than by the local authorities as the Restrictive Practices Commission have recommended. If the local authorities were in the business of issuing these licences one might not get an even-handedness in the sense that there would not be uniformity in the Twenty-six counties which contain the Republic of Ireland. One would get uniformity and more objectivity if this was administered from the Department, and this is the sensible approach.

The level of fees which the traders are asked to pay for their licences is reasonable—a permit for £50 and £25 per day. If the occasional traders want to continue this type of trading, they have to pay into the kitty a sum of money which puts them into much the same ball park as the established traders on the streets of the town.

I have not read the Committee detail of this Bill, but I gather from the speeches in the Dáil that traditional areas such as fish and fruit are exempt from this. Fish has traditionally been sold in this manner rather than in shops, particularly in country districts where there are not specific fish shops, so there is good reason for that.

The Minister mentioned in the Dáil the intention of exempting showroom exhibits of manufacturers and genuine wholesalers from the provisions of this Bill. An established practice has been to have such exhibits in town halls and hotels here. This is not in a sense selling, it is trading in the sense of showing goods and is an area which should be exempt. I will not say much more on this, as we will be taking Committee Stage next week, or when the Minister chooses to do so. Representations have been made to us on a number of issues a very short time ago and we have not had much time to study the Committee details as much as we would like to.

It is not altogether valid to say that this legislation must be concluded in this House today, because Christmas is coming and we must implement this for Christmas. We have had about 51 Christmases since we established this State and we are talking about the background of the Restrictive Practices Report in July 1976 which left about three years to do something about getting legislation through the two Houses of the Oireachtas. It is not desirable that we should be stampeded today for the very reason of having it done for this Christmas. Let us treat this legislation with the same respect as we would give to other legislation. In the most general terms I welcome this Bill on behalf of my party and myself. It is long overdue, and I hope that it will be followed very soon by the more substantial Bill relating to roadside trading.

Ruairí Brugha

Tá mé ag cur fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Tá géarghá leis, ach ar ndóigh tá níos mó géarghá ag baint le Bille srian a chur ar thrádáil ar thaobh an bhóthair.

I welcome the Bill. It is part of a step to bring under control certain types of activities which are undesirable, particularly in relation to their effect on employment. The contribution by the Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks highlights this. The two aspects of trading, roadside and the occasional shop as one might call it, are a fairly recent development, and they come under the heading of unfair trading in the sense that ordinary commercial people who run shops and have to pay full-time staffs, rates, rent and so on, are all making a contribution to society and providing steady employment. Those who are hopping in and out of vacant premises, taking advantage of a temporary demand for some particular article or some series of articles, are simply engaging in a form of what one could call méféinism and are not really making any very useful contribution. This applies particularly to the development of roadside trading which had led to a very undesirable situation, and I urge the Minister to process that Bill into legislation as quickly as possible.

I have a couple of questions to put to the Minister. I take it that the Minister will not be in a position to refuse a licence. If the Minister has the right to refuse a licence will there be gounds for it?

The Minister of State mentioned the fact that there is a change from seeking permission from a local authority to seeking permission from the Minister. Had the thinking behind the original idea of seeking it from a local authority anything to do with the possibility of a local authority being able to make some sort of special rate demand in the case of a vacant premises that may be in use perhaps for only a week and where possibly the local authority would not be in a position even to find out quickly enough who was doing the trading? The comparison between both the roadside trader and the occasional trader of this kind and the ordinary business establishments who throughout the State are paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in rate contributions highlights the need for this kind of legislation.

Will the Minister have the right, for example, to refuse a licence to people who hold these sorts of public auctions in vacant premises? I have noticed this taking place quite recently in O'Connell Street in Dublin. Will there be any control over that kind of activity? Presumably persons engaging in that should have auctioneers' licences if they are engaging in auctioneering. Will that aspect of it, the taking over of a vacant premises for a few days or a week or two or three weeks and engaging in what appears to be a public auction, come under control from the Minister?

Apart from those questions I welcome this Bill and urge the House to pass it as quickly as is reasonably possible.

Professor Keating

It is not my intention to hold up this Bill. I have a certain interest in it because it was in my time in office that the matter was referred to the Restrictive Practices Commission. whose report strikes a correct balance. Legislation of this kind is always a matter of balance. This is a good Bill because, on the one hand, we are all aware of, and as public representatives of one kind or another we all have had representations about, the sort of abuses that gave rise to the necessity for this Bill. Going beyond those abuses we know that the traders who have premises, who are long established companies, who have to meet all their overheads, have a continuing objection to more casual forms of trading, even when those more casual forms of trading are legitimate. The IUDWC took a very strong line against occasional trading. I understand that, but I do not agree with it and I think the balance that this Bill has struck is the correct one. How poor life would be, particularly the life of towns and villages and the countryside, if a whole series of activities were to be prohibited. They are activities that are commercially valuable but they are also enjoyable and colourful. Whether it be a fair, whether it be the sort of selling that goes on at a race meeting, whether it be the sale of handicrafts along the side of a road where somebody says, "I will stop my car and I will go in and get a thing like that", whether it be the activities of people with barrows, whether it be to get an ice-cream on a hot day when you feel like one, these are all both pleasurable and useful and they provide services that can be provided from the more permanent sort of premises. Therefore the balance is right, and I welcome the Bill. The Minister will find that the attitude from the whole of the Seanad when it comes to Committee Stage is that we want to see the Bill enacted. Even if there have been half a century of Christmases, it is still desirable that we do something in relation to this one, if possible.

