I should like the Minister to elaborate on the attitude of her Department to this section.
Occasional Trading Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The section shows the various types of sales which are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. On Second Stage all of us were agreed that all these exemptions should be allowed to remain. Section 2 (2) (a) exempts selling by auction, other than by Dutch auction. Auctioneers hold a licence under another Act and obviously they should be exempted under this Bill. Many of the exemptions are already covered by various charters or the Hawkers Act or local authority provisions. It would be wrong for us to interfere in any way with traditions. The person we are trying to get at is the fly-by-night individual who comes in, makes a quick "buck" and gets out fast. The exemptions here refer to traditional types of sales which have lasted for centuries.
On Second Stage we were in agreement with the Bill. There were some other matters which required to be dealt with in legislation but we were assured these would be dealt with in the future. I am in full agreement with the exemptions. It appears that a person must be in continuous occupation for a period of not less than three months.
Yes. One of the problems when drafting the Bill was to decide what the period of time should be. We could be getting at the legitimate trader setting up in business for the first time or moving to another premises. We felt that three months was the most suitable period. A longer period would inhibit genuine traders and a lesser period would give too much scope to the person against whom we are guarding.
What type of interest must a person have for that period? Must he be the owner or the leaseholder? A person can obtain a premises and move in goods over a period of three months in preparation for an auction in an attempt to circumvent the good intentions of the Bill. How can we ensure that this will not happen?
That would be a matter for the enforcement officers. It does not matter whether a person owns or leases a premises; he is still covered.
The words "Dutch auction" are used in subsection (2) (a). This is the first time I have seen this term used in this kind of legislation. Is there any definition of a "Dutch auction"?
Yes. A Dutch auction is an auction at which items are offered initially at a very high price in excess of their value. This is a ruse to get people excited and pay more for these items than they are worth. Gradually the auctioneer drops the price.
I would have thought a Dutch auction to be somewhat different. I have in mind auctions which are advertised throughout the countryside and are held without permits. Some of the goods may be of doubtful origin and quality and the buyer is unprotected in the case of faulty goods. There is no means by which the State would be able to obtain any benefit by way of VAT.
It is stated in the section that an ordinary auction is not included but a Dutch auction is.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This provides for the granting by the Minister of occasional trading permits and it is my opinion that the Minister will find it very difficult to operate this provisions. How is it intended to make sure that the conduct of the sales will be in order and that there are adequate safeguards in regard to fire insurance and safety exists from the premises? I do not believe the Department have the necessary personnel to enforce this section properly. Perhaps the Minister will be able to satisfy me on this point. Local authorities would be in a better position to enforce these regulations, working in conjunction with the Department. They have the personnel to carry out inspections. In the case of dancehall licences a person must have fire insurance on the premises and the local authority must issue a certificate guaranteeing that the property is so insured. The matter is brought before the District Court on an annual basis. I want to be satisfied that the Department have sufficient personnel to ensure proper and adequate safeguards in regard to the suitability of premises. In many instances there will be large amounts of furniture and fabrics which are highly inflammable.
The property should be properly inspected by the authorised fire officer for the area and this should be done on a regular basis to ensure that proper fire extinguishers are provided, that there are the necessary exits and so on. I should like to be fully satisfied with regard to that matter.
I doubt if the Department will be able to enforce all of these matters in as strict a way as may be desirable. I do not know if the Department from their administrative base in Dublin will be able to determine if the people have been in continuous occupation. I would have thought that the local authorities would be more in touch with the local situation. I do not think that the income the Department will receive will be of any sizeable significance. It will probably just about pay for itself. Neither the Department nor the local authorities will make a fortune. It is my view that the local authorities would be in a better position to administer the matter.
The point came up for discussion within the Department as to whether the Minister should be given the power to issue the permits or whether they should be issued by the local authority. The main reason we came down in favour of the Minister issuing the permits was that at least it would be centralised and the one authority would issue all the permits. While I appreciate that probably it would be easier for local authorities to do it, at the same time there could be a situation where they would issue various permits with various conditions attached and it would be frustrating both for the genuine trader and for a person who wanted to have one of those sales. There might be very strict regulations imposed in some cases and lenient regulations imposed in other cases. Therefore, I considered that if the power was vested in the Minister and he was the licensing authority, at least it would be centralised and the same provisions would apply across the board. On that basis I think the Deputy would probably agree it would be better to leave it as it is.
