Is it necessary for a promoter who wishes to promote trading stamps to have a company incorporated in Ireland? A foreign company could establish a place of business in Ireland and take a lease of a premises or buy a shop front somewhere. Is the requirement satisfied by a foreign company merely taking a shop front, or does it have to be a company incorporated in Ireland?
Trading Stamps Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The idea was that it should be bona fide and that it should be registered in Ireland.
The Bill does not say that. Subsection (1) provides that it "shall be unlawful for any person or body of persons other than a company which has a place of business in the State...." It is not a company registered in Ireland.
In the definition section "company" has the meaning assigned to it by the Companies Act, 1963.
I accept that.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Is it felt that there is no need for a definition of "promoter"? Elsewhere we seem to use the word "company" all the time, but we use the word "promoter" in section 5 subsection (1). There is no definition of "promoter".
"Promoter" has a meaning. Is the Senator worried about the difference between "promoter" and "company"?
In section 2 we say it is only a company which can carry on the business of a "promoter". Subsection (1) provides that it must be a company registered in Ireland.
As I see it, the promoter must be a company as defined in the Bill.
It seems to follow. I wondered why it was used in this section.
A promoter must be an Irish company. That is the idea.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
This section refers to "any contract". Would it apply to a lease and a covenant in a lease? Somebody referred to a difficulty involved for some petrol retailers who are obliged by their lessor to use trading stamps. This was introduced to try to get over that. The section refers only to a contract. Does it apply to a lease in which there may be a covenant obliging a person to engage in the business of trading stamps?
The Senator understands the idea behind this. Subsection (2) provides that any provision in a contract to which this section applies under which a retailer is required to offer trading stamps to his customers shall be void.
A contract is different from a lease. I know what the Minister is trying to do and I agree with it. I just wonder whether we should also provide that a covenant in a lease, or a condition in a lease, obliging a petrol retailer to use trading stamps as a promotion for petrol sales shall be void.
I understand that is the idea behind it. I understand it is contained in it as well. We do not want to leave any loopholes in this very important area.
I accept what the Minister is trying to do. I just see a loophole in it. Most of these premises are leased. There is also a sales agreement.
It was discussed with our legal people against the background of leases and they were satisfied with it.
I am very reluctant to cast any doubt upon the great wisdom of the legal people advising the Minister, but there is no legal dictionary I know of that would include a lease under the word "contract". A lease is an agreement. There is a big difference in law between a contract and a lease. I fully appreciate what the Minister is trying to do. I wonder would it be better if we included the words "or any lease" after the words "any contract". If we inserted those words we might get over the difficulty completely.
The legal people in the Department were happy enough. It was discussed at length.
There does not appear to be any justification for their happiness.
Both of us are on the one wavelength about what should happen. The legal people in our Department were happy enough with the wording. It was fully discussed. I see the Senator's point. This is very important. We will have another look at it between now and Report Stage.
That is very kind.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed, with one reservation. I disapprove of the inclusion of the word "neglect" without the word "wilful" before it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2 July 1980.