I would make this single wider observation. This Bill is one half of the necessary legislation in regard to trading. That is acknowledged by the Minister. We are promised the other half. I know from my own recollections of discussions that that other half is not easy to do because, as the Minister points out in her speech, one is into the area of the Constitution. I do not propose a lengthy digression on that. From my own experience, I can think of a number of times when constitutional issues were a major inhibition to necessary and pressing legislation. I offer the frightful and heartbreaking example of mining legislation as perhaps the more economically important one. I therefore draw the conclusion that our Constitution is a barrier to doing things that we ought to be doing and that seems to me yet another reason why we ought to change it. I completely accept the Minister's explanation of delay. It is not in her Department.

The delays happen when it goes off to the Attorney General; the Attorney General and then the drafting people have a go at it; then it goes back to the Attorney General; then it goes out for some legal advice and then constitutional lawyers work on it. At that stage it is entirely outside the grip of Ministers or their servants; at that stage impermissible delays occur.

I am not going to labour this point because we will have plenty of opportunities to discuss it under other legislation in other debates. This whole constitutional issue will be coming up for a long time. It is going to become quite an important issue in public life. From personal experience I can corroborate the existence of the sort of delays the Minister indicates in preparing the other half of the necessary legislation to regulate trading.

Having said that I welcome the Bill. The report of the commission struck a proper balance between the rights of the employers and trade unions on the one side and the rights of bona fide occasional traders and the public in general on the other side. It seems to have got it about right. I am glad about the exemptions set out in section 2. When we come to the later stages we will certainly try to facilitate its enactment.

An Cathaoirleach

Let me point out that the question of amending the Constitution cannot properly be raised on this Bill.

Mícheál Cranitch

Fáiltímse leis roimh an mBille seo agus tuigim cad 'na thaobh go raibh moill air. Tuigim cás an Aire leis maidir leis an dá Bhille atá ann, an ceann seo agus an ceann atá le teacht. Tuigim an cruachás ina raibh sé toisc nósanna áirithe agus nithe áirithe a bheith ann leis na cianta a bhaineann le trádáil agus díol agus ceannach in áiteanna poiblí. Tá a lán des na daoine seo ag teacht isteach ins an tír seo faoi láthair, an chuid is mó acu ón mBreatain. Is furasta é sin d'aithint ar a gcuid cainte agus ó dhul thar na siopaí sna sráideanna. Is soiléir nach ó Chorcaigh ná ó Chontae na Gaillimhe a thagann siad ach go háirithe agus pé cumas atá acu, pé draíocht is atá acu, tagann na sluaite isteach ag éisteacht leo. Gan mhoill bíonn siad faoi dhríocht acu agus ceannaíonn ana-chuid daoine ana-chuid rudaí nach bhíonn ag teastáil uathu in aon chor agus cuid des na hearraí sin, bhuel, nuair a théann na custaimeirí abhaile feiceann siad ansan cad a bhíonn faighte acu agus an t-airgead atá caite acu, agus is airgead curtha amú é in a lán cásanna.

I extend a hearty welcome to this Bill. I understand the Minister's difficulties in relation to occasional trading and roadside trading. They are two different disciplines. Please God the other Bill will come through later on and we will then have a look at it.

Many of these gentlemen indulging in occasional trading come from places other than Ireland. Years ago I remember seeing the first of those gentlemen in operation in Oxford Street in London. I notice in the Minister's statement today what the distributive workers' union said about their activities. They described them as piracy. I could not help thinking that they might have described it as piracy on the high streets because that is actually what is happening. Whatever kind of gift they have, as the seanfhocal says, "d'fhéadfaidis muc d'áiteamh ar shagart".

It is a godsend that this Bill has come because there is a human tendency to be attracted to these people. I often go into town just to hear their patter, their style and their technique. It is absolutely fascinating; it is splendid entertainment provided one is not led into buying something that one does not want. Hundreds of people go to these places every day and buy things they do not want at all and had no intention of buying. I have seen this technique being displayed to such effect that people are actually prepared to offer money to buy a closed packet; they do not even know what is in it. These people can do all these things and make a great profit and I am sure they do not return all their accounts to the Revenue Commissioners. They have no overheads to pay and they can make a quick buck and get away very fast.

The nicest thing in that Bill is section 7 which says:

An advertisement relating to occasional trading to which section 3 of this Act applies shall not be published unless there is in force an occasional trading permit authorising the trading and the advertisement contains the number of the permit and the name and address of the person to whom it was granted.

It is very important for a purchaser to know the name and address of the person who sold him an article because if there is one thing more important than another about articles bought it is the after sales service. I am sure the gentlemen engaging in this trade have little or no intention of providing any after sales service for anybody.

I welcome this Bill and I hope it will be law before the Christmas season gets really under way.

Mrs. Hussey

I want to speak briefly in welcoming this legislation. I regret, as the Minister has regretted, the limitations placed on it by constitutional difficulties. In all consumer protection legislation we have to keep in mind that, as in other areas of human activity, we really cannot legislate human stupidity out of existence. Neither can we legislate for human cupidity which works on both sides of occasional trading. The main point I am making on this Bill is that the fact that we are discussing it here and that it has relatively quickly come to us and will be getting a speedy passage through the House is in no small way due to some very responsible investigative journalism which was done on this subject over the last year. This is how the abuses of public trust that were being carried out by various fly-by-night operators first came to my notice.

