The amendments to this Bill have already been ruled out of order.
Committee on Finance. - Auctioneers and House Agents Bill, 1973 [Seanad]: Committee and Final Stages.
I received a letter— the Ceann Comhairle might want to take the Chair before I proceed— from the Ceann Comhairle today indicating that the amendments proposed by Deputy Barrett and by me had been ruled out of order on the basis that they did not refer specifically to the two items dealt with in this particular Bill. I accept, of course, the Ceann Comhairle's ruling that the amendments to the proposals contained in sections 2 and 3 were not related to the actual sections. I think, however, that the Ceann Comhairle will accept that during the Second Stage debate we indicated to the Minister for Justice that we would be bringing forward amendments to restructure, as it were, the whole area of auctioneering. Having given that undertaking, we come before the House on Committee Stage and we are told that, despite our best efforts, our amendments are out of order. Members here have read these far-reaching amendments. They relate to the establishment of a board and the legal ramifications involved in the setting up of such a board. They also relate to educational courses and proper control of entry to auctioneering generally and other related matters.
During the course of the Second Stage debate the Minister said, at column 108 of the Official Report of 17th October, 1973:
Deputy Andrews put his finger on one problem, the resources available in the Department to do the preliminary spadework. I do not concede that this would be the sole task of the Department of Justice. The auctioneering profession should be involved in this and possibly do the bulk of the work.
In fact, the Fianna Fáil Party have done the bulk of the work for the Department of Justice and the Minister. I accept that they are not in order in the context of what is before us at the moment. I ask the Minister to support me in the very near future when, with your permission, Sir, and his co-operation, we reformulate these amendments into a Private Members' Bill, thus indicating the desire of this House to bring about a proper structure of auctioneering.
It is not my intention to hold up the progress of the Bill. The proposals in section 2 and 3 are socially desirable. I expressed myself at considerable length in relation to them on the Second Stage. I would ask the Minister—I would not put it as bluntly as to make a commitment to the only Opposition party in this House—to give us his support when we propose that these amendments be contained in a Private Member's Bill. Time allowing and with your permission, Sir, we propose to introduce this Private Members' Bill during this Dáil session.
We have heard the statement from Deputy Andrews in respect of the amendments put down in his name and from Deputy Barrett indicating that they were out of order. Deputy Andrews has the privilege, as he said, of introducing a Private Members' Bill.
On the Report and Final Stages perhaps I would be permitted to answer some of the points made by Deputy Andrews in agreeing that his amendments were out of order. It would be in order for me at that stage to comment on what he has said because some of his statements require comment.
Very well. We are now in Committee.
Section 1 agreed.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 provides that any fees paid in error or on foot of a contract containing an enforceable clause may be recoverable as a simple contract debt. This is the kernel of the Bill. It shifts the liability from the purchaser to the vendor.
We have expressed ourselves at considerable length on the Second Stage, having regard to the fact that this is an extremely short Bill. An Opposition party, when dealing with legislation it proposed while in Government, finds it very difficult to make any specific comment except that this is a proper section. This legislation is before the House with the compliments of the former Fianna Fáil Government.
Deputy O'Malley should take the credit.
I am glad the Minister is allowing me to do that.
This section is, in effect, the Bill. The other sections cover peripheral matters. By passing this section into law—I think I am correct in saying this—we will bring our law into line with virtually every other country. It was a cause of astonishment to those who came from other countries to find that the position was as it is at the moment. There appeared to visitors to be no justification for the existing situation. When I examined it there appeared to me to be no justification either.
Last July I was very glad to receive a letter from the Irish Auctioneers' and Valuers' Institute in which they stated specifically that their institute had no objection to the proposal in section 2 to make the vendor liable for fees or to the increase in the bond in section 3. The bond, of course, is a less important matter. What is of consequence here is the fact that the man who employs an auctioneer should be liable in all equity and justice to pay him. I could never see why it should be otherwise.
Apart from a small number of sales which were sold under the hammer by public auction, in Dublin the vendor, as the employer of the auctioneer, always paid him. It seemed reasonable that that should be so. Therefore I was distressed to note the reaction of auctioneers elsewhere to this proposal. The strength of their objection was unjustified because I could not see anything, in principle, which was wrong with this section. I see a great deal which is wrong, in principle, with the existing situation so far as sales outside Dublin are concerned. I am glad the Irish Auctioneers' and Valuers' Institute, as the premier of the two auctioneers organisations which exist at the moment, have supported the principle of this Bill.
