Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 May 1994

SECTION 2.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 16, after "area" to insert "and 'Dutch auction' means a sale of goods in which the price is reduced by the auctioneer until a buyer is found".

This is a technical amendment relating to the phrase "Dutch auction". I know what is meant by a Dutch auction as I am sure everyone else does. However, does the Supreme Court, which may very well have to interpret sections of this Bill know exactly what is meant by a Dutch auction? We should define the phrase more clearly.

I propose this amendment because of an experience I had when debating the Apprenticeship Levy Bill. I sought the inclusion in the Bill of the concept of "multi skilling". The parliamentary draftsman refused to accept it on the basis that it was not the vocabulary of the Supreme Court or the parliamentary draftsman. I fear that a similar fate might be visited upon the term "Dutch auction". We should, therefore, seek to define the phrase in language which is more acceptable and comprehensive.

Mr. Quinn

I have no problem with the proposal. I am informed that it was not considered necessary on previous occasions but I do not know if the courts have interpreted this phrase. I ask the Deputy to allow me to make that inquiry. It would be better to include the definition in section 1 which deals with interpretation rather than section 2. That is just a procedural point.

I share Deputy Quill's view that there should be no room for casual interpretation by other bodies if the Legislature has a clear and precise view as to the meaning of a particular phrase. "Dutch auction" is a vernacular phrase which can mean one thing to a given group of people and another to a second group. If we want to pin down what we are providing in this Bill, I propose, subject to the agreement of the committee, to introduce an amendment to the interpretation section on Report Stage stating what is meant by a "Dutch auction".

My note states that this auction of property is set up for sale at a price beyond its value and the price is gradually lowered until a person buys it. This is, in essence, what the Deputy proposed. I would like to give my officials an opportunity to draft an amendment which would be examined by the parliamentary draftsman. If it is acceptable to the committee, I propose to accept the thrust of the amendment and incorporate it in section 1 rather than section 2 where it would be inappropriate.

Miss Quill

That is acceptable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 are related to amendment No. 3 and will taken together by agreement.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, subsection (2), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(a) selling of newspapers on the street or in such public place by a news vendor who is not the owner of a retail premises,

(b) selling of strawberries and such like seasonal home grown products.".

This section lists activities which are to be excluded from the provisions of the Casual Trading Bill. I seek to include two specific areas in those exclusions. The first is "the selling of newspapers on the streets or in such public places by a news vendor who is not the owner of a retail premises". I refer specifically to the news boys who trade and sell papers on the streets of Cork. Under the Bill each of them would be required to purchase a casual trading licence which, under section 5(1), they would be required to display at the place at which they sell their newspapers.

In Cork, newsboys are called "Echo boys". They start selling papers on the street at 14 years of age and even though some of them are still selling papers when they are in their late sixties, they are known as newsboys. They are part of the culture of the city and held in great affection there. One of the most attractive pieces of public sculpture in the city is a bronze bust of a newsboy by Cork sculptor, Seamus Murphy. That is an indication of the esteem and affection in which newsboys are held in Cork.

There is a strong family tradition, where generations of the same family sell newspapers on the streets of Cork. They do not consider themselves casual traders. They trade the Cork Examiner for 363 days of the year and the Evening Echo for 310 days. They consider that they operate legally and see no justification for imposing the requirement that they must have a licence to trade. They were reared with the papers; they are not the most highly paid people in Cork by any standard and find it difficult enough to make a living. They are out in all weathers and in all seasons and if the requirements of this Bill are imposed it will put them out of business.

They have asked me to plead specially on their behalf that, given the circumstances, they should not be included in the provisions of the Bill. I appeal to the Minister to accept my points and that it is absurd to require these people to purchase a licence and display it at the points at which they sell their newspapers. It makes no sense and it is over regulation by any standard. I strongly appeal to the Minister to exclude this category of trader and I ask Members to support my amendment.

My amendment, No. 3, paragraph (b), concerns the selling of strawberries and such seasonal home grown products. Strawberries are a good example because they have such a short season. It is absurd to put this requirement on people who sell strawberries and such seasonal home grown products on the side of the road or at tourist resorts. Selling strawberries is part of the summer season and is a very short lived activity. That strawberry sellers are permitted to trade without a licence on roadways and streets adds to the appeal of summer, not just for the natives but for tourists.