I am referring particularly to the journal that we all like to hate sometimes, Hibernia. It ran a very good series of articles between November 1978 and May 1979 on various sales which were run under headlines such as “£2,000,000 smash sale. There's never been anything like this.” and investigated what they called “The Dutch Connection.” It certainly struck me as being very worthwhile reporting and very worthwhile social and responsible journalism. Perhaps we are not always very enamoured of journals which investigate things too deeply but in this instance they and the other immediate people who pointed out this abuse which has resulted in this admirable legislation should be congratulated.

Another reason why I am very interested in this—and in any consumer legislation—is that the Minister, I am sure, is very well aware that out of every £100 spent on consumer goods, women spend £80. That is a very significant figure particularly as we come up to Christmas. It has been mentioned that there have been lots of previous Christmases but it is particularly apt that we should be protecting the people who go out to spend money at Christmas; they do so usually with the best intentions and usually for other people. For that reason it is excellent that we should be passing this legislation.

Finally, I would emphasise the after-sales area of protection for the consumer. It is vitally important because, as anybody who buys fairly complicated modern equipment for the house or any other area knows, one is completely at the mercy of the sellers of these articles if one cannot get them serviced after the sale. In the recent big panic that there has been for buying stoves and back boiler arrangements because of the energy crisis many people have said to me that there has been a great deal of trouble with after-sales service. This is an area in any consumer legislation that must be very carefully handled. I do not wish to say any more about this Bill but I welcome it and I am very glad to help to pass it quickly.

Mrs. Cassidy

It would not be appropriate that the House should regard this Bill as a measure designed to protect the consumer because the consumer in this type of operation is concerned only with buying something far cheaper than he would get it from an established trader. He is looking for a bargain. Therefore he is quite prepared to forego after-sales service, guarantees and such matters. He is prepared, in fact, to buy a pig in a poke. Therefore it would be neither possible nor reasonable to expect the Legislature to protect him in such an operation.

But in so far as the Bill is designed to regulate the operation of this type of trader whose activities have been for a long time a legitimate cause for concern to established traders, to trade unions and to members of trade unions, and in so far as it will help the authorities to ensure that occasional traders pay their fair share of taxes, this is a necessary and a welcome Bill and I compliment the Minister on its introduction.

Mr. McCartin

I, too, will probably add something to the balance of the arguments in favour of this Bill. Senator Keating mentioned the whole question of balance and it was appropriate that he should. It is significant that the Minister, when she introduced the Bill, referred to the fact that opinions had been received from so many organisations on the subject. Down through the years, as every public representative knows, opinions have always been available on this subject purely from one side of the area involved.

Looking back over quite a number of the Bills that have been introduced here, looking at the trend in our society generally where legislation is very often the result of pressure by one group or another we see legislation which is indirectly, legislation by the pressure group.

While I accept it and agree with Senator Keating that the Minister has achieved the right balance and has not been diverted from doing what is best, I cannot pretend that I do not see in this legislation the unfavourable balance of opinion which has been going around on the whole subject. The people engaged in this sort of trading are, more or less, on the periphery of society. They are people we do not know. We do not know whether they vote or how they vote and we do not know what their political views are. As a result we might tend to forget about them as a section of our community which need our protection and our assistance and all the consideration that this House is obliged to give any section of people, however small and weak, who have not got a voice of their own.

It seems we are affecting here, by this legislation, a group of people who have not got a voice of their own. I could make the case for the other side but my colleague, Senator Staunton, has done that in an admirable way and I agree with everything he has said. Nevertheless nobody has quantified the hardship or the suffering that will be imposed as a result of this legislation, and every legislation imposes hardship on somebody by way of restrictions or restraints which create problems. I certainly hope that the Minister, in her own way when considering it, has quantified the disadvantages. I hope she has considered the number of jobs involved, if we may call them jobs and there probably are jobs involved, and the disruption to a way of life of a section of our community however small they may be; nevertheless they require to be thought about just like any other section when we make legislation affecting their future.

That is the principal point I wanted to make. We have heard all the good arguments being put forward by every group, one after another, when promoting their own vested interests, their concern for the well-being of society, their concern lest illegalities take place, their concern for the consumer and the right to after-sales service and so on. Quite honestly I do not accept all that. I do not accept that this is the reason behind all the agitation to get legislation on the Statute Book and therefore I would treat this as the represenations of a group of people concerned to protect their own interests. I agree that there is a lot of substance in what they say. Nevertheless in bringing forward legislation, now and in the future, we must consider that people with money at their disposal and the ability to write reports and make submissions can sometimes have an undue concern for their own problems when legislation is being prepared. We must remember that there are still many practices throughout industry where legislation, in the long run, may cause greater problems than the one we are legislating for here today. Do we understand the whole grain trade of this country? In the hands of how many people is the power to affect prices and influence the whole business? Do we know what has happened in the energy market as a result of oil price increases? How many people make the decisions on the prices that are being charged for coal and turf and other things at this moment and who has got the fantastic rake-off in profits that there must have been in those areas?

This is an area which has been much talked about and the people who are being legislated for have not had an articulate defender at any stage. It worries me slightly. Let us leave aside the fact that some of those people would indeed exchange their positions for a well placed shop on a busy corner and the security and everything that goes with it. Some of them have developed towards that through the years and if too severe restrictions were placed in their paths at the start perhaps they would never have graduated to their present position. I have watched one street trader improve his stall through the years and make it bigger eventually; I have seen a site being bought and a big business go up. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to say this but because the other arguments have been so well put I would like to add that side to the balance. I believe the Minister is seeking in a responsible way to regulate this business and to ensure that those who operate business within our society with the assistance of the law and of our structures and so on pay their fair share of the contribution to the public effort. I felt that the other side of the argument needed to be put because of the abuses that have come to my notice in this whole area have not been from the group of people legislated for here but from the wider and more important area of the street and roadside traders.