On the 26th November, 1970, at a dinner of the Irish Auctioneers' Association, as it then was, I suggested that certain changes be made so far as fees to auctioneers were concerned. I felt that that situation could not continue indefinitely. There was a hostile public reception by auctioneers to my remarks on that occasion. I was heartened by the fact that a great many auctioneers then and a week or two following approached me and told me that privately they agreed fully with me and that the situation would have to be changed but that publicly they would have to take up a different attitude.
I suggested in the speech I made at that time that there were a number of alternative possibilities to the present situation, which I felt would have to be changed anyway. One of the alternatives which I posed was that which is now contained in section 2. Another of the alternatives which I posed was a sliding scale of fees, because, particularly in an inflationary situation, it is very difficult to justify a scale of fees which has the same scale for some very small sale such as £500 or £1,000 or £2,000 as it has for a very large sale such as £100,000, £150,000 or £200,000. Sales of that sort are not uncommon nowadays. It is indicative of the prosperity which exists among the agricultural community today, as a result of our accession to the EEC, that land and farms should have reached this value within the last 12 or 18 months.
The imposition, I always felt, that was made on the man who was always the weaker of the two, as between vendor and purchaser, the imposition that was made on the purchaser, was an onerous one; because apart from having to pay 5 per cent of the fees to an auctioneer he also had to pay the stamp duty and legal costs. In addition, if the sale was one of registered land, he had to pay land registry fees. These can be fairly substantial nowadays unfortunately and they are very much a factor in the cost of property.
I felt that the situation had to be changed and I posed more than one alternative as a possible means of changing it. I suggested at the time that the more satisfactory way to make that change would be for the auctioneers themselves voluntarily to do it. I said I felt that if it were not done voluntarily, by agreement among themselves, the day would come when it would be done by legislation, possibly without the consent of all of them and possibly without the agreement of all of them. Unfortunately over the period of somewhat over two years that intervened between the time I made that speech in November, 1970, and the beginning of this year nothing was done by auctioneers themselves in this regard. I felt at the end of last year, December 1972, that ample opportunity had been given for the position to have been rectified and that opportunity appeared not to have been availed of. I felt the time had come for legislation and I instructed that a Bill be drawn up on the lines of section 2 of this Bill. That was drafted and approved by the former Government at my request in February or March of 1973 before we went out of office. I am grateful to the present Minister that he has not let this Bill dally, that he has brought it forward. I believe that, like myself, he sees the social need for this Bill and that he is as anxious as I am to see it enacted as soon as is reasonably possible. I deliberately excluded from the operations of this section, at the time that I was having it drafted, the sale of personal chattels. Personal chattels include just about everything other than land or houses. They include furniture and also livestock—cattle, horses and so on. Quite clearly the profit margin from sales of chattels such as that is a good deal less for auctioneers than the very considerable profits that are to be derived from the sale of house property or land. It is only fair that it should be possible for them to charge a purchaser fees in relation to these personal chattels as well as the vendor, which I understand is the position in regard to a certain amount of these chattels at any rate at present.
The Minister I note added to the draft, as it was when I left it, a specific power to recover as a simple contract debt any payment of fees which was made in contravention of this section or without knowledge of this section. I am glad he did that. It may be debatable as to whether it was necessary to do it because I think it would have necessarily followed in any event, but in so far as it makes the position perfectly clear it is worthwhile.
I do not think anybody, even those who are directly involved, can have any legitimate complaint about the principle enshrined in this section, namely, that the man who employs somebody to do a job for him should pay that person. The position we have had up to now is that somebody else, who did not employ the auctioneer, has for the most part had to pay him. That does not operate in any other country. We are only bringing ourselves into line with the practice in other countries and indeed bringing ourselves into line with reality, with common sense and with fairness.
I do not believe any worthwhile auctioneer will be affected by this Bill. If they would be, there would be no worthwhile auctioneers in the city of Dublin at the moment because most sales in the city of Dublin at present are affected by private treaty. There may be occasional spectacular sales by public auction which get a good deal of publicity, but the great bulk of sales are by private auction. There are many reputable, well-established auctioneers in the city of Dublin who make an excellent living from their profession. They have not been affected by the principle which is enshrined in this Bill and which has applied to them for the most part for many years.
I asked the Minister for Finance in the House before the Summer Recess for figures relating to the number of auctioneers licences issued in each of the last five years. Unfortunately I have mislaid the reply and I cannot quote precise figures, but there was a very significant increase over the past five years in the number of auctioneers' licences. I do not think that very large increase, which came, I think, to possibly 600 or 700 over that period, was in the interests of bona fide auctioneers as a whole. I think you had many people recently coming into the profession because they suddenly discovered that there was an enormous amount of money to be made out of one or two sales and that the outlay involved was very little indeed. I believe this Bill, and this section in particular, will frighten off such people. Those sort of people will not bother in future to take out licences; and those who have in the past few years taken out licences with that in mind are now giving them up because it will be no longer worth their while.
