Amendment No. 1, in the name of Deputy Enright, has been ruled out of order.
Occasional Trading Bill, 1979: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(b) Notice shall also be served by the applicant on the Secretary of the local authority in whose area the person proposes to engage in the occasional trading, on the same day as the application for an occasional trading permit is made to the Minister, and such notice shall contain the same information as that forwarded to the Minister.
"(c) An occasional trading permit shall not be granted by the Minister until he has received a recommendation as to the safety of the premises to which the application relates from the Chief Fire Officer of the relevant local authority.".
My reason for proposing this amendment is that notice should be served on the secretary of the local authority by the person applying for a permit. In regard to (b) the local authority should have some notice regarding such occasional trading taking place in some hotel, hall, rooms, or some other establishment. There may be a number of very valid reasons why this notice would be served. The local authority may wish to have certain checks carried out in regard to whether or not the premises are suitable for occasional trading, whether or not the building is adequate for the purpose, whether or not it is safe for the purpose, or whether it will be satisfactory for occasional trading on that particular occasion. The reason for specifying that the notice be served on the local authority on the same day as it is served on the Minister is that it will give the local authority an opportunity to carry out a check during the period of 30 days.
In regard to (c), the local authority should have an opportunity of checking out the suitability of the premises in regard to fire prevention and control. The chief fire officer, in this particular instance, should have had at least a 30-day period to call to the premises to ensure the safety of the premises where the sale is taking place. A fire officer should be in a position to recommend the number of fire extinguishers to be made available on such occasions. It is important that a sufficient number of extinguishers are left convenient to the area where the sale is taking place. The fire officer should also ensure that there are proper entrances and exits and a fire escape. It is the duty of the fire officer to see to it that windows are not barred.
It is essential that fire officers see to it that the precautions I have mentioned are taken because on the occasions of such sales a lot of highly inflammable material is displayed, such as furniture and clothing. Unless there is a provision in the Bill to ensure that the precautions I have spoken of are taken, there is a danger that such matters may become a minor part of the regulations with the result that they will not be strictly adhered to. To leave such precautions out of the Bill and make them part of the permit would be underestimating the importance of this matter.
Local authorities, when they receive notice of such a sale, should ensure that the premises are inspected by the fire officer before issuing a certificate which will form part of the permit to be issued by the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy.
I appreciate Deputy Enright's concern that those engaged in occasional trading do not operate in breach of the Planning Acts or other legislation relating to other Departments or local authorities. However, as I pointed out on Committee Stage, my Department are primarily concerned with regulating occasional trading and ensuring that consumers are protected. The matters which the Deputy raised are the concern of the Department of the Environment and local authorities who, in the last analysis, are responsible to the Department of the Environment for the regulations. I am not satisfied that my Department should become involved. My Department do not impose the restrictions suggested by the Deputy on established traders and occasional traders should not be subject to stiffer legislation in this area than established traders.
I have no objection to officials of local authorities inspecting premises being used for occasional trading and imposing restrictions. I do not have any objection to the Department of the Environment insisting that local authorities carry out fire inspections. I appreciate that the Deputy is concerned that adequate fire safety precautions are taken where occasional trading is carried on and large numbers are likely to gather.
Is it the intention of the Minister to include such matters on the permit?
Such matters could be included on the permit but we have not decided what should be included. It is possible that that will be decided when the first permit is issued. As I stated earlier, the Minister has power to include clauses and conditions when the permit is being granted. I would not rule out the possibility of such matters being included but I would not like them included in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, line 28, after "permit" to insert: "and every occasional trading permit shall include a condition that the applicant shall have a comprehensive fire insurance policy in respect of the premises or place to which the application relates, covering the period of the permit."
It is essential that a comprehensive fire insurance policy is taken out in respect of the premises where occasional trading takes place. In the event of such trading taking place in an hotel the ordinary hotel insurance would probably cover those attending the event and it would be a matter for an injured party to decide whether to sue the proprietor of the hotel or the person whose negligence caused the fire, the person holding the sale. However, I am concerned about such events taking place in local community halls, because insurance policies in respect of such premises may not be in force. It is important to stress that the type of material offered for sale is highly inflammable.
I have mentioned already the necessary safety precautions. There should be included in the Bill a detailed clause placing an obligation on people to provide adequate fire insurance on the premises where they are holding the sale, covering the period of the permit, in order to safeguard people who may be injured. Most of such sales are of considerable size and the cost of the provision of an adequate fire insurance policy would not be such as to prevent a person going ahead with a sale. It is necessary to ensure that such people are obliged to provide adequate fire insurance cover in respect of anybody who might be injured on the premises.
If we take the example of a public dancehall the courts are now quite strict in specifying that fire insurance cover be provided when functions take place there. These sales are such that they will be attended by large numbers of people. In the event of a fire in a hall, or wherever the sale is being run, it is essential that there be provision for people injured—or, even more seriously, if there is loss of life—to have redress and to have somebody from whom damages can be claimed.