It is true that we cannot legislate for the people who will insist on buying things that they do not need or on buying goods of an inferior nature. We certainly will never solve these problems by legislating. We will not stop the weak-minded mother from buying toys every time she goes to a shop for her groceries; we will not convince some people that the cheapest article is not always best. But very often it is important that they have the choice because I know people who have got good bargains from street traders and casual traders and there is a place for them. I agree with the legislation as a move towards introducing order into an area where order did not exist.

Mr. Jago

I also welcome this Bill. I do not want to go over again what has been said about the various reasons. Senator Staunton made most of the points in his speech. It is sufficient to say that this legislation will protect those with roots in the community against those who will not have roots. At the same time it will not cut out occasional traders who are a benefit to the community and to whom the Minister will still have the right to grant licences.

I also believe that in the short-term it may seem that the consumer is not to benefit but in the long-term he must benefit because in the retail trade, if a retailer is servicing the community, then that retailer has to carry very many lines to give a proper service. Some of those lines are profitable and some are not so profitable but the retailer has to average. The occasional trader can come in and make a sale on a single profitable line, thereby affecting the sale of that line with the retailer who is giving a proper service. If that is likely to affect the retailer who is giving a proper service then the consumer must lose out if that service is discontinued because of such competition. So, in my opinion this is also, in the long-term, protecting the consumer.

I should like to ask the Minister some questions about some parts of the Bill. Section 2 (2) (b) of the Bill states:

selling at a trade, commercial, agricultural or industrial fair or show that is held wholly or mainly for a purpose other than the selling of goods,

Certain shows could be maintained to be completely interested in the selling of goods. An example is the summer show of the Munster Agricultural Society in Cork. It could be said that that is mainly for the purpose of selling both industrially and in the field of agricultural implements and so on. But the Munster Agricultural Society, being in occupation for three months is clear; the traders who are selling there are in occasional occupation of their stalls. Is it possible, because they are selling from a stall, rented for a short period of under three months, that they could come under this Bill?

The next question is on the same section or paragraph (f) which includes the phrase:

(other than those cooked at the place of sale),

Could this affect catering for certain occasions? For example, recently at the opening of Nítrigin Éireann caterers brought down one of the big Papal tents; they gave lunch to 600 people and that lunch was cooked in the tent. Could it be said that because that meal was sold to Nítrigin Éireann and cooked on the premises, that it was a sale and therefore they would have to have a licence?

The next section is based on——

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps it might be more appropriate, to go into the details of this on Committee Stage.

Mr. Jago

The Minister might like time to consider this between now and Committee Stage. I would like to ask this question quickly.

An Cathaoirleach

I will permit the Senator to ask one further question.

Mr. Jago

On sections 2 and 3 together, if a person could occupy a premises for three months and then give up occupation, can that person go back and have occasional sales in that premises?

Mr. Howard

I accept the necessity for the legislation proposed in this Bill to control occasional sales. I regret that the Minister has not found it possible to incorporate roadside trading as well because there is no doubt that, of the two types of trading, roadside trading is the more objectionable. I would hope that her promise to bring in a Bill fairly shortly to deal with this serious problem will be realised. The obstruction that arises from roadside trading even on primary roads, the mess left behind and the annoyance caused to local people, require to be dealt with urgently.

The Bill itself controls but does not entirely prohibit occasional trading. It is important to emphasise the point that there is no total prohibition. In the same breath I would like to say that certain sections of the general public believe in the myth that they can always obtain value at these occasional sales. This myth should be exposed for what it is. I certainly have met with more complaints than compliments from people who have purchased articles of substandard quality at these sales. Many people have purchased appliances or machines that have failed to work, or have broken down; there is a total absence of after-sales service and this is the order of the day so far as many of these sales are concerned, leaving disappointed and disgruntled customers.

In so far as the Bill introduces a measure of control here, I welcome and support it. Not alone are we in the situation where some of the articles offered for sale at these occasional sales are of doubtful quality but there are people who feel, and with good reason, that the origin of some of these articles is in doubt. The purpose of the Bill is, I am sure, to provide safeguards but whether these are adequate or not, time will tell.

I want to refer to the effect of the other aspect of occasional trading on the established trader in the unfair competition it creates for him. The occasional trader who comes into a town or village and rents a dancehall, warehouse, or similar premises for a day or two, perhaps a weekend, and disposes of goods there at cut-down prices is not rendering a good service to the general public. In addition to this he is rendering a disservice to the established traders in that locality who pay their rent and rates, their VAT, social insurance and wages. They can, in fact, on occasions put the livelihood of employees of local traders at risk. We have a duty to do everything possible to extend what protection we can to the established traders in our community. I am conscious that all reasonable bodies—trade unions, trade associations, chambers of commerce, local authorities and various others—are at one in their criticism of the activities of the traders to whom I refer. These sales can have an upsetting influence on local business without rendering a valuable service or a service of any great value to the community.

It is also desirable that the general public should be aware of certain sales that are exempted from the terms of this Bill. There may be a misunderstanding if this point is not clarified effectively. In so far as the Bill extends a measure of protection to the general public and consumers and to the local traders, I support it.