In many cases the licence was taken out by somebody whose brother, father, cousin or friend was about to sell a substantial property, and because the vendor did not have to pay anything and the purchaser had to pay everything, it was well worth the time of somebody who felt he could very briefly turn his hand to auctioneering, to take out a licence to sell that one property. The amount of money was considerable because substantial farms worth £100,000 are not uncommon in this country in EEC and inflationary conditions. Therefore, the man who took out a licence for one auction could do so at a cost not exceeding £50, but his income from that one sale alone would be £5,000. The amount of work was not great and the profit was £4,950, or, perhaps, a little less if the advertising had not been paid for by the vendor. It was an attractive proposition financially for anybody who thought he could get a sale to apply to the courts for a licence. Of course, he is entitled to a licence as long as he is a person of good character, financially solvent and so on.
Bona fide, established and reputable auctioneers will welcome a section such as this which seeks to put an end to that unsatisfactory situation. It was unsatisfactory, I would suggest, not just for the general public, but you had people taking out licences for one, two or three sales and it must have been unsatisfactory for bona fide auctioneers who were well established and who had heavy commitments, who operated offices with staffs and who had other overheads as well as having to pay wages and so on. Therefore, if the tendency in the past few years of a very sharp increase in the number of licensed auctioneers were to turn about the other way in the next few years, as I venture to think it might as a result of this section, it would be very desirable not only from the point of view of the public generally but from the point of view of auctioneers who give a genuine service to the people of this country.
There is not anything further I want to say in relation to this section except to end on this note. Because I conceived the section, as it were, and because I made the speech I did in November, 1970, allegations have been made against me, publicly and privately—not so much against me personally as against the profession which the Minister and I and others here practice now and again——
The Minister is not practising, surely.
I did not say he is. He is not now and I will not be next year.
Hope springs eternal.
I want to make it perfectly clear so that the allegation that is distressingly frequently made will be nailed once and forever, that whether there is an auctioneer involved in a sale or not, the fees which a solicitor, or barrister for that matter if he is engaged in a title issue, gets will not be affected. This Bill has no bearing whatever, good, bad or indifferent, on legal fees of solicitors or barristers. Speaking as a practising solicitor of some experience, I would say it is very much easier from the solicitor's viewpoint to have an auctioneer involved in a sale. If there is not an auctioneer involved and if it is the kind of sale that needs a lot of time to negotiate, an awful lot of time is spent by the solicitor in that negotiation. It is not a matter he wants to get involved in but if he does the negotiating, he does not get anything more than he would get if he were not involved in the negotiating. The ideal situation would be that an auctioneer would walk into a solicitor with his client and say to the solicitor: "Would you draw up a contract?" It is much easier and the remuneration, which is a fraction of 1 per cent for the most part——
The Deputy is joking.
Out of which he usually has to pay the barrister without making the client responsible.
The richest body of men in the country are the solicitors. There is no doubt about it.
Deputy O'Malley, without interruption.
It is the first time I have ever been heckled from behind in this House, whichever side of it I have been in.
We will look after the Deputy.
My efforts to make the situation perfectly clear in regard to solicitors may fall on some deaf ears but I hope that all ears which hear me will not be deaf—that the situation is that irrespective of whether an auctioneer is involved or not, the remuneration is the same. I am glad to commend this section to the House. It is one which is long overdue in this country and it is one with which I am very glad to have been associated in bringing it before the Government, at least, if not formally before this House.
I speak on this not just as a Member of the House but also as a practising auctioneer and estate agent. That is how I make my living outside this House. I accept fully the principle contained in section 2 that a man who employs another to provide a service should pay for that service. This is something that should be extended not just to auctioneers and house agents but to every other section of the business community.
Hear, hear.
I have one regret about this Bill and that is that it looks at just one small section of a rapidly expanding business, just at auctioneers and house agents, when there should be some all-embracing legislation introduced which would examine and recommend an arrangement of ordered business practices not only in auctioneering but in advertising, in the sale of goods, in deceptive trade practices and in matters affecting the legal profession. I do not wish to engage in a slanging match with the Minister but he has looked at one small section of a large business which, in turn, is only one small section of the overall business community of this country.
But a terribly vital part of it.
