Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Apr 1962

Vol. 55 No. 6

Street and House to House Collections Bill, 1962—Second Stage.

Question proposed: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This Bill sets out to solve a problem. It will be generally accepted that the custom which has grown up in our society whereby organisations of one kind or another are permitted to go to the public and seek funds by subscriptions for their objects is a desirable one. On the other hand, we have a duty to ensure that the general public are not excessively importuned and are not subjected to any excessive degree of nuisance in this regard and that, within reason, the public are protected against the abuse of fraudulent collections. The Bill attempts to reconcile these two conflicting factors and to keep a reasonable balance between them. It provides for the regulation of collections of money from the public by way of what are commonly called flag days, by way of house to house visits and by way of boxes left in public places, such as shops, licensed premises, hotels, etc.

At present street collections are subject to control under Regulations made in 1930 by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána pursuant to section 5 of the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916. These Regulations provide for the granting of collection permits by the Gardaí and for the prevention of inconvenience to the public but they do not empower the Gardaí to refuse permission to collect even to the most unsuitable persons. Furthermore, the regulations apply only to street collections. The present Bill is designed to remedy the defects in the existing law by providing a modern comprehensive enactment to regulate all collections from the public, including house to house collections, and to enable the holding of such collections to be prohibited in specified circumstances.

"Collection" is defined in Section 1 of the Bill so as to exclude street trading, ordinary trade or business, collecting in accordance with a licence or permit under the Gaming and Lotteries Act (which covers collections for non-stop draws, pools, etc.) and begging. Accordingly, the Bill does not apply to these types of collecting. Furthermore, it will not apply to house to house collections unless and until an Order is made by the Minister for Justice under Section 2 extending the proposed Act to such collections. I am satisfied that while house to house collections at the present time may occasionally be a source of annoyance to some householders, they do not constitute a widespread nuisance. Generally, the public is not being excessively importuned by them; and I do not see any necessity for the making of an Order under Section 2 in present circumstances. At the same time I think it is desirable that the Minister for Justice should have the power to regulate such collections if this becomes necessary in the public interest. Senators will observe that an Order under Section 2 may apply the provisions of the Act to house to house collections generally, that is to say, throughout the country, or merely to such collections in a particular district or area. Moreover, an Order may exempt specific house to house collections or classes of such collections from control. If it ever becomes necessary to apply the Act to house to house collections, I envisage that collections made for religious and other obviously legitimate purposes would be so exempted.

Section 3 of the Bill prohibits the holding of any collection in respect of which a collection permit has not been granted by the Chief Superintendent of the Garda Síochána for the locality in which the collection is to be held. Section 5 provides that applications for permits will have to be made in writing in the prescribed form and be accompained by the prescribed particulars. Generally speaking applications will have to be made not more than six months and not less than fourteen days before the collection is due to commence.

Section 6, which deals with the grant of permits, proposes that where there is a clash of applications to hold collections on the same day and in the same locality, and where only one permit is to be granted, priority will be given to the object in respect of which a collection was held on the corresponding day in the previous year. This is designed to protect the interests of what, for convenience, may be called the old established charities, which have been collecting in this way for many years.

A Chief Superintendent will be obliged to grant every permit applied for unless in his opinion such grounds for refusal exist as are specified in Sections 9, 10, 11 or 12 of the Bill. Where the Chief Superintendent is of opinion than any of these grounds exists he will be obliged to refuse to grant a permit.

In addition to refusing a permit, a Chief Superintendent may attach conditions to a permit, and he may also revoke a permit. However, where a person is aggrieved by the Chief Superintendent's decision, provision is made in Section 14 for an appeal to the district court, and the court is given power to direct the Chief Superintendent to grant a permit with or without conditions attached to it. The court may also amend or delete conditions attached to a permit by the Chief Superintendent.

The Bill, in Section 15, makes it an offence for a person to act as a collector unless he is in possession of a written authorisation from the holder of a collection permit. The issue of such authorisations to collectors under the age of fourteen is prohibited in Section 16. The minimum age of collectors under the existing law is sixteen years, but on the whole I consider that fourteen is an appropriate and reasonable compromise between the conflicting interests involved.

Section 19 provides for the marking on collection boxes of the object for which the collection is being held.