We should be proud to show the agricultural and horticultural aspects of our country to tourists. We have a clean, green, relatively unpolluted country, which is good for strawberries and summer berries of every kind. It is a very short selling season and it is ridiculous to the point of absurdity to submit this type of activity to the regulations and provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Gregory

I have a number of amendments which I will go through individually. My amendment No. 6 (d) included the words "wrapping paper" because coming up to Christmas, in particular, a number of people sell it. These people are mainly women who live on very low incomes in poor circumstances in disadvantaged areas, very close to the city centre.

In dealing with this Bill, the Minister must bear in mind that Dublin is unique in that its commercial heart is surrounded by a very disadvantaged community. People have lived for generations within a stone's throw of Henry Street, North Earl Street, Mary Street, Liffey Street and O'Connell Street on the north side. They are part of the city just as much as the main commercial streets and the big businesses who dislike them so much. They must have rights and their role in the city and their way of life must be addressed.

One of the things they do to make a few shillings — I mean a few shillings because we are talking about people who are probably at the lowest end of the poverty scale — is sell wrapping paper at Christmas. This was exempt in the sense that it was interpreted under the Casual Trading Act, 1980, that printed matter included wrapping paper. However, for various reasons, gardaí who approach these people and who are under pressure from business people to get rid of them, do not interpret printed matter as wrapping paper. I have added "wrapping paper" so that there is no confusion of interpretation. If we were to include wrapping paper and other printed matter it would simply maintain the existing position.

In common with many of us, I am sure the Minister is old enough to remember the newsboys and news vendors shouting "Herald, Mail and Evening Press”, although one of those papers has since gone. This is part of the Dublin in which I grew up. I do not want to be part of the destruction of that way of life where elderly men and young children sit on corners or stand in streets and sell newspapers in a productive and positive way trying to earn a few shillings for their families, rather than turning, as other young people do, to drugs and crime.

I hope it is not the intention of those who want to make this Bill more effective, or the end result of it, that more young people are driven into a life of drugs and crime. However, that poverty trap will inevitably be created if these people are driven away from the one way of life and activity that helps them to live and produce some sort of reasonable living for themselves.

My amendment No. 6 (e) states, "traditional stall-holders selling fruit, vegetables, flowers or other perishable goods,". I am sure all Members at some stage have sung the ballad of Molly Malone but I hope people do not sing it simply in a cynical manner. It is part of Dublin and part of our heritage. I hope nothing in this Bill will destroy that heritage or way of life. This is why I have suggested amendment No. 6 (e) as an additional exemption, which the Minister should consider.

I know he has been speaking to many of the people, registered and unregistered, involved in selling fruit, vegetables and flowers. I am sure he has listened to them and I hope there will be a result. I am making a case for those people because, until recently, there was nobody in this House to make such a case. When the 1980 Bill went through this House, people selling fruit and vegetables, etc., affected by it were not even aware of it. They only became aware of it when local authorities began to implement the law. That was a disgrace and, thankfully, it is not being repeated. On this occasion both at Government and Opposition level there have been efforts to meet the people concerned and tell them what is happening. I hope it will not simply be a listening operation but will result in changes in this Bill to ensure that the interests of people on very low incomes are taken into account. The people concerned work in all types of weather, go to the markets at 6 o'clock in the morning to get their vegetables or flowers, and then wheel their prams or barrows back to the city centre to try to sell whatever they bought.

The next exemption I want is one already covered under the existing Casual Trading Act, 1980, the selling of fish by traditional fishmongers, stall holders or the crew that catches them. On Second Stage Deputies were concerned that boat crews selling a few fish at the quayside should be exempted and I agree. In Dublin we are talking about a handful of women — three in Moore Street and a few others spread around the city — who sell fish from stalls. They feel that they are there by tradition, not by any law, licence or permit. Their families were there before there were any licences or permits. The fear is that they will be driven out of existence and out of this way of life so I hope they will be exempted.