I would fully agree. I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to carry on the proposals made by his predecessor. At this stage I would ask him, after this legislation has passed through the House, to have his advisers consider some legislation in order to do away with the myths——
I hesitate to interrupt Deputy Burke but he seems to be embarking on a Second Reading speech rather than referring his remarks, as well as he can, to section 2 which is under discussion at present.
I will try to keep to section 2. Section 2 refers to the principle of transferring expenses from the purchaser to the vendor. I agree fully with this section. Section 2 is concerned with the fee structure. The fee structure should be examined, as suggested by the Minister, in the light of section 2. The only fair way of examining such structure is by the setting up of a board as was suggested, although it was ruled out by the Ceann Comhairle: The Minister accepted it in principle.
I had hoped that the Deputy would not follow this line of debate. I have already admonished him. It is not in order.
For information——
Does the Deputy wish to speak on a point of order?
Why did the Ceann Comhairle make the ruling which he has made? I would say that Deputy R.P. Burke's remark is pertinent to this section.
When we come to deal with a later section the Deputy will be in order. We have already had a brief discussion of the amendments which have been ruled out of order. We can refer to it again when we come to section 4.
The amendments may have been ruled out of order because of the fact that they did not comply exactly with Standing Orders. Does that mean that we are debarred from discussing them even in relation to the relevant section?
Yes. We cannot discuss them at this juncture. Deputy Andrews has already intimated his intention of introducing his own Bill on that matter.
I accept the Ceann Comhairle's ruling on that. Section 2 deals with fees and the transferring of fees from A to B. A previous speaker mentioned the sliding scales and the fees in the legal profession.
On Second Stage, did we not agree in this House that there was no legal sanction for the present scale? It is a matter for the profession to arrange what the public will accept.
I am grateful for the Deputy's help but I would like to carry on in my own way. I accept the fact that changes had to be made in the auctioneers' and house agents' fees but I also suggest that the Minister should not have looked at one small section of a large part of the business life of this community. He should have looked at the overall question. The main problem in the House is not the transfer of fees from A to B but the ordering and regular-small section of a large part of the business community. We have suggested the establishment of a board which would have as its main aim——
The Deputy is seeking to circumvent the ruling of the Chair in this matter. He is completely out of order.
The main aim of the board would be the regularising of fees.
They can still do it themselves without an Act.
An auctioneer can charge only a half per cent if he wants to.
I thank the Deputy and the Minister for their help. The Minister should not have looked at one small section of the rapidly expanding business but should have looked also at the overall problem —the organisation of the business and the fees. This section concerns fees. If the Minister will agree—as he did agree —that after the passing of this Bill he would immediately prepare a further Bill which would organise the fees and the general practices within the profession—and the way to do this is by the appointment of a board——
Please, Deputy, please——
Am I allowed to speak on section 4?
I have explained my ruling on section 4. Amendments have been ruled out of order.
The atmosphere has been so pleasant and cordial that I would not like to say anything to upset it. I readily concede to the party opposite that they had this idea. I do not concede it was an idea which was in any way exclusive to them. I give them credit for it. In this life it is quite simple to have an idea. The important thing is to translate the idea into action. As Deputy O'Malley in his useful contribution indicated, the need for this change first became public following his speech to the auctioneering profession in November, 1970. Here we are in 1973 and it is this Government which have the privilege of bringing in this Bill, in other words, translating the good idea into action. This is the significant point on this occasion.
It would be relevant for me to comment on the point made by Deputy O'Malley in regard to the practice which this section seeks to change. The Deputy was quite correct when he said that the practice whereby the purchaser has to bear the fees of the auctioneer is unique to Ireland.
The Deputy might also have commented that the standard rate, while it is not the legal rate, of 5 per cent, with the exception of the rate payable in parts of France, is the highest rate in Europe. This is a matter which is being examined by the National Prices Commission. The fixing of the actual rates is not a matter for this Bill, or for me at all. It is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and is having his attention.
At this stage the Prices Commission inquiry is irrelevant. This Bill will change the whole picture.
It will be very relevant because auctioneers will still seek to charge a flat 5 per cent. I have no doubt that the prices commission will find that particular practice needs examining. As Deputy O'Malley has indicated, the auctioneers themselves feel in some cases that this flat rate is not justified. In other cases it might not be sufficient. I hope that the Prices Commission in their investigation will balance one situation against the other and come up with a scale which is equitable to the profession and to the public.
