Vol. 104 No. 3
I move amendment No. 1:—
To insert in the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) References in this Act to a house shall be construed as including reference to any land held therewith and also to any interest in a house.
This amendment is moved at the instance of the Auctioneers' Association. They thought it better to make the matter clear so that either a house agent's licence or an auctioneer's licence will be necessary to negotiate the purchase of ground rents or any interest in a house.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In line 21 to delete the word "second" and substitute the word "third".
This is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 23 inserts a new column in the Schedule to the Bill with the result that the second column in the Schedule as appearing in the Bill will now become the third column. The reference to column 2 in Section 5 must therefore be changed to read the third column.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before sub-section (2) (i), page 4, to insert the following new paragraph—
"an auction of fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers".
I do not know why the Minister omitted to include in this section people who sell fruit, vegetables and flowers because I think they come more or less into the same category as people who sell fish. Most of them sell comparatively small quantities of these products and the value of the amount sold would in no case exceed £2,000. Their receipts would in no way fall within the £2,000 deposits contemplated in the Bill or the value of the property which they handle on different occasions would in no case reach that figure. I suggest to the Minister that in view of the fact that a number of these people actually sell their own produce in the Dublin fruit and vegetable market or sell for farmers who regularly supply them, they should be excluded from the operations of the Bill. Because of the system which has been adopted, it has been found convenient over a number of years for farmers to trade with particular individuals for comparatively limited amounts. I think, therefore, the Minister should accept the amendment.
There is a difference between these people and those who sell fish. The Minister for Agriculture intends to bring in legislation dealing with the sale of fish and that is why fish is not dealt with in this Bill. The whole idea of the Bill is to protect the general public and to ensure that people who get money from the general public will have something to cover that money in case of default. I am informed that they sometimes hold quite a considerable amount of money. There is some reason for including these people in this Bill and I do not see that I could accept the amendment. The sale of fish would have been included except for the fact that the Minister for Agriculture intends to deal with the sale of fish in a separate Bill.
As far as I know most of these people are already licensed auctioneers.
I think that is so.
I move amendment No. 5:—
To delete sub-section (2) (c).
Paragraph (c) excludes from the operations of the Bill certain classes or types. One of the weaknesses of the measure I think is that quite a number of classes are excluded from the obligations of this Bill. I freely admit that a number of the exclusions are necessary and I do not think that any reasonable person would insist that they should be included and brought within the full scope of the Bill. On the other hand I am sure the Minister and the House are anxious to see as far as possible that the main object of the Bill is not defeated by excluding from its operations certain people and by allowing them to operate without either a licence or a deposit. Sub-section (2) (c) says that a person who acts as agent for the owner or lessee of a house in the collection of rent and the general superintendence and management of the house and who, as an incident thereto, acts as the agent of such owner or lessee in the sale or letting of the house, shall not be obliged to take out a licence. I think the sub-section as it stands is open to grave abuse and I think it can be abused. I do not think it is any great load on any estate manager or estate agent, if the needs of the estate warrant it, to oblige him to take out a licence and to make the necessary deposit. A person excluded under (c) from the operations of the Bill might be dealing with and handling far larger sums of money than many auctioneers or house-agents who will be obliged to comply with the terms of the Bill. That is one end of the scale. The other end of the scale is that a person need merely collect rent for a couple of weeks to enable him to act in either the letting or sale of a house or houses, in the case of a particular estate. I ask the Minister to agree to the deletion of this section and I ask the House to support my amendment for that purpose. Far from weakening the Bill in any way or weakening the purpose he has in mind, the Minister will strengthen it by this deletion. I believe that allowing it to remain in the Bill will leave it open to certain abuses which he is trying to stamp out.
I have gone into this matter and I am prepared to accept the amendment. I agree with the Deputy that, on the whole, it would be better to delete it.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (2) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) a person acting as agent for a Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, the Irish Land Commission or any person authorised to acquire land compulsorily.
I do not think there can be any objection to this amendment. I understand that a valuer is occasionally engaged by local authorities and other public bodies to value land which is to be acquired and is sometimes asked to negotiate the purchase of land. No deposits are taken by these valuers and nothing would be secured by requiring them to take out a house agent's licence, as they do not hold any money.