Professor Conroy

I would like to welcome this Bill, which is very timely. The Minister of State and the Department are to be congratulated on bringing in this Bill which deals with a matter of considerable practical importance and which I should imagine required a lot of drafting and consideration in regard to dealing with many matters going back through the centuries, such as legal rights on trading and original charters. It seems appropriate that the legislation should be divided into two separate Bills.

Occasional trading has a very long and in many ways an honourable, history and, certainly, a very traditional history, particularly in this country. One would not like to see the traditional and worthwhile aspects of occasional trading interfered with. As one Senator mentioned there have been instances of persons who have started off as occasional traders and later built up quite substantial trading premises and businesses and others who have a family tradition in this particular occupation. Nonetheless there has been a considerable degree of abuse of the situation over the last few years, something that has been gradually arising over the last 20 or 30 years but which has become much more noticeable in the last five to ten years. This occasional trading by traditional families and such like persons from this country has been increasingly accompanied by occasional trading by people who are certainly not traditional in the business and whose methods and habits are not set in any sense to the benefit of the consumer. In that respect I would, with great deference to my good colleague, Senator Cassidy, slightly disagree with her. There is a considerable measure of consumer protection embodied in this Bill and it is very necessary, right and proper that there should be. The small retailer has a very legitimate and genuine case to put forward. Perhaps in recent years we have tended to criticise or ignore the small retailers who has played such a valuable and necessary role in our retail business and in our society generally. It would be a sad day if such people were squeezed out either by anonymous corporations or alternatively by fly-by-night persons—a bad day not only for the people themselves but for the consumers and for the country as a whole.

This Bill has a very fair balance of protection for established, legitimate traders and a fair balance for the occasional trader. I am a little concerned about one aspect of it which brings me back to these cross-channel people, or people from outside the jurisdiction, who may come over here and sell goods which may or may not be of a certain quality, or may have come to them in a questionable manner, as one Senator suggested. Is it at all possible for the Minister to consider, in relation to the legislation, that under section 4 (7) when a person is applying to the Minister, a photograph of the applicant be included with that application and, if possible, a photograph also be a part of the permit issued to an occasional trader? A legitimate trader travelling around the country will, I am sure, have no objection to that. The legitimate trader, or the person taking out a permit in one name, with perhaps someone else from across the channel coming over here and selling round the country, might well be, at least to some degree, hindered, or brought under some degree of control, by the use of photographs. Perhaps it is not feasible, or practical, but would the Minister consider this is a possibility? I think it would help considerably in adding to the value of what seems to be a very good, well thought out and very worth-while Bill.

Mr. Markey

I have a few observations to make on the Bill. Perhaps there is no harm in having a few devil's advocates in a matter such as this. The more I look at the Bill the more I am concerned about broader issues. We have one law after another doing something which a previous law has failed to do or is not doing adequately. For instance, if some of these people that we are correctly trying to control in this Bill are selling defective goods, surely the sale of such defective goods is already covered by the Sale of Goods Act, by identification of the description of the goods? Surely the sale of goods on the roadside, if they are ill-gotten goods, is covered by our existing law in regard to the powers the Garda have? The particular interests in our society seem to be cocooning us by further pieces of legislation. A devil's advocate could say "You, Minister, are responsible by this Bill for an attack on what is nothing other than private enterprise". If this Bill had been in existence at the time when the man built up his fortune on the penny product and insisted that he would sell nothing which cost him more than a penny he would never have got off his feet and would never have gone into business. We seem to be arriving at the situation where we are continuously passing laws to protect ourselves and to prevent and prohibit other people. That may be necessary. If it is the message of our times that we must take some action against occasional traders, as they are nicely identified in this Bill, the Minister could have been a little more forthcoming in her argument as to why total prohibition should not be envisaged in that case. I think representations were made that there should be total prohibition. It has been indicated that it might bring a certain confusion into the matter in respect of manufacturers and wholesalers with their shows particularly of Christmas goods. A simple exemption clause entirely prohibiting retailing direct to the consumer would do away with that confusion. That is the only argument the Minister seems to give in her speech as to why total prohibition is not envisaged. What effect will a statutory declaration of intention by a person who proposes to trade over three months have if he gives that statutory declaration of intention, starts trading, and one month later disappears over the horizon. Where is the statutory declaration then and what is to stop somebody else coming in the following month with another statutory declaration? The market place has its own laws built into its own system and people who sell shabby goods are looked after by the market place in time——

I am acting as a devil's advocate because there is always need for that in legislation like this. I am not saying that I am against this Bill. If there are shady characters operating it is only right and proper that we should try to hammer such shady characters, but we have already, on the Statute Book, legislation which can be directed immediately and very positively against such people. We just seem to be cocooning ourselves by successive pieces of legislation, which succeed each other in doing nothing in the long run.

If I were confident for a moment that this legislation is going to do away with occasional trading under another heading which I am sure will surface for a time, I would say more power to the Minister for bringing it in. I have my doubts that it will succeed in doing that because we have always had people who are on the look-out for a loophole somewhere along the line, perhaps a legitimate loophole. The trader may only be anxious to look for a legitimate trading angle to make money and there is nothing wrong with making money. There is, also, the consumer who will continue to look for this type of occasional trading transaction, perhaps to save a few pounds—and there is nothing wrong with trying to save a few pounds—and some consumers may get a kick out of going to a place where this practice is carried on. As long as both sides continue to have a hankering for occasional trading and all that it involves, we shall always have problems associated with that business.