This is a matter for another Department. This Bill is only concerned with the shifting of liability. On a point of correction, Deputy R. P. Burke said that I accepted in principle the setting up of a board. I did not. I want to make that clear. We will go into that in more detail because, as I understand it, he will raise this question of a board at a later stage in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I do not want to repeat the debate we had on Second Reading in the course of which I gave my reasons for arriving at a figure of £10,000. This was not a logically satisfactory figure, but it was a fair compromise in the difficulty at that time. Possibly the situation pertaining to the solicitors' profession would be the ideal one and would give absolute protection to the public. It is proper to point out that in the last five years there have been no claims against bonds of auctioneers. This is the highest tribute that can be paid to the profession. I would like to pay that tribute publicly. The auctioneers have indicated that they think £10,000 is, perhaps, small. It is not at their suggestion that I have put in that figure. It is the figure which I personally prefer. I think it is adequate, but no more than that. It represents a properly proportionate increase to the previous figure. For that reason it was decided on.
The Minister suggested that some Deputies had made their first contribution on Committee Stage. Consequently, I did not address myself at any great length to section 2 on the basis that I did so at considerable length on Second Reading. I do not intend to detain the House long on section 3 except to make the point that there were suggestions in our talks with a particular auctioneering group that the amount of the bond of £10,000 was not sufficient. The suggestion of £20,000 arose but the Minister introduced what can be described as a fair compromise which is acceptable to us. On the question of a bond relating to a particular auctioneer, Deputy Barrett and I suggested on Second Reading that in the context of a restructuring of the whole auctioneering trade or profession the idea of a common compensation fund might be considered. We could certainly support that.
We also said on Second Reading that in the past five years, as an indication of the integrity of auctioneers in general, no claim had been made against the compensation fund. That is a fact which cannot be refuted. There seems to be a sophisticated sense of doubt about the auctioneering profession but if it can be said in this House that no claims have been made against an auctioneer's bond in the past five years, at least it indicates a sense of integrity pervading the profession. We unhesitatingly support section 3.
I should also like to support section 3 which increases the bond to £10,000. I am also glad that it was noted on both sides of the House that it was never necessary to make any claim on the old bond. For the past five years there was no claim against the old bond for misappropriation by any auctioneer of a client's funds. This is praiseworthy and represents a very satisfactory situation. I see no objection to the increase to £10,000 because if the past record is continued there will never be a claim. It is also noteworthy that the premium charged by insurance companies for this bond is, by current insurance standards, quite a reasonable figure and is only reasonable on the basis of lack of claims. It is well that this fact be noted, that the much maligned auctioneers and house agents have not in the past five years given cause for any client to claim against the bond. My personal view is that the bond should be increased somewhat so as to try to control the number of people coming into the business. The low insurance premium for people coming into the business is but one facet of the matter but if the figure was higher than £10,000 it would probably reduce the massive increase in numbers entering the business.
What is the going rate for this bond?
I think it is in the region of £30 to £35.
From £30 to £40.
Around that. Earlier, Deputy O'Malley spoke of the number of people coming into the auctioneering business. It was suggested that this was due to the very high profits being made but I suggest the main reason is the widespread belief that provision would be introduced in legislation which would limit the number of licences issued. It was thought that if an individual had a licence prior to this limitation, the licence, like pub licences, would become valuable. I think that is the main reason for the increase in licences in the last few years rather than high profits which are being made only by a very small number of large firms in Dublin and not as a general rule by the auctioneer on the corner in the country selling the odd bit of hay or letting the odd few acres. He makes just enough to get a decent living without exorbitant profit. We hear of large sales but they are the exception. I can assure the House that to my knowledge the vast majority of auctioneers and house agents are just about making a living. There are some who make substantially more, just as in every business or profession.
I support section 3 increasing the bond to £10,000 and I would even recommend that the Minister should look at this again when he introduces a board.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister's statement which is a compliment to the profession of auctioneers that no claim was made in the past five years. However, as somebody associated with one of the peripheral areas of property transactions, I should like to point out that this might be an indication that we are dealing with a sellers' market because I have no distinct recollection that the situation was otherwise prior to five years ago when there was a recession.
It is understandable if you look at the position of an estate agent or an auctioneer selling property. He can sell it as the agent for the vendor. He can take the deposit in two capacities. Depending on what the deal is like, if it is a private treaty he takes it either as an agent or a stakeholder.
It is well to bear in mind—because the public are often confused about it — that if an auctioneer or agent takes the money as a stakeholder and there is a delay on the completion of the sale, the person who takes the money as a stakeholder has the benefit of the interest on that money. When fees, commission and other matters related to the auctioneer's profession come up for discussion, that matter is somewhat relevant. This situation has arisen before where there were disputes about who was entitled to a deposit. Every lawyer dealing with a dispute about a sale has to consider the capacity in which the agent for the vendor holds the money. This has often given rise to some problems and difficulties.