I have no objection to the amendment, but I should like to be told why it is considered necessary, having brought in a Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works and the Land Commission, to bring in "any person authorised to acquire land compulsorily." I should have thought that a Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works and the Land Commission would have been sufficient.
A body like the Electricity Supply Board which, I understand, has compulsory powers.
It has, but I wonder if the powers to acquire compulsorily vested in such a body as the Electricity Supply Board are similar to those vested in a Minister of State or the Land Commission. I doubt if they are, and while I have not the slightest objection to giving these powers to a Minister of State, the Land Commission or the Commissioners of Public Works, because, if the worst comes to the worst, we can always call them up here, I should be reluctant to give these powers to "any person authorised." Perhaps the Minister would look into it.
"Authorised" would naturally mean authorised by law, but I will look into it.
The Minister can look into it between now and the time when the Bill comes before the Seanad. I am not objecting at all to the principle of the amendment. I am objecting only to opening it so wide. I have no objection to giving these powers to a Minister of State or to a Department or branch of a Department which can be made answerable in the House, where we will have some hold on them, but to give it to a person whom we might not be able to call to account is another matter. However, if the Minister will look into it, I am satisfied.
There is something in this amendment which I should be inclined to consider, that is, the paragraph relating to a liquidator.
I am sorry Deputy O'Connor is not here because I personally would like to hear a case made for this amendment. Reading the bald amendment without any explanation from Deputy O'Connor, who probably has good reason for it, I should be very reluctant to accept paragraph (d) which speaks of "an employee of a body corporate acting as agent", and so on.
I would not accept that portion, but the paragraph relating to a liquidator is in a different position.
I suggest we take the amendment as not moved. If Deputy O'Connor or the Minister is keen on it, advantage can be taken in another place to have it tested.
I would not like the amendment either, if that is any use to the Minister.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (2) (a), line 33, to delete all words after the word "applicant" down to the word "application" in line 35.
This is a principle which I think the Minister might consider as to whether an applicant should have to go to court each year or not. If the amendment were accepted in principle, it would mean that, when an auctioneer gets his first licence, he could continue in practice until something else happens under another part of the Act. It is most unfair and unjust that he should have to go to court each year. It involves advertisements in the Press and representation by a solicitor, and no other section of the community is forced to go to court each year for the purpose of getting a licence. If a man has a licence, he should be allowed to continued to be licensed. He will not get a renewal of that licence each year unless he has a deposit in court, and the fact that he has a deposit in court should be sufficient evidence that nothing has happened in the previous year which would necessitate his making another application. As it is, he must go up each year for renewal of his licence, but I can see nothing in the Bill to compel the district justice to examine an applicant's accounts. The district justice can know nothing about him or his business unless he has done something wrong the previous year, and one licence should be sufficient, seeing that he is covered for the future by a bond.
I know that a very large number of auctioneers in the city and country feel about this matter as Deputy Allen does. I suppose that none of us likes the trouble and expense——
Apart from the trouble and expense.
If that is not the objection I do not see what the objection is. While it undoubtedly means trouble and expense, apart from anything else, I personally should like to see it left in the Bill, for the reason that the intention of the Bill is mainly to direct the light on certain people who are operating, or trying to operate, in this country. The fact that these people know that they have publicly to appear in court every year to get a renewal of their licences and know also that any citizen, by merely giving seven days' notice of his intention so to do, can appear in court and object, may make many people who are perhaps not too careful at the moment a lot more careful. I know that there are objections to doing that every year, but, on the whole, I should prefer to see the section left in the Bill. Speaking for myself from what knowledge I have and from the point of view of what the Bill is attempting to do, I think that to take this out would be to weaken, rather than to strengthen, the Bill.