In the legislation licensing control could well have been left with the local authorities. You say you do not want to prohibit entirely this occasional trading, but you should not present certain obstacles.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am slow to interrupt, but the Senator should appropriately address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Markey

My apologies. If the Minister wished to introduce certain controls in regard to the future licensing of such practices, I think it should not have been made that bit more difficult for genuine people to obtain licences. It is far more convenient for them to obtain a licence from a local authority. Local authorities look after very many aspects, such as planning, hygiene, fire control. That is one form of control which could well have been left with local authorities. I have no doubt that the enforcement officers will, initially, make some impact on this matter. I hope that that will continue until whatever defects in the system, as the Minister sees, are ironed out. There is a part to be played by genuine traders and that part lies with their offering at all times adequate after sales service, unlike the occasional traders. Unfortunately, there are many traders in established businesses who also fall down completely in this respect. I hope that the established marketplace will look into the defects which exist within its own jurisdiction. That is all I have to say.

Mr. Cooney

I want to make a very brief intervention on this Bill. When I read the Bill originally, never having been the recipient of complaints from traders about occasional trading, and it not being a practice that took place in my area to any extent, my knowledge of the subject was very limited. Having read the Bill, I reasoned that this was an abuse which required correction and that the Bill seemed to be a reasonable move in that direction. In reading the Bill, with no great knowledge of the subject, I was, in effect, only reading one side of the picture.

Some weeks ago, I read an article in a daily newspaper by a former officer of the Minister's Department, the former Examiner of Restrictive Practices, and was very impressed by his analysis of this Bill. It struck me as being an extremely cogent analysis and put forward a contrary point of view to that represented by the Bill. I have read the Minister's speech and she may, in one or two instances, have dealt obliquely with the arguments raised by Mr. Kennan in that article. I consider those arguments present a proper balance to this problem, and to be so important, cogent and relevant to this whole matter, that I invite the Minister, when she is replying to this debate, to take up specifically the points which Mr. Kennan made in that article and deal with them here. Only if the Minister does that will this subject have been debated fully. I intervened in this debate to ask the Minister to be good enough to do that. Having said that, I apologise that I will not be present for her reply as I am involved with the Joint Committee on Semi-State Bodies and must leave, but look forward to reading, in the record of the House, the Minister's comments and, indeed, I would hope, refutation of Mr. Kennan's arguments. Unless they are refuted there is a serious question mark concerning the justice, equity and feasibility of this Bill.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome this Bill particularly as I come from an area which has been bedevilled by this trade for a number of years now. It has caused a lot of hardship to traders within the area and not alone has it caused hardship to traders within the area but it has also caused a lot of unnecessary problems to consumers who have bought from this type of trade, goods which turned out to be very shoddy; when they sought recompense the owner of the stall or the trader himself, could not be found. On each occasion when these traders came to my area they had different personnel; there were no names and no licence plates issued for these stallholders and it was virtually impossible to find out whether you had brought from a particular person or from somebody else. The degree of shoddiness of the goods generally sold by these occasional traders is enormous. Regarding electrical goods, there is no way that 90 per cent of the objects sold as electrical goods would pass any standard specification for safety. These items are being brought into homes and used by housewives and they are extremely deadly and dangerous because they are not subject to standard specification marks. This is something which will have to be looked into, not alone as regard occasional trading, but also, eventually, as regards roadside trading. A person may look for something cheap, and gets good value because it is cheap. Too often people buy something which is cheap and expect it to be good value, but when they get it home they find that it either does not work, or else wears out within a very short time. I have seen children buying, from these stallholders, toys which do not even make the journey home. They are bad value, though cheap in money terms.

I will not delay the House on any other aspect of this Bill, except to ask what is the situation, for example, if there is a supermarket which has availed of occasional trading and it might not be evident in the supermarket—on occasion, a trader might take over half at that store for a particular sales item. In the bigger stores in Dublin at present certain areas are leased or let to traders for a particular part of the year. They lease ten or 20 square feet and are there for only a very short time. Are these people to be considered occasional traders? Whatever control the store-owner has over these people, nobody else seems to have any.

I now come to these shows which are called ideal homes exhibitions, Spring Shows and so on. People go to these ideal homes exhibitions and buy household gimmicks presented by English traders who may come from Carnaby Street or some market in England and do a fantastic presentation of a household item which seems to work but I have never yet seen one of these things work in the home. Will these people be covered by the Bill?

I hope that when a licence is issued by the Department, a certificate will be issued for public display at the trading area. These people have no names and are very hard to trace afterwards, but with a licence number they could be traced. The street markets in England are licensed by the local authorities and there is a licence number on each stall. Anybody with a complaint can give the licence number and get some recompense. I welcome this Bill which needs to be put into operation before Christmas because it is at this time of the year that most of this type of trading is done.

Mr. Blennerhassett

I do not welcome this Bill. It is giving a licence to occasional traders to go out and sell their goods. At the moment, anyone can get a hawker's licence for £20; now we are giving a licence to hawk goods for £50, plus £25 a day. We are dealing here today with the Occasional Trading Bill, not the Street Trading Bill, or the Roadside Trading Bill which will come up for discussion at a later stage. In my county in the last few years people have come to a town, hired a hall, put a notice in the local paper and given a name which is very hard to trace—the name may not be in the telephone book. After that small expenditure on advertising, they are allowed to trade. To give them a permit costing only £50 is giving them a licence to continue this kind of trading.

The Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks, of which I am a member, strongly protests at such licences being granted because they have approximately 21,000 people employed in the distributing trade, whose families will be affected if this type of trading is allowed. Many employers who pay good wages to their staff, who pay taxes and high rates, will be hard hit. A few years ago, a hawker was a man going in a car or van from house to house selling his goods—or before that, on a bicycle. An occasional trader intending to use a hotel or a dancehall to sell his goods should apply to the local authority for planning permission to have that premises altered for that purpose. Is that property covered by insurance? In this Bill we are giving those people a licence to continue their trading. I have seen, in Tralee, people selling furniture brought in from England at half the local price; those people must not be paying any taxes. Is there import duty on those goods. How do they come into this country? Are they smuggled in?

The Minister should consider very seriously the objections of the Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks to this type of trading. We are not objecting to the time-honoured selling of secondhand clothes at the fairs. A licence should not be given to occasional traders, where the livelihood of workers and employers is affected.

Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

I should like to thank Senators from both sides of the House who have taken part in this debate and most of them for their welcome for the Bill and, in particular, for their desire, which is also mine, to have the Bill passed as soon as possible. My main reason for ensuring that the Bill becomes law as quickly as possible was the fact that it was represented to me and indeed to the officials of my Department, by chambers of commerce and by legitimate traders in various parts of the country, that the period up to Christmas is the period in which most of these monster sales and auctions take place. Those of us who go shopping at the weekend will discover very often when you park your car in a public car park or on the side of the street, when you come back that the sales techniques of these traders are so good that they have placed an advertisement on the windscreen of your car, or very often have put an advertisement, leaflet or brochure about the sale through your letter-box while you have been away.

We must agree that their sales techniques are of very high quality. They have a tremendous influence on consumers when consumers go to buy at these types of monster sales and auctions. Therefore, it is highly desirable that for all sorts of reasons, in particular for the protection of the established trader and of the consumer, this legislation become law as quickly as possible.

I appreciate that most of the Senators are as frustrated as I am myself that the two Bills could not have been produced together. Senator Keating, who was a former Minister in my Department, certainly realises the difficulties that I and the Minister have faced in trying to bring the Occasional Trading Bill to fruition. I expressed the hope in the Dáil that I would have the Bill made law in the next session of the Dáil—that it would be debated in both Houses of the Oireachtas and would become law before the Easter Recess. I express that hope now. Any delays which have occurred in the past have certainly not occurred in my Department, and any delays which are occurring at the moment are not the responsibility of my Department. I assure Deputies that I am certainly pressing forward and insisting that the problems, constitutional and other ones, which existed have to be ironed out immediately and that it is of great necessity to have this second Bill before the House.

Senator Staunton wanted to know if showroom sales where manufacturers take a room in a hotel or a ballroom for the purpose of showing their goods to retailers throughout the country are exempt. They are, of course, exempt because it would be very unfair if we penalised manufacturers to this extent. This would be their main way of showing the goods that they have on offer at particular times of the year to their retailers throughout various regions or counties.

Various other points were made by various Senators, and I will try to cover most of them. As the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach pointed out, some of these points would be more relevant to a Committee Stage debate, and as we are going to have the Committee Stage debate next week perhaps we could discuss them in greater detail at that stage. However, the question was asked by Senator Ruairí Brugha whether the Minister had the right to refuse to grant a permit. The Minister does not have that right. He must grant a permit but he can attach various conditions to that permit, and in the event of abuse of that permit the Minister refuses to grant a permit to the same person again.

The point was made by Senator Conroy that the permit should contain a photograph of the person or trader to whom the permit is granted. This was one of the points which we discussed at length during the preparation of the Bill and it was decided that this would not become one of the subsections within the permit section of the Bill in that it would be difficult in the case of a corporate body or of even one trader to put his photograph on a permit. The photograph may be displayed within the permit itself at the place of sale, but very often there are so many servants or agents acting on the trader's part that it would be difficult to identify the person who had been given the permit, whereas if we leave it as it is with the option of the Minister himself insisting, at a later stage when the Bill is passed, that a photograph must be attached it would probably leave greater leeway. I do not know if that would be acceptable to the Senator.

The point was also made by various Senators that the giving of permits should be a matter for the Minister. More people felt that perhaps it should have been left to the local authorities. The main case that I would make for it being left in the Minister's hands is that, as Senator Staunton said, if we leave it to the local authorities there could be a great unevenness in the distribution of permits and in the conditions. We could have a local authority, say in the west of Ireland, who would be very lenient in the conditions that they would attach while a similar local authority in another part of the country could be very severe. We get a tremendous uniformity if we leave it to the discretion of the Minister to decide what should be in a permit and on what grounds the permit should be granted. That is the main argument against the leaving of the issuing of permits to the local authorities.

We had probably two devil's advocates here this evening—Senator McCartin and Senator Markey. That is very healthy. It is very good because the point could be made that I did not take all aspects into account and that I looked at it from only the consumer's and the established trader's point of view and did not look at it from the occasional trader's point of view. However, the Bill that we came up with is essentially a balance. As Senator Blennerhassett suggested, it would not be right to extinguish totally the rights of these occasional traders. They are a tradition. Maybe the ones that we have become aware of in recent times are not as traditional as, say, the ones who have operated in fairs and markets throughout the country, but it would be wrong if we were to deprive the consumer of the type of colour that this kind of trader can add to a locality. On the other hand, it is important to ensure that they do not get away with anything—that the shady characters who have been involved in a lot of this occasional trading in recent times should not be allowed to go scot free. It is important that the traders should have to make some contribution to society. I take the point that Senator Blennerhassett made that genuine traders have to pay rates, rent, overheads, ESB bills, various insurance and fire policies and all these types of things, and that the occasional traders did not have those types of overheads. We have reached a balance with the fee of £50 and the £25 for every day or even trading for only an hour in the day. However, as I said in my opening remarks, if the Minister decides that the fee of £50 and the £25 per day is not high enough, then, of course, the option is there for him in the Bill to raise the limit. It was in the hope of keeping a balance between these occasional traders and the genuine traders that we agreed that the rights of the occasional traders should not be extinguished totally. They should be allowed to trade but they would have to do it under certain conditions.