There may be an unwritten guideline in the auctioneers' profession as to how the interest on the deposit held by the agent is dealt with. I know that in certain cases the benefit of the interest has been retained as the auctioneer or estate agent is entitled to do, if he wants to, as the law now stands. That might have some bearing when it comes to the matter of considering further the size of the bond in court.
If the auctioneer is the agent for the vendor, he is responsible for collecting the deposit.
Agreed. Holding it?
Unfortunately, a situation is becoming more prevalent every day where there is a sale by private treaty. The solicitor is told to send the contract on to the purchaser's solicitor and we now find that the solicitors are holding far more of the deposits than they did heretofore.
Not as stakeholders.
Yes as stakeholders. I defy contradiction on that and I can give any number of examples if the Minister wants them.
Do not criticise the Wexford solicitors.
I did not say where these solicitors were from. I want to make that position quite clear to the House because I do not want the House to get the impression that auctioneers were making a fortune out of holding deposits. Well over 90 per cent of sales are closed within one month.
They must be nice clean titles.
If you have efficient solicitors——
It means the Wexford solicitors are good.
Deputy Esmonde's future is secure. He has no problems in Wexford. That could be called advertising.
The association of which I am a member were very anxious that the Minister should increase this to £20,000. The impression is created that, because we have such an influx of people into the profession, there must be a fortune in it. I would have preferred if the Minister had not introduced this Bill until the Prices Commission had come up with their findings. The findings of the Prices Commission would have been completely relevant to this but they will be relevant no longer. That is my opinion and I do not know whether the Minister agrees with me. I may have something further to say on that later on. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on solicitors holding deposits, rather than auctioneers who are responsible for collecting them.
There is a danger that it will become a closed shop.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I had some amendments in the names of Deputy Andrews and Deputy Barrett. They have already been adverted to and they have been deemed to be out of order since they are outside the scope of this Bill.
I want to comment on your patience in allowing me to comment at considerable length at the beginning of Comittee Stage. That was very much appreciated by this side of the House.
The Deputy will appreciate that he may not argue about my decision.
I am commenting on your patience on my comments formally on the amendments when you took the Chair at about 6 o'clock. You let me address you at some considerable length on the amendments and I certainly appreciate that. Would it not be fair to make some further comments——
Not at this stage.
——on these very important amendments which seek to restructure——
The amendments have been deemed by me to be out of order. The Deputies have been so informed and they may not discuss the matter at this stage or on this Bill. The Deputy has already intimated that he proposes to introduce a separate Bill.
It is not my intention to discuss the matter. It would be my intention to advert very briefly to the matters contained in the amendments.
This is not in order. I cannot permit it.
I received a letter from you today, Sir, stating that the amendments did not come within the scope of the Bill. With great respect, it is not the first letter I received from you relating to other matters which do not come within the scope of the Oireachtas. I feel strongly, Sir, that you should allow us at least to advert to what we intended to produce if the amendments were allowed on this Bill. That is a totally reasonable proposition.
It would not be in order at all. The amendments are out of order and may not be discussed on this measure, and that must end the matter.
Having studied the amendments, I think you will accept that they are of considerable merit.
We must pass from the subject.
When I was speaking on section 2 I understood from your ruling when I attempted to mention the auctioneers' board which was suggested that I would be allowed to speak on section 4.
I merely intimated that I would announce my ruling on section 4 as is usual and customary. There was no suggestion of any debate about it.
There must have been some misunderstanding on my part.
It is in accordance with procedure.
Section 4 mentions the Auctioneers and House Agents Acts, 1947 to 1973 which will be the title of this Bill. It mentions the Auctioneers and House Agents Acts, 1947 and 1967. I would ask the Minister to bring in a further Bill immediately in accordance with the amendments which the Ceann Comhairle has ruled out of order.
It is not in order to advocate legislation.
Can I speak about section 2? I will come back to it on Report Stage.
Before we leave that point, I commented at some considerable length in my introductory remarks with your kind permission.
The Chair was gracious to the Deputy on that occasion before we formally got down to discussing the Bill.
I made the point that it would be our intention, on the basis of the Chair's refusal to accept the amendments, to enshrine them in addition to other related matters in a Private Members' Bill. Perhaps at this stage the Minister would give us some indication of how he is thinking——
The Minister has already intimated that he might wish to say something on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
The Bill is a narrow one. It was designed initially by the party opposite to do what section 2 provides, but the scope of that section has been slightly changed and the legal position with regard to money paid by the State has been clarified. In addition, we have added a clause to increase the amount of the bond.