The keeping of full and proper accounts of the amounts collected is dealt with in Section 24. Specific powers of entry and arrest and specific powers to seize money and collection boxes in certain circumstances are given to the Gardaí in Sections 21 and 25. The Bill makes it an offence for the owners of certain public places to allow unauthorised collections to be held therein. The penalties for offences under any of the provisions of the Bill are set out in Section 26. They are a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both such fine and such imprisonment.

I am satisfied that the proposed powers and the penalties are no more than adequate to ensure compliance with the law. Senators will appreciate the difficulty which might arise in enforcing the proposed Act if organisers of unauthorised collections choose to ignore the law. It is for this reason that the Bill includes the additional deterrent in Section 21, namely, the power given to the Gardaí to seize money and collection boxes in the case of an unauthorised collection.

When the Bill was before the Dáil I indicated that, since the measure had no political implications, I would welcome suggestions from all sides as to the best way of implementing the general purpose of the Bill. It is in the same spirit that I present the Bill to this House. I think that it represents a reasonable and sensible approach to the problem but I shall carefully examine any suggestions for its improvement.

I welcome the Bill by and large. I think it is tidying up the position. I think I am correct in saying that there is provision at present for the granting of licences by a Chief Superintendent and that it is illegal to take up a collection without such a licence. Apparently the difficulty is that a Chief Superintendent cannot refuse to grant such a licence unless it clashes with another collection on the same day and in that case he merely gives it for another more suitable day.

The necessity for the Bill is probably due to the activities of one organisation and it is best to be frank about that, but I hope its operation will not tend to hinder the collection of money by voluntary organisations who are doing good work of a charitable or social nature. I do not think it will and I certainly hope it will not.

I do not think the Bill applies to the sale of tickets because that comes under the Lotteries Act, presumably. I have not studied the Lotteries Act and I do not know whether any conditions attached to licences given under it prohibit the sale of tickets by young children, but I think it is most undesirable that children of tender years, to use a legal expression, or perhaps of not so tender years are let loose with books of tickets to sell around the country with no proper check on them. As well as being an annoyance to the public it puts a serious temptation in the way of the young children who have the tickets.

One interesting section is Section 15. If it is enforced strictly it will present considerable difficulties to people who have charge of certain annual collections:

A person shall not act as a collector in a collection if he is not in possession of an authorisation in writing (in this Act referred to as a collector's authorisation) relating to the collection and granted to him in accordance with the provisions of this section by the holder of the collection permit relating to the collection.

Presumably in the case of a national collection the person applying for the permit would be the chief executive of the organisation concerned. He would get a permit and he in turn would have to issue authorisation to each individual who "stands at the table". That authorisation—perhaps this would be more relevant on the Committee Stage —would have to contain the name and address of each person "standing at the table" as well as his age if he were under 21. I just do not think it could be enforced strictly. The best that would happen would be sheaves of blank forms let loose in the hope that they would be filled up at various lower levels down through the organisation. I simply think that that is a section which one could not expect or hope to enforce properly.

Age is another thing. I did not read all the discussion in the Dáil. As a matter of fact I read only the discussion on the Second Stage and I do not know what amendments were introduced or accepted. The age 14 is not altered. I do not know whether it was sought to alter it.

Up and down.

Oh yes. One wanted it to come down and another Deputy misunderstood him and thought he wanted it to go up. I do not think that the 14 years of age is high enough.

This is largely a Committee Bill. I will give it further consideration and if I think it necessary I shall put down amendments.

I think that this Bill has more to do with the cities than the country. I do not think country people have as much annoyance as we have in Dublin from some of these collections. We are all in favour of deserving charities and some of the most deserving depend to a great degree on the money they get from flag days and collections. We are all in favour also of the Bill in its desire to avoid fraudulent collections, but I feel there should be some limit to the number of days in a week on which collections are allowed, perhaps two days in the week or three at the very most. In Dublin, week after week, every single day there is a collection. I wonder if the Chief Superintendent could bear in mind the number of collections in any particular week. It is not so much the money as the nuisance. Every day there is a collection of one kind or another. Could the Chief Superintendent have regard to the number of collections at any given moment in the issuing of the permits?

He could.

There is another point. I know it would not be possible to make it obligatory in the Bill, but I think a flag should be given in exchange for money. Sometimes the box has not been filled and all the flags are gone. There again there is a nuisance and an annoyance. You put your 2/- in the box and go along and —it may be a nice lady or a boy of 14 years—you are importuned again if you have not got a flag. I know it cannot be made obligatory but it is desirable that a flag should be given in exchange for money where possible.

