I move amendment No. 1 :
In subsection (1), page 2, line 15, after " business " to insert " for profit ".
I referred to this on the Second Stage. Why are the words " for profit " left out of one definition and put into another?
SECTION 2.
The wording as it is makes it clear that unincorporated groups such as clubs or certain philanthropic, religious or professional bodies do not have to register. So far as other businesses are concerned, for example, those conducted by individuals or bodies corporate, it is not the intention that non-profit activities should be excluded because debts can be incurred in respect of such activities as well as profit-making activities. There are a lot of other examples to which one could point; people who, perhaps, for income tax purposes, might be carrying on two businesses—that is not unknown—one of the businesses being carried on without any prospect, or indeed intention, of making profits. It is only correct that a member of the public should have access to the necessary particulars if he wanted to sue such a non-profit making concern.
Surely the position is that if Deputy Gallagher and I carry on two businesses together, making sure that one loses money for tax purposes and one makes money, we are bound to register the one and not the other; yet they are both businesses. I think we should register everything. It does not matter so much to me frankly if the Minister is accepting my amendment No. 8. Everybody who has any practical experience of carrying on the business of a solicitor—I am sure the Chairman will agree with me—regularly finds that you get instructions that a debt is due by Patrick Murphy and Son. You go to the Business Names Office and make a search and there is no registration for Patrick Murphy and Son carrying on business at 128 Capel Street. If provision is to be made that you can sue Patrick Murphy and Son and can attach the goods found on the premises of Patrick Murphy and Son without tracing the individual owners of Patrick Murphy and Son, well, I do not mind about this so much. Otherwise, it seems to me essential that you will take in everybody, whether they make a profit or not so that it would not be too easy for people to duck out of it on the basis that the business Deputy Gallagher and I are associated with was not a business for profit. We must have incurred liabilities to other people and the fact we were trading under the names of, shall we say, Rogue and Honest, it does not matter which——
The Deputy is now arguing against his own amendment. If he includes the words " for profit " he is excluding non-profit activities.
I know I am arguing against the amendment. What I really meant to do was to drop " for profit " in both places and not to put in " for profit " in both places. The Minister will acknowledge that this matter came at a rather busy time for me.
I do appreciate that.
It should be exactly the same for both. The Minister is right that it should be used in both cases.
This definition of a firm in the Bill seems to be a bringing together of two clauses, Sections 4 (1) and 1 (1) of the 1890 Partnership Act which, in effect, defined partnership as being an association for carrying on a profit-making activity. It was, no doubt, for that reason that the 1916 Bill draftsman retained those words " for profit " when defining a firm. It would also have had the advantageous effect of excluding clubs and other harmless activities. Occasionally, secretaries of clubs and other unincorporated bodies do come to the Registrar inquiring whether they should be registered and it is useful for the Registrar to be able to rely on those words " for profit " so that he can tell those people they do not have to register.
Is there any really good reason why clubs should not register?
It was not intended to cover anything other than the really necessary business area in the Bill. All the provisions of the 1916 Act and of this Bill are subject to certain limitations—they go a certain distance and no further.
The kind of club you have in mind would in fact be carrying on business in the sense intended here except it would not be for profit.
Almost anything is carrying on business. Indeed I think that in so far as companies are concerned, it has been held that almost any activity is carrying on business for profit. There always have been difficulties about that in relation to international Conventions, particularly in regard to companies. If the words " for profit " were omitted from the definition of a firm, the effect would be to include a whole lot of bits and pieces like unincorporated clubs which are not already covered by the law. Whether that would be advantageous or not is very doubtful. It would mean that the problem of enforcement would be rendered all the more difficult because you would have to go chasing up these groups for compliance with the law.
I accept at once that the big problem here is one of enforcement, not merely of this section but of the whole Bill, and for the Bill to be a success, we have got to have very nearly 99 per cent enforcement. That is virtually impossible to get and that is why I tried to draft something on the lines of amendment No. 8 in order to put teeth in the Bill. I am sure the Chairman has had the same experience as I have had.
I have.
The Registrar sends out a note to a person and by the time the Registrar gets the person to register, the person has skipped and the creditor is left high and dry. If we could put teeth into the Bill in some such way as I suggest in my later amendment, I do not think this amendment really matters.
As I said on the Second Stage, it is the intention that the legislation henceforth will be strictly enforced. In so far as a person has skipped, I do not see that there is any special benefit in his having registered.
He has skipped between the time the Registrar sends him notification and the time registration is through and if you could get your proceedings at that time on the firm's business address, it would help very much indeed. I feel sure the Chairman would agree with that.
I would.
Between the serving of notification on the firm and the time you could legally enforce proceedings, there would have been ample time to skip.
At the moment there is an inordinate amount of time available to the person who fails to register, whereas the man who registers feels the full force of the law.
I think all this would arise more appropriately on Section 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.