The point was made by Senator Lanigan and others that very often the goods which are sold are of doubtful origin and do not conform to the proper trading practices or standards that have been in operation with genuine traders. I think it was Senator Markey who said that genuine traders throughout our country in the past have not been as good about their after-sales service as all of us in these Houses would like them to be. It is important to remember that this Bill deals with the traders as such. The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, which is at Report Stage in the Dáil at the moment, will deal with sale of goods and after-sales service, and both Bills can go hand in hand. We are protecting the consumer in the sale of goods and we are protecting as well the genuine traders by ensuring that they have to conform to after-sales service of a high standard. Also in this legislation we are ensuring that, when the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill becomes operative, the traders engaged in occasional trading will have to live up to the standards of that Bill as well.

Senator McCartin and Senator Hussey made the point that we cannot legislate for people's stupidity. My term for it might not be so strong, but certainly we cannot legislate for people—they make up their own minds. People decide whether they are going to buy shoddy goods, or whether they are going to buy at one of these auctions or sales. No legislation that I or anyone else could bring before any House of the Oireachtas would legislate against that type of thing. People should always be free to make up their own minds. I remind Senator McCartin that it is not only mothers who are weak-minded in buying toys for their sons and daughters. We have very often experienced weak-minded fathers as well. I hope he takes the point in the spirit in which I made it.

Senator Jago made three very valid points, all of which I will have to take into account between now and Committee Stage. Senator Lanigan talked about the leasing which goes on in the larger towns in the larger shops and stores where certain floor space is leased by various traders. If the lease is for a specific period of less than three months, then the trader would be covered in the Bill. However, if the lease were to be for longer than a three-month period, the trader would not be covered by the Bill. In the case of a statutory declaration being made, as is demanded by the Bill, where a trader intends to move into a premises and stay there for longer than a three-month period, if, he makes the statutory declaration to the Minister that he intends to stay in business for longer than three months and does not comply with it, then he is in breach of the Act and will be penalised accordingly.

With regard to the point which was made by our two devil's advocates, it is important to remember that there was a high degree of unfair competition and that occasional traders did not have to meet the expenses or the overheads that the genuine traders throughout the country have. I am very much in favour of competition. It lowers prices, it ensures a wide choice for consumers to avail of, it ensures that there are after-sales and other services available to consumers. Fair competition must be encouraged at all levels. There was a very high degree of unfair competition as regards these traders and I felt that the time had come when the Government had to do something by way of legislation to ensure that that did not continue.

I thank each of the Senators who took part in the debate, and I am glad they appreciate the urgency of it. I look forward to Committee Stage to be taken next week.

Mr. Staunton

Would you allow me to ask the Minister one question?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

A brief question.

Mr. Staunton

I admire the Minister's urgency in attempting to have this legislation going through so that it will be operative for this Christmas. I am slightly confused by section 3 (2) in the Bill which states that the question of a trader needing a permit "does not apply to occasional trading engaged in by a person within three months after the commencement of the Act at a premises or place of which the person has been in continuous occupation for a period less than three months ending at the time of such trading". I presume it means that for three months after the Act has been passed permits are not required for a certain category. If you are talking about three months from mid-November, you are going into December, January and February. Could the Minister of State clarify the part of the subsection which says "in continuous occupation of a period of less than three months ending at the time of such trading"? That is a bit of a gobbledygook. I do not understand what those words mean.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

It is essentially a point to be raised on Committee Stage. However, I will try to deal with it. If a person is in occupation in a premises at the moment and is not covered by the Bill, after the Bill comes into operation the Minister will have to make an order and then it will be up to anyone who wishes to engage in occasional trading to apply to the Minister for a permit. The Bill does not become operative until the Minister makes an order after it is passed and signed by the President. I am not sure of the point that Senator Staunton is trying to make.

Mr. Staunton

The subsection states that this question of needing a permit does not apply to occasional trading engaged in by a person within three months after the commencement of this Act.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

It is a transitional provision mainly. It is designed to exempt from the provisions of the Act the people who have been trading at the same premises or place for a period of less than three months on the date that the Act comes into force. It will exempt both persons who intend to become established traders at that place and persons who are occasional traders, that is, persons who intend to occupy the premises for less than three months after the commencement of the Act. The reason for the urgency is, as I pointed out, that the chambers of commerce and others who made representations to me, and I am sure to the Senator's party as well, were of the opinion that the main time for operation for these traders was Christmas, Easter and so on. Therefore, as there would be a 30-day gap after the Bill becomes operative, until the first permit is issued, I felt that it would be desirable to catch as many as possible under this.

Mr. Staunton

We will gladly take Committee Stage next week, but I think my point is valid that the three months will take away from the possibility——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Staunton will have an opportunity to discuss this on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28 November 1979.