Deputy Morrissey has spoken with authority from the point of view of his own profession. I should like to support the point of view he puts forward, from the point of view of the public. This requirement of annual application coupled with the necessary formalities is a great safeguard for the public interest and for those private individuals who have to employ auctioneers from time to time. It is not correct for Deputy Allen to say that auctioneers would be the only section of the community who would have to make this yearly application. My recollection is that bookmakers, publicans, moneylenders, pawnbrokers, owners of dance halls, owners of places where music and dancing are carried on and quite a number of other sections of the community have to make it. I do think that all the requirements of a cognate character in respect of those particular classes of the people are designed for the protection of the public and that the public protection does require the section as it stands at the moment.
Deputy Costello did not say, and we would like to have heard him on the matter, what would come out in a court and what evidence the district justice would receive.
If the courts have no objection, it goes through quite formally. Literally speaking, thousands go through in half an hour.
The same as a publican's annual licence.
It is a bit of a farce, to my mind.
No, it is not. It was certainly not a farce in connection with moneylenders' licences in the last few years. Certain moneylenders found themselves opposed and evidence was brought showing that they were in a subterranean fashion contravening the provisions of the Bill and great public good was done by objecting to their licence. If there were anything of that kind—I do not anticipate there would be—the provisions of the section would be a public safeguard. This would give an opportunity to the Guards, who can get information from any individuals concerned and who can make the objection, and it is only when there is an objection that the section operates, but the very fact that there is an objection will act as a very potent safeguard.
I do not think anyone would put the business of auctioneers on a par with moneylenders or bookies. I think auctioneers would object very strenuously to being so classified.
I do not think they are being so classified.
A publican can get his licence and he can carry on for the rest of his life on the licence but if anything has happened in the previous year in the case of the auctioneer his £2,000 deposit, or portion of it, will be affected.
Not necessarily.
Yes.
Not necessarily.
There is nothing in this section or in this Bill to guide a district justice as to why he should refuse a licence or why he should grant it. It is entirely at his own discretion. Will there be evidence? What evidence should there be? What evidence is necessary? Will it be evidence against his moral character? There is nothing to prevent anyone from being an auctioneer provided he is honest. I take it that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that auctioneers will meet their obligations and liabilities. That is the only meaning of all these sections. That is the idea of the Minister in operating this section. I see serious objection to the auctioneer having to go into court each year, in addition to providing a bond for £2,000. I suggest that that will represent another £20 for the legal profession.
Not at all.
Nonsense. Ask Deputy O'Connor what he would make out of it. They will get nothing at all.
I know what he will say quite well, that they work most of their time for nothing, as all the members of the legal profession do.
You can except me from that allegation.
The Deputy would not like that suggestion, I am sure. I would ask the Minister to consider this amendment and to consider that the granting of one licence is sufficient. It is to safeguard the public that this Bill is brought in. It is not to determine whether the auctioneer is all he should be in every respect, or not, so long as he pays his debts. Is not that so? Moneylenders have been mentioned. Theirs is a different business altogether and nobody knows that better than Deputy Costello.
I entirely agree. I am not putting them on a par at all. I was merely answering the suggestion of the Deputy that no other section of the community had to make this application.
No other comparable section, I should have said. I can imagine barristers and solicitors having to go to court each year to have it decided by the district justice whether they were fit and proper persons to plead in court or not.
They have a tougher body to answer to than the district justice.
There would be a great row in the legal profession of this country if the Minister attempted to bring in such legislation. I could imagine Deputy Costello and Deputy O'Connor taking off their coats to fight the Minister on that point. Once they are licensed, they are licensed for ever. Auctioneers are not such a dangerous section to the community. They are very small in number, not more than 300 or 400.
We have nearly 600 in the association alone and they are not all in the association, thank God.
That may be, but I would ask the Minister to consider the matter, and I hope he will accept the amendment.
If the Minister would give the auctioneers the same type of body to protect them and to protect the public as the solicitors and the barristers have, we would not be arguing here.
The public have been let in for things by solicitors and barristers.
I have no brief for either solicitors or barristers, but I do know, as a layman, that they have two very severe bodies to answer to and if any solicitor or barrister steps over the line, and if that is reported to the Bar Association or the Incorporated Law Society, he will be made toe the line very quickly. I have seen more than one example of that and perhaps it is the most effective machine that could be devised, far more effective and more practicable, perhaps, than the court itself, from the point of view of the public. My only regret is that we could not get something similar from the Minister in relation to this Bill. There is no use in talking about that now. Deputy Allen quite rightly talks about the protection of the public. He seems to imply that unless the deposit is touched in the course of the year we must assume that the auctioneer and everything he did was above board. It does not follow at all.