The Chief Superintendent can impose only the conditions specified in the Bill.

As a fellow victim with Senator McGuire in Dublin I should like to ask the Minister to try to limit the number of flag days. Really they are pretty well every day. That is my first point.

My second point may sound unreasonable but I think that, as in the case of public houses, there should be some limitation of hours as well as numbers. The collections should not be allowed to start until 10.30 a.m. or 11 a.m. One comes into town short of change, not in the best of tempers, in a hurry to get to work, and a box is thrust in one's face. The collectors probably lose quite a lot because of the bad tempers they arouse. Quite seriously, I should like to suggest that some regulation should prevent them from starting too early.

My third suggestion is that a permit to hold a flag day should be refused to any organisation which employs loud speakers in the streets. It is perfectly terrible sometimes in addition to being teased for money, to have these vehicles going up and down with loud speakers blaring. Those are the only suggestions I have to make in regard to this admirable measure.

I do not think Senator McGuire knows the country when he suggests that this thing is confined to the city. We have the same experience in the rural areas as they have in the cities. My one worry on this Bill is the question of the wren boys. They are an old traditional custom we have in the country and I should not like them to be hampered or hamstrung by this Bill. I read the debate in the Dáil and I know that some Deputies raised this matter. The Minister observed that they did not collect, but in actual fact they do. They go from house to house, they collect from people in the streets, or in any gathering.

They do not request money.

I can assure the Minister they do.

They must have come down in the world.

I did, as a wren boy.

In my part of the country they are useful from the point of view that they have succeeded in raising funds for various voluntary organisations.

I have had no representations from the Wren Boys' Association.

As I say, they are an old traditional custom. They may decide to go out on a particular day, but according to the Bill they must make provision for a permit. The Christmas holidays extend from Christmas Eve until some days after Christmas, and weather conditions and other things govern the wren boys. They are not confined to St. Stephen's Day but go out on different days in my part of the country. The Minister should not include them in the Bill. After all, they are one of the distinguishing marks we will bring into the Common Market.

I welcome this Bill because it is the first specific comprehensive measure that has been brought forward in an attempt to regularise this very awkward question of collections which has been causing everyone quite a lot of trouble for years. I have been looking through the Bill to see if it takes in any previous Acts and I have only found one.

In the past the situation was, of necessity, rather chaotic. The Bill undoubtedly goes a long way to endeavour, so far as the Minister can, to regularise the whole question of collections. Now that we have tackled it, it would be a pity if we did not bring forward another measure at a later stage to provide for every contingency.

The Minister has indicated that some people think the age of collectors should be higher than 14 years and others think it should be lower. I think the age of 14 years is somewhat low. Usually organisations that have to resort to engaging people of 14 years to make collections do not appear to enjoy the confidence of the people. Most organisations, and particularly charitable ones, which are obliged to make house-to-house or street collections can get them done more effectively by adults. Perhaps there is difficulty now in getting sufficient people to volunteer for this job and, of late, it is a noticeable development that very young children are being engaged to carry out the duties attaching to collections. I suggest that the Minister has nothing to worry about in regard to the age limit. If anything, he has fixed it at a rather low limit, but I would be very disappointed if there were any attempt at this stage to change it. We should try the limit laid down and see how it works.

In my opinion the Bill does not provide sufficiently well for organisations which make collections too often. Under the Bill the Superintendents and Garda officers can refuse permits to organisations which have trespassed on the generosity of the people sufficiently often already. Some organisations, particularly those that do not work on a regional basis, seem to have adopted a practice in recent years of holding collections two or three times a year. Another Senator made that point. I agree with the suggestion that there should be some limit and I think once a year would be enough.

I take it that it is clear beyond yea or nay that no individual or organisation can make a collection without a permit. We have had the experience in some parts of the country in recent years that organisations made collections on dates on which permits were issued to other organisations. They merely bulldozed their way into the collection area and succeeded in frightening off the people with the permit. That was allowed to go on without any action being taken by the authorities. I believe there was some doubt as to the provisions of whatever regulations were then in existence. For that reason the Guards were rather reluctant to prosecute.

Flags were mentioned by Senator McGuire and another Senator. I am in entire agreement that the Bill should put an obligation on people holding a flag day to have a permit. In connection with these collections, one puts a penny in the collection box but no flag is given. That is the type of stunt that seems to pay dividends. The person has only to go another 100 yards when he is held up. And rather than explain that he has already supported the particular charity he allows the collectors to impose their influence on him again. This time the person concerned will probably get a flag.