The Bill was brought before the House as one of some social urgency and it was introduced here on that narrow base. An attempt was made to criticise the Bill during the Second Stage debates here and in the other House on the grounds that it was too narrow and that the auctioneering business required a general structuring. Some amendments were proposed to achieve this but they have been ruled out of order on the grounds that the Bill is narrowly based and that the amendments were not related to the scope of the Bill but went much further.
I indicated my sympathy with the point of view which inspired these amendments and the views expressed during the debates in the other House and here. From my own knowledge, from public representations and, more particularly, from the concern of the auctioneers themselves, I am aware of the possible need to restructure the profession. I can readily understand the disappointment that here there appeared to be a legislative opportunity to provide this restructuring but that it has been let go by.
The restructuring of a profession as complex as auctioneering is not a simple matter. I would regretfully have to say to Deputy Andrews at this stage that a Private Bill in the terms of the amendments as proposed would not be acceptable to me. He indicated that the resources of his party were brought into play to produce his amendments and will be used to produce the projected Private Members' Bill. His ideas are well intentioned but, regrettably, they are shallow. What he proposes is a restructuring of the profession but the vehicle proposed for this appears to be a lift from some other Bill, where there is a board regulating a profession. For example, I think if the Opticians Act was searched we would possibly find his amendments, word for word, in that Act.
In a submission to me the auctioneering profession indicated that, having regard to the matters that require to be studied in relation to their profession and its restructuring, it will take at least a year before the necessary legislation can be prepared. They have made preliminary submissions to me and I look forward to discussions with them from time to time. This is what I meant when I spoke on Second Stage and referred to the demands on the resources of the Department. These demands are heavy and if they can be eased by outside assistance I should be glad of that assistance and, also, assistance from the party opposite. I would expect that the assistance from the party opposite, with their experience in government, would be of depth and of such a type that they would take cognisance of all the technicalities that must be involved in the legislative changes needed to restructure the auctioneering profession.
I sympathise with the motivation behind Deputy Andrews' amendments and his proposed Private Members' Bill but I regret that at this stage I would have to indicate my intention to reject it on the grounds that it is much too shallow and does not meet the problems that exist. The Bill before us is, as agreed by all sides, necessary to meet an urgent social need. It was designed on a narrow base to meet that need, and to meet it quickly.
The Minister gives us the kiss of death with his compliment that the amendments were well-intentioned and then he states that they were shallow. I wish to reject that statement by the Minister. In our submission, this is no way to meet what we consider were a well-considered series of amendments, bona fide to this Bill. We did not look up the Opticians Act and pick out at random these particular provisions. As I understand the Opticians Act, it does not refer to auctioneers or house agents. However, the Act the Minister has read may be different from the one I have read. Incidentally, when we are proposing amendments to Bills, is there any reason why we should not look for precedents in other Acts? What is so regrettably shallow about referring to previous legislation that we consider reaches the standards and requirements of the present age? I think perhaps the Minister may reflect on his remarks with some regret. I hope he did not mean them in the sense they sounded to us. As I understand it, the Opticians Act does not refer to the establishment of an auctioneers' board——
I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude. The Deputy posed——
With respect, I must answer the Minister's allegation.
I would remind the Deputy that the Chair is speaking. The Deputy has been informed that his amendments were clearly out of order and were not relevant to the Bill. He posed a question to the Minister seeking certain information and he has received that information. He has been permitted by the Chair to comment but he may not engage in any circumstances in debating the amendments or the proposed legislation he intends to introduce.
I did not intend——
I would ask the Deputy not to try to circumvent the ruling of the Chair in the matter.
The Minister mentioned we lifted the proposed amendments——
I have allowed the Deputy to comment. I would ask him to get off the subject.
We are rejecting that allegation.
It might not have been the Opticians Act——
If the Minister can see references in the Opticians Act to the amendments here he might point out these references to us.
This might be debated at another time.
The reasons we introduced the amendments that have been ruled out of order by the Chair is that, while we absolutely and unequivocably agree with the provisions of this Bill, particularly of section 2 whereby the burden is transferred from the purchaser to the vendor, it is fair to say that it would be odd for this party to disagree with something they prepared when in Government. The reason we did not introduce this Bill is that we are not in Government to do so. Next year we may be in Government to do other matters we do not now have an opportunity of doing. That does not in any way prevent us as a responsible Opposition from supporting it, particularly the socially desirable section 2.