For example?
I could give the Deputy, not one example, but dozens of examples of what is happening in this city in the case of so-called auctioneers and house agents every day in the week, to the detriment of the public and which could not be brought into court and in respect of which they could be nailed on their deposit. It is to provide against some of that kind of thing that is going on and that has gone on, and some of which has found its way into the courts, that this Bill is before the House at the moment. I or any member of the Auctioneers' Association am no more anxious than Deputy Allen is to have to go to the trouble and expense of going into court every year and applying for a licence, and running the risk of forgetting all about it. However, does the Deputy not agree with me that one of the most effective safeguards in the Bill is the fact that any person who feels he has been victimised or treated unfairly or that an auctioneer has done something wrong, has a right to lodge a complaint and substantiate it with the Garda Síochána in the district, or that he himself can go into court and object before the district justice and give a reason for it? Then the district justice has discretion, judging the weight of evidence on the application, either from a private individual or from a member of the Garda Síochána, to renew or refuse to renew the licence. On the other hand, if a person who is practising as a house agent or an auctioneer reels there is no need to apply for a renewal, it is possible that he may not be so careful or so scrupulous.
In this case, the Opposition is on my side, and with very good reason, too. This is a most important provision. As Deputy Morrissey very clearly pointed out, a person who might be inclined to be careless will have to be more careful. The vast bulk of the auctioneers will find this provision only a matter of form and for them it would not be necessary at all. This is to cover those who may not be all right and who may be a bit shaky. They are the people we want to make sure of. Therefore, this provision, with that in the next amendment, is necessary. As Deputy Costellor told Deputy Allen, there are several other classes of citizens who have to go annually to renew their licences in the same way as is proposed in this Bill.
Before withdrawing the amendment I would like to say that, in the case of any section of people who have to apply for a licence, if everything they do against the codes and rules is to be put up against them — you can displease and disoblige people in a hundred and one ways — then you are looking for trouble.
That point also occurred to us and the Minister has met it by bringing in an amendment, that the person objecting must give at least seven days' clear notice to the court and to the applicant. As the Bill stood before that, there was no necessity to give any notice. A person could simply walk into court on the morning of the application and make an objection there and then, without the applicant having had prior notice. That is covered now in amendment No. 11.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (4), line 35, to insert after the words "Garda Síochána" the words "not below the rank of Inspector".
I agreed to this on the Second Reading.
I move amendment No. 11:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) An objection to an application for a certificate of qualification shall not be entertained by the court unless the intending objector has, at least seven days before the hearing of the application, given notice in writing of the grounds of his objection to the applicant and the district court clerk.
This is the amendment to which Deputy Morrissey has referred. I think it meets the point that anyone might go in and object without giving any notice.
The court will not bring the applicant back a second time? Suppose the evidence came in late, might the case be adjourned?
The objection has to be made seven days before.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In paragraph (b), line 51, after the word "bankrupt" to insert the words "or arranging debtor".
I think this provision is necessary.
I move amendment No. 13:—
Before paragraph (c) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
( ) that the applicant is under the age of 21 years.
This is to prevent application by a minor.
I move amendment No. 14:—
To add at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—
(f) If the applicant has not been permanently resident in Ireland for a period of five years prior to the date of the application.
The object of this amendment is to prevent auctioneers coming in from outside the country, particularly Great Britain, and setting up as auctioneers here. There is no national or residential qualification in the Bill. In other professions, an apprenticeship is necessary and if that were so for an auctioneer I would not be proposing this amendment. I suggest to the Minister that it is undesirable to leave it open to any auctioneer from England, who thinks it might be good business, to come over here and apply for a licence and start right away. We ought to keep to our auctioneers the right that only people residing here for five years may start up in opposition to them.