Amendment No. 6 (g) deals with any person whom the local authority knows to be a traditional street trader until after such time as that person is offered a reasonable location from which to trade. This may be ambiguous to some extent but I put it in simply to draw attention to the plight of people who, since 1980, have not been given a pitch from which to trade although they had been trading for many years before that. In Dublin, the local authority knows them and has lists of them all. There is not a great number but surely they have some rights. They are what we call unregistered street traders but they do not want to be unregistered, they want a pitch from which to trade legally. They do not want to be harassed by the Garda and the courts before being led to Mountjoy as happens virtually on a daily basis in Dublin. It is a great waste of the courts' time as well as that of the Mountjoy authorities and the Garda Síochána.

Deputy Costello and I attended a meeting this morning with the senior Garda Superintendent for the area in relation to the heroin problem in Dublin city. The garda concerned — the superintendent from Store Street — told us his resources were badly stretched but I pointed out to him that they were badly stretched because most of them were in Henry Street chasing women selling flowers and bananas. That is the reality and it is a disgrace when we are looking for police to deal with leading drug dealers selling heroin to young people. This Bill can make that situation better or worse. Reluctantly, I have to say that the provisions in the Bill will make it much worse. The Minister met representatives of that group of unregistered traders yesterday and I know he listened attentively to their views and requests, so I hope he will bear that in mind when dealing with these amendments.

My final amendment is No. 8 and concerns the selling of colours, hats, scarves, etc., outside football matches and other sporting events. I have specifically worded it to try to overcome one of the shortcomings in this Bill in that it does not differentiate between big and small traders, big operators around the country and people making a few shillings on the streets of Dublin. Whether it is outside Croke Park when the Dubs are playing or outside Tolka Park or any other soccer venues, people traditionally sell colours. In many cases they make them and in other cases they get them from wholesalers. I am differentiating between them and people who arrive with truckloads of goods, which is a different matter. The traditional person selling colours outside matches should be exempted from this Bill.

In dealing with these amendments, the Minister should not kick to touch by telling us that it is open to the local authority, after this Bill becomes law, to exempt people or add to the list of exemptions. That would be passing the buck. If we remove categories already exempted we are virtually telling the local authority that we do not want those categories brought back in, and it is contradictory to do that. However, I hope that the Minister will deal with these issues here so that the message from this House goes to the local authorities, showing them the type of trading this House feels should be exempted. I am well aware that it is open to local authorities to add to the list of exemptions but I hope that the Minister, who has met all the interests involved, will not take the easy way out and simply refer us to that element of the Bill. He should take on board the proposals and accept them.

Mr. R. Bruton

I accept the principle of wanting exemption. The real issue Deputy Gregory and others raised is whether it is better for this to be done by the local authority or the Minister. I can see why Deputy Gregory and others want to see the exemption being done nationally because the Bill as drafted is so excessive in many areas that, unless it is substantially amended, it will put far too great a burden on certain people. As Deputy Gregory explained, such people are selling newspapers or flowers on a street corner and have been doing so all their lives. This Bill is demanding that they keep detailed accounts, get tax clearance and, if they have one offence in relation to casual trading, that they could be put out of business for five years with no trial. This decision could be taken at the whim of an official in the local authority without any recourse to the courts. The Bill is saying that there will be no right of appeal if the licence is refused, and that a trader who gets a licence can only trade in a designated area. In other words the traditional newspaper vendor on a street corner would be put out of business unless he got the street corner designated as a casual trading area, which would be highly unlikely.

There is no test of reasonableness built into the Bill as to what fees should be levied for these licences. My approach is slightly different from that of Deputy Gregory and others. I have sought to modify large sections of the Bill which I consider clumsy and excessive. If that was done we might not, perhaps, need exemptions.

There is a sensible motivation for exemptions. If certain activities, for example, fish being sold by fishmongers, are declared not to be casual trading the scale of their subsequent operation under the national exemption could no longer be controlled. A fishmonger could set up a stall in the middle of Grafton Street and extend it the length of the street if he wished. That is the difficulty in declaring certain activities not to be casual trading. I sympathise with the suggestion that the local authority can best decide this and tailor the exemption to the conditions that prevail in its area. In Dublin city, for example, the exemptions could be tailored to preserve the traditional activities that go on in the city and that give it colour.