With regard to the amendments——
I would ask the Deputy not to debate the amendments.
We felt that here was an opportunity to introduce a far-reaching and comprehensive restructuring of the auctioneers' profession. On reflection we considered the Bill as presented to be somewhat narrow and it was totally unrealistic of the Minister to indicate on Report Stage his sympathy for our point of view. Action, and not sympathy, is what is needed and we would have appreciated it much more if our considered amendments——
I must ask Deputy Andrews to desist from any further reference to amendments.
To make one further point——
Chair.
The Deputy is welcome. This is his first contribution to this Bill.
I have been present in the House during this evening and have spoken on a previous Bill.
Congratulations.
We cannot have any further reference to what has been ruled out of order in relation to this Bill.
I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Irish Auctioneers and Valuers Institute for the assistance they gave to us in formulating our views on this Bill. I will not mention that awful word "amendment" again.
The Chair has given the Deputy a lot of latitude. What we have been saying for some time would have been more appropriate to the Fifth rather than Report Stage.
While speaking on Section 2 and when you mentioned Section 4 I thought that I would be able to speak in relation to amendments but we are not allowed to use that word. However, if I do not mention them at this stage I fear that when we reach the Fifth Stage, you may say the same.
I shall permit the Deputy to make his remarks at this stage since the same permission was granted to the Minister and to Deputy Andrews.
On his own admission the Minister told us that this is a narrowly based Bill. I welcome in particular the principle of transferring fees from the buyer to the seller. I welcome also the increase in the bonds and I would have wished for further increases. However, this is taking account of only one small sector of a very large business which at this stage is vital to the business life of this country.
I thought the Minister would have given serious consideration to and agreed with the amendments put forward by the Opposition, amendments which, in our opinion, would have rationalised this whole sphere of our business life by the appointment of a board, as suggested in our amendments.
The Deputy may not refer to amendments that are not before the House.
Before leaving the Chair, the Ceann Comhairle agreed to allow me speak on exactly the same basis as the Minister and Deputy Andrews have spoken.
I ruled Deputy Andrews out of order before leaving the Chair.
There has been a slight change in procedure since then.
I am back again.
Now I am stymied. The Minister is being too narrow in his outlook in regard to the auctioneering profession. It is essential that he would reconsider the decisions he has indicated he is prepared to make in regard to this profession. He might contemplate seriously the suggestions made during the debate and having done so, might alter his decisions.
I join with Deputy Andrews in thanking those interested parties who have professed their enthusiasm for the Bill and who, by their assistance and guidance, have helped us to debate the Bill here. These are the people who are anxious that the Minister would widen the scope of the Bill.
There are a few points I wish to raise in regard to the Bill as a whole. First, I would refer to the reason given by the Minister on the last occasion for bringing forward the Bill. On that occasion the Minister said in reply to Deputy Barrett that the reason for the Bill was that 5 per cent fee charged by auctioneers was too high. I cannot understand the Minister's thinking on this because he must be aware that most auctioneers must reduce the fee to the purchaser in respect of big sales.
We endeavoured to have accepted an amendment that would provide for the setting up of a board that would fix the rates of commission. No doubt members of the legal profession, be they senior or junior barristers, lay down the fees that are chargeable by them. This Bill is setting up a horse-trading outfit because the larger firms of auctioneers who can afford to cut fees will squeeze out the smaller firms. Indeed, this situation has been reached already.
The National Prices Commission will deal with that problem.
I was coming to that. The findings of the NPC will now be irrelevant because of the transferring of the onus to the vendor rather than to the purchaser. The Minister gave the social need as another reason for introducing this Bill but there is a far greater social need at the moment. We have the situation where a householder who has purchased an alternative house and wishes to sell his existing premises cannot obtain a loan to purchase the other house. He will also have to pay the auctioneer who sells his existing house. Such a person is losing both ways.
This Bill will not give any professional touch to the auctioneering profession in general. Had the Ceann Comhairle accepted the amendments which my party formulated, this Bill would have gone a long way to straightening out the profession and giving the auctioneers some standing. In recent times three Acts have been passed relating to the auctioneering profession but none of them gave the profession any sound footing. They were all small pieces of legislation which did nothing to improve the profession.
Had these pieces of legislation been amalgamated with the amendments proposed by my party, we would not have the position whereby the bigger firms would walk over and take over the men who are giving the service. It would not surprise me if we had a number of claims arising in the next five years because of the passing of this measure and because the Ceann Comhairle ruled our amendments out of order.
Question put and agreed to.
Question "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.