I do not think there is a good case for that. There might be reciprocal treatment of our nationals going to England. A person setting up as an auctioneer now has to get a certificate from the court. If we introduced the qualification proposed now, it might have repercussions and there might be restrictions on doctors and engineers. If we were to allow people to come in and start without giving an account of themselves, it would be a different matter, but as it is they must go to the court and get a certificate, so there is a safeguard.
One of the things could be a provision that the applicant must have some experience of the business of an auctioneer. I do not think it is desirable that any person over 21 may go in and ask for a licence, without having any experience of the work.
That is a different matter altogether.
While I can see some force in the Minister's objection, I think there is a very good case to be made for the amendment or something like it. The Minister is probably aware of what has been happening, even in the last couple of years. To some extent, the Bill has stopped some of the type of business for which those people were brought across here. There are some things happening that one knows about but cannot prove and that one does not like to talk about in public. There is room for a tightening in many directions that may not be possible, even when this Bill becomes law. If the Minister cannot accept Deputy O'Connor's amendment in its present form, he might look into the matter between now and the Final Stage to see if he can get some form of words which will safeguard the position, at least to some extent.
As the amendment stands, it would apply to a person who was ordinarily a resident here but who had been away for five years. Surely Deputy O'Connor is not serious about that?
The Minister may look into it and see if he can find a suitable form of words.
Generally speaking, the Government is not inclined to legislate in that way, for the reason I have given. If other people were to take it up—I do not say they would—it might have repercussions on us. I will look into the matter, but I could not accept the amendment as it stands, as a man born here and living here all his life, but away for five years, would be excluded.
It does not exclude those born here.
Well, in the way it is down here it would not do at all. I will look into the matter, but I regard it as a principle which is a bit dangerous.
On the section, the reasons for disqualification are not made mandatory. The section says that "an application may be refused on any of the following grounds". I suggest that the provisions should be made more mandatory than that. As the section is, it would be open to the district justice to give a certificate, if he thought fit, to a person under 21 years or to a bankrupt or an arranging debtor. I think that that is leaving too much to the discretion of the district justice and that the provision should be made mandatory.
We have heard a great deal of discussion from time to time about the difference between "may" and "shall". A certain amount of discretion must be left to the district justice and I think that the safest course is to leave him free to decide on the merits of the application.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In paragraph (d) (ii), line 27, to delete the words "accountant of the Courts of Justice" and substitute the words "President of the High Court".
This change has been suggested by the President of the High Court.
Did the Minister say that the amendment was introduced on the suggestion of the President of the High Court?
Yes.
Suppose an insurance company does not pay or wishes to repudiate liability on some ground and one of these bonds has to be put in suit, will it not be rather an extraordinary thing to see a suit in court between the insurance company and the President of the High Court? A similar position might arise in the case of arbitration proceedings. When the Minister mentioned that the President of the High Court had suggested the change, I hesitated to speak lest it should warrant any inference that the suggestion of the learned President was not correct. Before the Minister had mentioned the President of the High Court, I had intended to direct his attention to the position which would arise under the amendment. I do not think that it would be a proper thing to have the President of the High Court suing an insurance company in his own court.
Perhaps I had better withdraw the amendment for further consideration.
The President may have intended to have the bond signed in the same way as an administration bond.
The best course is, I think, to withdraw the amendment for further consideration.
On the section, I should like to direct the Minister's attention to a matter which I have been asked to mention. It arises on the paragraph which we have been discussing—paragraph (d) (ii). The deposit required can be made either in cash or by means of a bond guaranteed by an insurance company. It has been suggested that the paragraph as drafted is so wide that an insurance company would hesitate to give a bond. Auctioneers who had not the actual cash available might, in that way, be placed in a difficulty. According to this paragraph, the insurance company will have to guarantee
"the due performance by the depositor of the obligations incurred by him as a licensed auctioneer or licensed house agent in relation to the receipt and payment of money and the safe custody of property."
The words "safe custody of property" appear to those who asked me to mention the matter so wide that they would hesitate to give a bond for that amount. I ask the Minister to ascertain if the words "safe custody of property" are necessary or whether some other form of words could not be introduced. I do not know whether or not these words are used in relation to the purposes for which the £2,000 is to be guaranteed. I can see the point of the matter. Auctioneers are entrusted with moneys from time to time and it is essential that there should be some security to the owners of those moneys that they be forthcoming or that the deposit be available to meet them. At the same time, the words "safe custody of property" may be too wide. The view of the people who asked me to mention it is that representative insurance companies are afraid of the words. Perhaps the Minister will have the matter examined.