This amendment proposes that a condition be attached to a trading permit requiring a fully comprehensive fire insurance policy on the premises that an occasional trader wishes to lease for the period of trading. As in the case of the last amendment, my Department do not require established traders to have a particular fire insurance policy. Established traders are almost as likely to be uninsured or very often under-insured. Very often they find out to their loss after a fire has taken place that they have been very much under-insured.
This Bill does not purport to do more than impose fair and reasonable restraints on occasional traders. Of course, we must bear in mind at all times that they have certain constitutional rights. While the Bill imposes additional obligations on occasional traders it does not absolve them from any of their commitments or obligations, whether they be under the Planning Acts or any other Act with which established traders must comply.
As Deputy Enright rightly said, it is in the interests of a person who leases a premises, whether it be a dancehall, community hall, a room in a ballroom, or indeed a shop premises to ensure that if he himself has not adequate insurance cover he insists that the only circumstances in which he will lease the premises is if the prospective lessee takes out a fully comprehensive fire insurance policy. That would probably take care of the Deputy's argument that we should be the people to ensure that such is included in the permit.
Is it not very likely that all business premises in the country today have insurance cover whereas this instance is entirely different, in that they would be there for a period of days only? That is the difference.
The onus should be on the lessor of the premises—whether it be a hotel owner, dancehall proprietor or chairman of a parish council, in the event of the leasing of a local community hall—to ensure that if he has not adequate insurance cover himself he would insist that one of the conditions of the lease to the relevant lessee would be that he has adequate fire insurance cover. As the Deputy rightly said, if somebody is injured, or if there is loss of life on the premises, then the injured person, or next-of-kin in the event of death, would have the right to sue the owner of the premises.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, between lines 39 and 40 to insert the following:
"(b) An applicant for an occasional trading permit shall be required to obtain a bond of not less than £5,000 from a licensed assurance company, for the protection of consumers purchasing goods or property at the premises to which the permit relates".
My reason for moving this amendment is that, since this Bill was introduced in the House, I have received a number of representations from people who attend sales or auctions and who have bought property, items of furniture and so on, from people engaged in occasional trading. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the vast majority of occasional traders are honest, respectable people engaged in commerce, going about their business in a legal and lawful manner. However, there are always people who will avail of a situation and who will cut corners. It has been brought to my attention that people have purchased property or goods from occasional traders who had not in fact proper ownership of the property or goods concerned at the time of sale, that they had been stolen previously, items of which they had taken possession through different channels and so on. I might add that this is the exception rather than the rule. But we must endeavour to ensure that even exceptions are prevented, if possible, and that people who are caught out in such circumstances are protected and have some remedy or redress available to them.
As the House will be aware, the amount of money which changes hands and the extent of the transactions that take place at some of these auctions or sales is quite considerable—amounting perhaps to £10,000 or more. I want to ensure that people have some redress available to them if they purchase property which they discover to be seriously substandard or to have glaring defects of which they were not aware at the time of purchase and had no way of knowing. The injured party in such circumstances should have some remedy available to him, somebody against whom he can claim, some way of collecting if he obtains a decree. Very likely the Minister will reply that there is no such obligation incumbent on ordinary business people. But if the Minister gives me that type of reply she is missing the point, in that the position is that, when a person makes a purchase from an ordinary trader, an established trader, the purchaser knows the person with whom he is dealing, and that if anything goes wrong he will get satisfaction from him. If he is dealing with a supermarket or a big company he will feel happy in the knowledge that, as the company have issued share capital, he can proceed against them.
Purchasers have often been fooled because merchandise was of an inferior standard and was not suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. The occasional trader gets a permit and trades in an area for a day or two. If the purchaser gets his name and address from the permit, he can get in touch with the Department to make his complaint. The only satisfaction he will get from the Department will be that that trader will not get another licence. While it may be some consolation to know that nobody else will be caught, it will not be of any benefit to the man who spent £400, £500 or even more and who cannot obtain any redress, because the trader may not have any means. This situation should be looked at.
The Minister may say that when £10,000 changes hands in a few days such a trader could not be regarded as not having any means. Such a person could be very short of money when the complaint is made. The consumer is entitled to know that, if he purchases at these sales, he has some protection. As has been plainly seen in the light of the controversy which has arisen because of this Bill, there are two points of view.
The only way we can be sure the consumer is protected is to ensure that a bond of £5,000 from an assurance company is provided. That is not an excessive amount and the premium would not be so high as to drive any person involved in occasional trading out of business, but it would be a great safeguard for purchasers. In its own way it may also be of benefit to people involved in occasional trading, because at the moment there is dissatisfaction among the public and, if this bond is provided, purchasers will realise they are dealing with reputable people.
My main reason for putting down this amendment was to ensure that people who buy from occasional traders will have some redress if the goods are substandard. If we do not provide this protection people may be faced with losses of hundreds of pounds. There is an obligation on us to ensure that this does not happen. If the Minister has an alternative system to safeguard the consumers, and which would achieve the aim in any amendment, I will be very happy. As I said, I do not think the sum of £5,000 is excessive and I recommend it to the Minister.