A great deal of fuss was created by statements throughout the country, when this Bill was being introduced, that it was brought forward for the purpose of victimising a certain organisation or organisations. Anybody who reads the Bill can see that there is no discrimination or attempt at discrimination in that connection. What we want to do is make applicants recognise that there is authority vested in the Government for this particular operation and that they have to submit themselves to that authority the same as any other applicant. It is time that was made very clear.

I was about to dwell on a good point but Senator Mooney was too quick. That was the question of collections by "wran boys." The wran boys are a very old tradition. They go from house to house, particularly at Christmas time. I think it also happened in February but the custom has gone further than than in recent years. We have revived the custom in County Kerry.

Has the Senator discovered how the "wran" became the king of all birds?

I did not go to the trouble of finding that out. The "wran boys" have become a very popular part of the harvest festival. I am very glad that the point was raised here. I should like to see that there would be no hitch as far as the law is concerned in regard to the promoting organisation. I take it that if they apply for a permit the Superintendent will normally give the permit except he is of opinion that the operation will interfere with the peace. I should like the matter to be clearly legislated for. As a matter of fact, these collectors do not get anything individually. There are prizes either in cash or kind. They go towards paying expenses. If the issue is not clearly provided for, I hope the Minister will look into that particular point.

There is imposed on collectors the obligation of having sealed the boxes into which subscriptions are put in an open street collection, that is, outside church gates, public buildings, or such places. In the past that obligation was not adhered to. It was impracticable as it would unduly delay the person making the deposit and giving the subscription. Apart from that, collectors in their wisdom always made sure that the coins were distributed fairly widely over a table or such receptacle. Usually, the organisation making collections in that form have paper and pencil. They take names and addresses and receipts are issued.

There is no obligation to use a box, but if they use a box they must mark it.

There is no obligation?

No. You can use a bag or a hat.

Níl ach ceist bheag amháin agamsa. Is mian liom a bheith cinnte dhe i leith na mbailiúchán náisiúnta a deintear sa lá céanna i rith na seachtaine céanna ar fud na tíre ná beidh an trioblóid ann go ndearna cuid de na Seanadóirí tagairt di. An mbeidh ortha an t-údarás scríofa a bheith acu i ngach áit ar fud na tíre? An dóigh leis an Aire go mbeidh an iomad trioblóide ansin? Bíonn bailiúchán náisúnta ag Connradh na Gaeilge ar siúl sa tseachtain chéanna ar fud na tíre. Má bhíonn ar gach bailitheóir páipéar údaráis a bheith aige beidh trioblóid agus achrann ann. Ba mhaith liomsa go mbeadh sé soiléir go bhfuil slí as sin beartaithe i leith na dlí atá dhá cur i bhfeidhm againn. Bíonn bailiúcháin ann Lá le Pádraig agus ar ócáidí eile agus má bhíonn ar rúnaí agus ar ard-rúnaí na h-eagraíochta bheith freagarthach—agus na céadta daoine eile a bheith freagarthach—beidh antrioblóid ag gabháil leis na cúrsaí. Beidh sé beagán deacair é a riaradh. An bhfuil slí as an scéal sin?

I was going to say that there was one good thing about the "wran boys" and that is they appear only one day of the year. Apparently, they have improved on that in Kerry. I do not think they will ever come to the situation we have reached in Dublin where you have flag days and collections every other day. I have the impression that some years ago flag days were infrequent but that recently they have tended to increase in numbers. Now it is rather unusual not to have some sort of a collection or a flag day every day. You do not contribute to a charity. You pay a ransom to move through the streets. It may be small but it is still a ransom. Visitors are rather puzzled and sometimes annoyed by the situation. I hope this measure will do something to remove or lesson that annoyance.

I am disappointed that the Bill does not seek to control another annoyance in the streets of Dublin, namely, street photographers who buttonhole innocent looking people, get them into a corner and extract money from them and write on a slip of paper some sort of receipt. That is an annoyance on the streets which should not be permitted.