Unless there is substantial willingness on the part of the Minister to change other parts of this Bill, I support the attitude of other Deputies regarding the exemptions. The Bill would be excessive in the way it is administered and it is not designed to deal with people selling goods from a pram or newspapers on a street corner. We must amend this Bill substantially and hear the Minister's views. We will probably have to deal with it on Report Stage. However, when we look at the exemptions on Report Stage will the Minister have made enough changes to convince us that traditional casual traders in the city are getting a reasonable deal?

We want casual traders to comply with their tax obligations. We should opt for a simpler method of registering these people for payment of their taxes. When the Revenue Commissioners are informed by the local authority that such traders have licences and are trading, the onus should be on the Revenue Commmissioners to establish that they comply with their tax obligations and to pursue them for taxes. This Bill is excessively bureaucratic in relation to these activities. There must be substantial modification in the Minister's approach on Committee Stage. The best policy is to give the local authority the power to offer exemptions to appropriate people according to local conditions.

Exemptions are necessary because of the excessive nature of the Bill as drafted. My party wishes to see universal compliance with tax obligations — that principle must be upheld. However, it should be done through registration by the traders, proof of registration and referral to the Revenue Commissioners at the time of licensing in the same way it is proposed that there will be referral to the Department of Social Welfare. That would be similar to the obligations of non casual traders in relation to tax and the equitable solution. I await the Minister's response. My attitude to the amendments will be coloured by the Minister's willingness to change many other features of the Bill.

Mr. Finucane

With regard to the exemptions, there is a distinction between what is classified as seasonal and casual. I would like the Minister to exclude seasonal products such as strawberries, early potatoes, apples and so forth which were mentioned during discussion on the Roads Bill. We said that such traders were almost part of our culture. In Wexford, for example, people sell strawberries and early potatoes at the side of the road at a certain time each year. We discussed Wexford in the context of the Roads Bill and it was felt then that these people should not be prohibited from carrying out this seasonal activity even though there were prohibitions in many other areas, such as caravans being parked on the roadside, etc. We must make a differentiation in this Bill also. Such activity should be listed as seasonal activity because it only happens during a short period of time.

Deputy Gregory expanded at great length about other areas. He probably has Moore Street in mind as being part of the culture of Dublin. I am not sure how the Minister can differentiate or whether he will give the local authorities power to preclude certain products native to their areas. A market area in Limerick, for example, would be different from a market area in Dublin. There is a casual trading market in Newcastlewest. I hope that seasonal activities could be defined and precluded or listed in the Bill. There is scope for a role for local authorities, to a certain extent, with regard to the other areas.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

This legislation is necessary in principle. The roadside trading by traders, mainly from Northern Ireland and possibly from the UK, had a serious effect on hardware businesses. I come from a rural area and there was gross abuse of casual trading in hardware. Casual traders selling field gates and other farm inputs interfered with the livelihoods of established traders who were obliged to pay substantial rates and VAT. These practices necessitated the introduction of a casual trading Bill. Much of the demand for this Bill came from local authorities throughout the country.

However, I sympathise with much of what has been said today. Chip vans are hygienic and their owners adhere to regulations. We should deal sympathetically with them and with people who sell fruit and other produce such as strawberries and fish mentioned earlier. I have always had sympathy for the people who sell strawberries during the summer months. I wonder how the strawberry crop will fare this year in view of the weather. Last year I purchased strawberries from a roadside vendor and when I asked where they had been grown I was told they were from Spain. I was a little taken aback that they were not native strawberries. I would prefer to see native rather than imported produce sold by these people.

Legislation is necessary because this type of trading could take place throughout the year. We are familiar with and admire strawberry fairs which last about six weeks. However, it is a different ball game when imported produce is traded on the roadside. I support the Casual Trading Bill for that reason. There may be room for exemptions. I listened to Deputy Gregory and I know Moore Street. It is a great place to visit and its history is well known through songs and stories. Mitchelstown has one of the largest markets in the country. It is a very disciplined casual trading area. It will be difficult for me to promote this Bill in that area but the legislation is necessary. The market held in Mitchelstown each Thursday is huge and sells everything from a needle to an anchor. Many are familiar with the bottle-necks in towns on those occasions. When travelling home, I am sure the Deputy often wished there were by laws governing traffic through towns during markets although they bring massive business to towns.