I move amendment No. 16:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) (a) Judgments, orders and decrees mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section shall be a first and paramount charge against the deposit and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, be payable out of the deposit in priority to any other claim against the defendant.
(b) All such judgments, orders or decrees shall rank in equal priority and shall abate rateably in the event of the deposit not being sufficient to satisfy them in full.
The object of this amendment is to make it quite definite that the deposit shall be available, in the first instance, to any people who have claims against the auctioneer arising out of anything done in the course of his business. In Section 14 the only thing laid down in connection with the deposit was that it should be under the control of the High Court. If the Bill were allowed to remain in its present form, it is possible—I am not quite sure about it —that other debts might be payable out of the deposit and that there would be the same rule of law in regard to priorities as there is in regard to insolvent estates. If I am right in that view, claims for such things as arrears of income-tax would be payable out of the deposit in priority to a claim by a person dealing with the auctioneer in his business. The same thing would apply in the case of claims for rates. The amendment I suggest may not be in the best form. I did not spend much time over it, but I think that some such provision should be inserted so as to make definite the rights of the different people who might be making claims against those deposits.
I suppose that this is intended to deal with the case of an auctioneer going bankrupt. I think that it is better to let the court deal with matters of that kind.
I do not think that the court will decide, under the section as it stands, in any other way than Deputy O'Connor has suggested. I think that the Minister should take a decision on the question of principle as to whether he wishes those judgments to be a first charge on the deposit. There is some substance in what Deputy O'Connor has said and I do not think that it should be left to the court to interpret the section. The matter having been brought to the attention of the Minister, he should take a decision one way or the other.
I will look into the whole matter again.
Surely it is not suggested that this money could be attached to satisfy ordinary debts? If money at the disposal of the court could be used in that way, it would be a great injustice.
I think that the sole object of this deposit is to safeguard and protect, as far as possible, the person who entrusts property or money to an auctioneer. It was never meant that this deposit of £2,000 should become available to meet ordinary debts. I do not think that was ever the Minister's intention or the intention of anybody else.
I do not think that, while the deposit remained with the Accountant General, it could be attached for ordinary debts. But, supposing an auctioneer goes bankrupt and ceases to be entitled to carry on his business, he would be entitled to get it back, and it is at that stage, I think, the creditors would come down on it.
The best thing to do, I think, is to withdraw the amendment, and I will have the matter looked into.
On the section, I would be glad if the Minister would look into the wording of paragraph (a), sub-section (2), which makes provision for a waiting period of 56 days. I think that period is altogether too long, and that 28 days should be sufficient.
Sometimes court proceedings are rather slow, and the object of the paragraph is to give plenty of time.
There are no court proceedings so far as this is concerned.
There might be. I thought that 56 days was a fair period of time to allow. The Deputy wants 28 days. I think the provision in the Bill is reasonable and fair.
I move amendment No. 17:—
To delete sub-section (2), lines 38 to 42, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(2) Where an appeal is brought against a conviction or sentence for an offence to which sub-section (1) of this section applies, the court hearing the appeal shall have the jurisdiction conferred by that sub-section on the court by which the offender was tried and shall have jurisdiction to confirm, annul or vary any cancellation, suspension or disqualification imposed under that sub-section.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (1) to delete all words after the word "permit" in line 50 to the end of the sub-section and to substitute the following words "or shall produce to the said officer within seven days an auctioneer's licence or auction permit under which he was authorised to conduct the auction."
The section as it stands is very harsh. If a person fails to produce an auctioneer's licence or is unable to pay £10 he will run the risk of being arrested summarily by a Guard. At the time he may not have 10d. in his pocket.
I am proposing to delete that provision. The point is that amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 all hang together. I think that my amendment No. 20 meets the Deputy's two amendments, Nos. 18 and 19.