Another point is the question of age. Why is there an age limit at all? Why is 14 mentioned? I suggest it is because we all know young children should not be sent around collecting money, that they are being put in the way of temptation. We think that after 14 or 15 it is prudent and safe for children to be allowed into the temptation or be in groups going around collecting money. I think 14 is far too young and I hope that between this and the Committee Stage the Minister will give further consideration to this point. I would not like to suggest that people going around selling flags might steal money but why is it that we have an age limit? We all know it is to avoid putting youngsters into temptation. The age limit should be much higher and I hope Senators will agree with my reasoning.

I am not acquainted with the wren boys but I am conversant with another gentleman who goes around at the Christmas season and that is the mummer. I do not know if they exist in many parts of the country. We have them in Donegal and we have mummers from November to February collecting night after night, thereby torturing the people. If this Bill restricts their activities it will be doing a very good job. Years ago mummers were seen out a few days before Christmas but in recent years the mummer has become younger and fonder of money and accordingly has become a greater nuisance to everybody.

I welcome this Bill. I feel it will protect in many ways the small business man in rural Ireland. Senator McGuire seemed to think it would affect Dublin only but I disagree with that. Business men who are subject to collections in small towns are in a way partly blackmailed. They must pay to every collection to which they are asked to subscribe in order to ensure their sales of flour, beer or anything else will continue. Sometimes they are asked to subscribe to collections about which they know nothing. This Bill will to a certain extent restrict the activities of many collectors. I also agree that the age limit should be increased to 16.

The rural business people might be blackmailed but in Dublin the various associations use a different means of blackmail: the people they get to collect on the streets always seem to be the finest looking girls. This in itself is a form of blackmail because no matter how disinterested one might be one finds great difficulty in not giving a subscription. The Minister should examine that.

As Senators themselves have indicated, most of the points raised are really Committee Stage points, and I feel justified in leaving them over until that Stage. I do want to say I have a great deal of sympathy with Senators who find themselves importuned by good looking girls and who have not got the moral courage——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

To subscribe.

However, I imagine that strictly speaking it is not my function to protect these Senators from themselves. I also have a great deal of sympathy for the Senator who, in coming from his house in the early mornings, is set upon by a collector and has a box rattled loudly before his face. I am not sure whether we can do anything to control the degree of loudness but I can readily recognise that it would be distinctly uncomfortable for certain Senators in certain circumstances.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On certain mornings.

The question of wren boys is a matter that is, of course, of the utmost importance. Senators from different counties will read for wren boys, where appropriate, "mummers". This is a subject to which I have been giving some thought and carrying out some research. The House will probably be interested to know this; and I am indebted to my young daughter for the information that the wren became the king of all birds by a simple process. All the birds assembled on one occasion to decide which would be the king and they agreed whichever could fly the highest would be king. The birds flew up into the sky and, naturally, the eagle soared the highest. He was just at the peak of his accomplishment and was about to proclaim himself king when a little wren which had been nestling on his back flew five or ten feet higher and automatically became king.

I did put forward the suggestion that it might not be strictly true to say that wren boys requested money. I understand that the custom may vary in different parts of the country, but when the wren boys go from house to house they do not, as far as I know, ask for money. All they ask for is an answer: "Give us our answer and let us be gone". I think it might take the Supreme Court to decide properly on the niceties of the point. In any event, the wren boys are not covered by the Bill as it stands. They can truthfully be described as house to house collectors. It is not proposed that the Bill should apply to house to house collections immediately. Indeed, the provisions of the Bill may only be extended to house to house collections by Ministerial order; and there is provision in Section 2 for exempting in the Order certain collections. At the stage of making the Order, consideration at high level could be given to the question of excluding wren boys.

The various other points made by Senators will probably come up for more detailed discussion on Committee Stage and I assume the House will have no objection if I do not deal with them now. I shall, however, deal with one point which concerns not so much what is in the Bill as what is not in it. It was suggested that there is excessive importuning of the public, particularly in Dublin, because there are too many collections.

There is nothing specific in the Bill with regard to the number of collections. We provide that, in the case of a number of organisations applying for permits for the same day, the Chief Superintendent would have to be satisfied that the public would not be excessively importuned before he could grant more than one permit, but I am afraid that there is not in the Bill at the moment anything to deal with the problem of there being too many flag days altogether. That is something we will look into. We have not, to my knowledge, had any complaints from the Gardaí, or from any other source about that particular problem, but now that it has been mentioned here we will undoubtedly give some consideration to it.

I shall confine my remarks to those few points.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.25 p.m.sine die.
Barr
Roinn