Deputy Enright was right when he said that my first reaction would be "Here we go again. We are going to place obligations on occasional traders that established traders do not have". It is true to say that because of their mobility it is not as easy to get at occasional traders as it is at established traders. I want to make a point already made by Deputy Enright: that the name and address of the occasional trader must be attached to the permit and available for consumers to see. Therefore, if something goes wrong with the goods purchased, the customer will know who to go after. The Deputy is unfair to my Department when he says that the customer will get a standard reply——
That is something I foresee happening. I did not say it had happened.
Even by foreseeing it I think the Deputy is being unfair. The matter would be followed through by the Department, in particular by the Director of Consumer Affairs. If a person buys goods and something goes wrong with them and he feels he has no redress, we have to get after the person whose name and address is given on the permit.
Many consumers will agree with me when I say that where people have purchased goods in the past, and maybe in the very recent past, from traders they thought were reputable or established, and when something went wrong they were not treated with the courtesy or the redress to which they were entitled. That is why it was so important to bring in some type of consumer protection legislation to cover them. I feel very strongly about that. As I said, in the past a minority of established traders have not fulfilled their obligations or stood by consumers when they should. We all agree that the vast majority of established and genuine traders have stood by their consumers and that is why their businesses have increased.
Perhaps the time has come when we should require a bond from all traders, whether established or occasional, but I do not think that should be done under this Bill. I shall have to find out whether or not that can be done on examination. It would be a matter for other legislation and should not be considered under this Bill.
I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say concerning the application of the bond to traders apart from occasional traders. I saw reference in a newspaper yesterday to a singling out of this group for what was regarded as harsh treatment. I do not know if the Minister was referring to this when she mentioned application of the bond across the board. The bond would be a great help because of the complexity of the appliance sold through this channel where the consumer has no comeback and the bird has flown if he discovers that the product is not up to a standard. In putting down the amendment Deputy Enright had this in mind.
The excuse given by the Minister of State that it should not be applied to one section of traders only is rather lame. If she feels in the future that this type of bond might be made applicable to all traders, so be it. We are dealing with occasional traders of a certain kind and this is the place for this kind of protection. We are talking about consumer protection basically. It is a more positive approach from what the Bill might be seen to be. The view that it is meeting out fairly harsh treatment to a certain group of traders is a negative approach and I do not agree with it. We must ensure that consumers are protected as much as possible and that is basically what the Bill is about.
I see no reason why this amendment cannot be accepted by the Minister as a gesture towards the protection of consumers. The type of trader we are dealing with deals in a variety of goods many of which are complex and in the high technology field, electrical goods and television sets. The average person does not know what he is buying. He is depending on the good name of the trader and unless he has some comeback he can be treated badly by some traders. I know there are some people in the trade who are making an honest living but from the consumers' point of view and if we are to be consistent and seek protection for the consumer this is one way to do it. As the Minister has said, it could be applied to all traders. Under a Bill which will later come before the House consumers will have a comeback on traders from whom they purchased goods which in their opinion are inferior. Under this Bill the consumer dealing with that kind of trader will not have the same protection. For that reason this amendment is not out of place. This is the Bill in which it can be included more appropriately than in any other kind of Bill.
I do not accept that the reasons given by the Minister are valid. I accept her reluctance to accept an amendment from this side of the House. It is traditional in the House unfortunately, but for the sake of the consumer this is where this amendment should be put in. I appeal to the Minister to review her attitude towards it. It would be a step in the right direction if the Minister is considering that it should apply to all traders. This will be the first step in that direction and this is the Bill under which it should be done.
I am calling on Deputy Enright to reply. We are on Report Stage and there cannot be any Second Stage speeches.
I am sure many Members like myself have received reports about people who purchased property and have suffered seriously in regard to moneys they parted with. No later than yesterday I was discussing this with a person who has incurred a substantial loss from purchasing property which was unsatisfactory and of very poor quality. He learned to his cost that the bargain he thought he was obtaining was no bargain at all.
Many of the people engaged in occasional trading are making profits of thousands of pounds each year. It is difficult for the State to obtain tax and other revenue from them. We now have an opportunity of safeguarding people who are purchasing from them. Such people are entitled to protection. I took this amendment from the Auctioneers and House Agents Act, 1947. I changed it around to suit this occasion. One of the reasons the Minister gave for refusing this amendment was that at times people are hard done-by by ordinary business people. No matter what walk of life one enters there will be people who will be difficult to deal with. We must ensure that the consumer is protected. The cost of providing the protection would be minimal. The bond would have a premium of about £100 per year. The insurance companies would make their own investigation and would have to be satisfied as to the reputation of the people they are dealing with, their honesty and integrity. In its own way it would ensure the protection of both seller and customer. For that reason I feel that it is a simple amendment and would ask the Minister to agree to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before the Bill goes to the Seanad I should like to make a brief point.
The Deputy could do that on Fifth Stage.
Bill received for final consideration.