This power of arrest in the section is taken word for word from an Act that was passed in 1845. We have made a lot of progress since then. The offence set out in the 1845 Act was a revenue offence. The object was to collect revenue for the Crown. There is no such provision as this in any of our recent legislation. Suppose, for example, the driver of a motor car or a hawker fails to produce his licence, he is not liable to any penalty such as that laid down here. I do not think there is any need for this provision. We know, of course, that 102 years ago the revenue authorities of that time were very careful about the King's revenues, and that very big offences against the revenue were punishable by death. We have progressed a lot since then. There is no necessity for this provision, and I think it should be sufficient, as I am providing in my amendment, if the licence is produced within seven days.
I am prepared to accept the Deputy's two amendments in principle. I will bring in something on Report to meet them.
I move amendment No. 20:—
To delete sub-section (4).
I move amendment No. 21:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
The provisions of this section shall not apply where the auction being held was "advertised" by printed posters previously displayed in the area or in any daily or provincial newspaper circulating in the area.
It is self-explanatory. It would be very difficult on many occasions for an auctioneer, in the fields or elsewhere, to display a notice. The words are taken from an old Act. I suggest that my amendment meets all requirements. If an auctioneer has already advertised in a daily or a local newspaper there should be no necessity for him to display any further notice. There are times when he cannot do it, and I do not want anything in this legislation that is not capable of being carried out on all occasions.
I suppose once it is advertised it is all right. I am prepared to accept the principle of the amendment. The general practice is to have it advertised by posters and in the Press.
Deputy Allen is quite right. There are many occasions in rural areas where it is not possible to do as the section suggests.
I am accepting the amendment in principle, but it may require re-drafting.
I move amendment No. 22:—
To insert after Section 23 a new section as follows:—
24.—(1) Whenever an application for a certificate of qualification in respect of a particular business is refused and an appeal to the Circuit Court is lodged, the Revenue Commissioners may, without payment of excise duty, issue to the applicant a temporary licence to carry on that business under the names specified in the licence.
(2) A temporary licence may be issued only in the following circumstances:—
(a) in the case of an application made before the operative date, that, at the date of the application, the applicant is, and has been during the preceding 12 months, the holder of—
(i) if the business concerned is that of auctioneer, a licence under the Auctioneers Act, 1845, or
(ii) if it is that of house agent, a licence granted under Section 11 of the Revenue (No. 1) Act, 1861;
(b) in any other case, that the applicant is, at the time of making the application the holder of—
(i) if the business concerned is that of auctioneer, an auctioneer's licence,
(ii) if it is that of house agent, a house agent's licence;
(c) that the applicant produces to the Revenue Commissioners a certificate of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice granted not more than 28 days previously that the applicant maintains in the High Court a deposit and, where the deposit is a guarantee bond, that it covers the whole period for which the licence is to be granted.
(3) A temporary licence shall—
(a) specify the name under which the licensee is authorised to carry on business,
(b) commence on the date specified in that behalf therein,
(c) continue in force for such period, not extending beyond the expiration of seven days after the decision of the appeal, as the Revenue Commissioners may think fit, and
(d) be subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose.
(4) A temporary licence to carry on the business of auctioneer shall authorise one named individual (being either the licensee or some individual nominated by him) to conduct auctions on behalf of the licensee.
(5) The Revenue Commissioners shall, at the request of a licensee, cancel his temporary licence.
(6) A temporary licence, while it remains in force, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be—
(a) if it is a licence to carry on the business of auctioneer, a licence under Section 8 of this Act, and
(b) if it is a licence to carry on the business of house agent, a licence under Section 10 of this Act.
New section agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In lieu of the columns at present contained in the Schedule, to insert the following:—
|
Session and Chapter |
Short title |
Extent of Repeal |
|
8 & 9 Vic., c. 15. |
Auctioneers Act, 1845. |
The whole Act. |
|
24 & 25 Vic., c. 21. |
Revenue (No. 1) Act, 1861. |
Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13. |
|
27 & 28 Vic., c. 56. |
Revenue (No. 2) Act, 1864. |
Section 14. |
|
33 & 34 Vic., c. 32. |
Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1870. |
Section 5. |