With regard to the question of whether the Department would be able to enforce it, I believe there are adequate enforcement officers and, if there are not, they will have to be appointed to ensure that when the legislation becomes law it will be enforced. We have had numerous representations from genuine traders, from various groups on their behalf and from chambers of commerce and I can tell the Dáil they were not slow in putting pressure on the Minister to have this kind of legislation introduced. If a situation arises—although all of us hope it will not—that one of these sales takes place where the permit is being flouted or the conditions are not being kept, the genuine traders will be able to bring it to our notice immediately just as the enforcement officers on the prices side respond immediately to a complaint as well as doing their normal work in going to various trading outlets and shops.
With regard to the point raised about safety precautions, fire hazards and having a premises inspected, that is not a function of my Department. It would be a matter for the authorities in the area and for another Department. I do not think it would be wise to start crossing over various Acts which are in existence to deal with that kind of situation. I do not think we should get involved in that. We have enough to do to enforce the regulations without looking for extra work, which is not a function in which we should involve our enforcement officers.
In an earlier section there is the provision that a person must be three months in occupation. It concerns me that a permit can be granted to a person by a district justice without taking adequate precautions to ensure that the person has the necessary insurance. In my opinion it should be necessary to have some kind of bond. We should be careful to see that there are some safeguards for people who purchase property at these auctions. Under the Acts dealing with auctioneers and estate agents, they are obliged by law to have a bond in the region of £10,000 with a reputable insurance company.
In this instance vast sums of money will be changing hands. A person who appears before a district justice looking for such a permit should have proper fire insurance or some similar arrangement to cover adequately people who may be burned or injured in some way at such auctions. If a person goes to an auction in respect of which an occasional trading licence has been obtained and if he is seriously injured, who does he bring a claim against?
What is the position with regard to a person who buys property at an auction and afterwards discovers that it is absolutely useless or that ownership of the property may not have been lawfully vested in the persons selling it? I shall come back to that point again but would welcome the Minister's comments with regard to the question of fire insurance.
The permits granted under the Bill will be granted not by a district justice but by the Minister. Therefore, the application would not be made to the normal courts but directly through the Minister. In relation to a person who may be injured, surely it is in the interests of the person holding an auction or a monster sale, to ensure that there are safety precautions in the case of fire breaking out, so that if someone is accidentally injured on the premises he is insured to cover it. A person who receives a permit from the Minister must display on all his advertisements and in the place where he is having his auction, his name and full address together with the number of the permit. This would help to ensure that people are protected when they buy goods at an auction or sale such as this, if the goods do not come up to scratch. Time and again we on all sides of the House have warned the public that they should not buy goods at such sales and auctions because very often the country of origin of the article is not known and it may be and very often is, of a doubtful quality. It is to guard against this type of thing that we introduced the legislation so as to make it more difficult to get away with this type of offence. It is desirable that the legislation remain as it is.
The Minister when issuing a permit has powers under the section to attach certain conditions to it. Those conditions have not yet been decided but the points made by Deputy Enright in relation to fire hazards or insurance could very well attach to the permit. I will keep those points in mind when the Minister is making conditions to attach to the first permit issued. Under that section of the Bill the points made by the Deputy could be covered.
The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting my points. However, I may put down an amendment on Report Stage to debate it further. I have seen the results of cases such as I have mentioned. In this sort of case the trustee of a hall or some such person, an innocent person who is making little or no profit, would be sued. For that reason I would ask the Minister to ensure that adequate precautions are taken when making regulations under this.
Will the Minister elaborate on the people who will be entitled to conduct these auctions? On the payment of a fee of £50 together with a further fee of £25 a day a person can engage in trading and must specify such matters as the Minister may determine. The Minister authorises the person to engage in occasional trading and obliges the person to display the trading permit. As well as that the Minister should ensure that people carrying out occasional trading should be obliged by law to take out a bond. When a person takes out a bond his character, financial background and history is taken into account. A thorough investigation is made to ensure the financial suitability of a person. At present the bond costs £10,000 and a hefty premium of some hundreds of pounds is paid each year. This is vital because in every line of business some people will cut corners. In this instance. we are speaking of vast sums of money. About £10,000 or £20,000 worth of goods could change hands over a few days. People can also purchase property at these auctions and consumers would like to know that they have some protection if they find out that they have been conned. They do not wish to come up against a man of straw when they find that they have been fooled in some way. The only way a person would have adequate protection would be if a bond had been lodged. Perhaps the Minister of State has some other ideas on this and if she has I would like to hear them as I would like a clear picture as to how a person will be protected apart from the issuing of permits.
The person could be protected by the fact that on a permit the trader must state his name and address. If something goes wrong with the article afterwards the consumer can get after him. Up to now once the trader was gone nothing could be done about it.
In relation to the bond, genuine traders as we know them and ordinary shopkeepers do not have to have a bond to set up in business. It would be discriminating between the two types of traders if we asked the occasional trader to take out a bond. The penalties in the Bill and the regulations that must be complied with under the Bill are a sufficient deterrent to ensure that if an occasional trader does set up in business for a period of less than three months, at least he must comply with various regulations that were not there before. The danger that was there before is not there now, where there was no protection for members of the public.
I accept that there will be protection now where we had no protection but it does not go far enough. There is scope here to go a stage further to try adequately to safeguard the consumer. Where occasional trading has taken place I have known people to arrive home with so-called colour television sets that they bought for £25 or £75 but they had nothing inside and they never worked.
Any reasonably minded consumer should not be conned into buying a colour television set, that costs over £300 in the shops, for £25 or £75.
I know that, and I appreciate that these people are foolish, innocent and gullible, but people will be innocent and gullible. They are not in the majority but they are a big minority and their money which has been hard earned in the majority of cases must be protected to ensure that they get value for money. Where these people buy a similar piece of furniture in a reputable store, from people whose backgrounds and everything else is known, there is a building up of goodwill over a long period with the people who are carrying on the business in the ordinary way. In this instance a person from Kerry can conduct an auction in Donegal——
The Deputy should not have taken Kerry as an example.
——or from Galway or from Offaly. A person may travel the length of the country and carry on trading. I can see why the Minister will have the person's name and address; it is to ensure that the person who is conducting this sale will be known and if that person attempts to fool or defraud people there will be a right of action against him. The penalties are considerable but one must ensure that the legislation goes a stage further and that there are means by which an action can be brought against whoever conducts the sale and carries out some sort of fraud. I do not know if the Minister can satisfy us on that; if not, I shall leave it.
I think the provisions at present in the Bill are sufficient deterrents. If we find, after the Bill has been in operation for a while, that the type of situation the Deputy talks about arises and that the provisions of the Bill are not sufficiently strong enough to stop this happening, we can take another look at it and perhaps talk in terms of ensuring that these traders will have to take out a bond. I think the present provisions are sufficient deterrents and when they are enforced, as they will be by officers of the Department, it will ensure that things such as the Deputy has outlined will not arise.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
What type of permit is envisaged? Will it be clearly stamped and sealed?
Yes, and it will carry the name and address of the person to whom the permit has been issued and so on. One could not have a very insignificant document. It will have to be reasonably large and carry the number of the permit. It will have to be in a place where it will be clearly legible where the auction is taking place.
I suppose the Minister does not consider it necessary to provide that such sales be notified to the Garda?
No, it will be up to the enforcement officers to ensure that the terms of the permit are being complied with by calling into these places.
On occasion?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
In regard to a person giving false information to the Minister, does this refer to the conduct of the auction itself or to the property displayed or sold?
To everything; once it is false information, it is covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 13, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Next Stage?
I understand there was agreement with the Whips that the Report Stage would not be taken this week.
The Deputy spoke of putting down an amendment for Report Stage.
I did and, if it is not inconvenient, I would suggest this day week.
That is all right.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 31 October 1979.