Many of our traditions and ways of life might be disturbed by the Bill so it may be necessary to amend it slightly. In some country towns there are charters and patents inherited from the past. What is their status in law? Legislation is one source of law but villages often have patents and paper rights to hold fairs and markets. What effect will this Bill have in rural areas?

I fully support the principle of the Casual Trading Bill. It is necessary to protect business people being interfered with by transient traders who have no foothold in the country, cream off business and do not pay VAT, tax or rates. We have to be seen to protect against those, as opposed to creating problems for strawberry traders, fish traders and other small casual traders such as fish and chip sellers. Fishmongers, for instance, are in difficulty and we must recognise their plight.

Mr. Costello

The debate so far has indicated the wide variety of casual trading — news vendors in Cork, strawberry sellers on the eastern coast, fish sellers in coastal areas and those selling perishable goods in Dublin. I agree with the principle of the Bill, which aims to rationalise the operation of casual trading and allow it to be administered and regulated by local authorities. Here we are concerned with the number of exemptions we should have, whether they should be included in the Bill or left to local authorities.

As mentioned earlier the manner in which the Minister approached this Bill is in sharp contrast to the way the Casual Trading Act, 1980, was handled. The previous legislation went through without any consultation with those engaged in the practice, business and livelihood of casual trading. The Minister has already spoken to representatives of the Casual Trading Association and met the Moore Street traders twice. He even spoke to people who would be called illegal traders, because although they would have a licence they would not have a trading permit or a trading area.

The 1980 Act was brought in because of the practice in the 1970s, when a large number of electrical and other goods were being sold on roadsides or around towns. Because of the activities in Northern Ireland there were suspicions that many of those goods had been smuggled across the Border. The Bill was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It was applied across the board without consideration for other categories of casual trading.

As a result large numbers of women in Dublin city were brought before the courts and many ended up in Mountjoy prison. It continues to this day because of the manner in which the Casual Trading Act, 1980, was introduced and operated. These women had licences but they had no permits or designated sites for trading. The last thing I want to see in the current Bill is the reintroduction of a position similar to that which existed in the last 14 years on the streets of Dublin. I am sure the Minister feels the same.

Under this section we should establish the widest number of exemptions for present casual trading. It should be left to local authorities to use their specific local knowledge and that of their councillors to decide the appropriate areas to be included. Instead of deciding in this legislation that three categories are exempt, as in the 1980 legislation where eight categories were declared exempt, we should define the categories of casual trading and leave it to the expert knowledge of the local authorities to decide what to include.

If we specifically leave out certain relevant sections, whether in relation to agricultural products, confectionery, ice cream or perishable goods, we send a signal to local authorities that we do not want those areas to be exempted. We should take the broader vision that the Minister is devolving power to the local authority to regulate. He should, therefore, give the local authority the widest possible discretion on the basis of local knowledge. In Cork there are problems with news vendors and in Wexford they want to deal with strawberry selling. Those local authorities should be allowed to decide whether these should be exempted areas.

There is no reason we should not keep the exemption for fishing crews. The retention of that exemption in the 1980 Act has not resulted in a proliferation of fishing crews or crew members catching fish and selling it on the highways and byways. A small number of fishmongers sell on the streets in coastal areas and in O'Connell Street. This causes no real difficulty for anyone.

As casual trading is widespread, the Minister may have problems registering, licensing and obtaining tax clearance certificates for traders, and in imposing the range of penalties on those in breach of the regulations. For example, the new subparagraph (d) proposed in my amendment no. 7 deals with the "selling of agricultural or horticultural produce (including livestock) by the producer or his servants". If a farmer in the west takes a pony or other animal to a fair in Connemara, Ballinasloe or Maam Cross, under the legislation as it stands he would need a licence to sell that animal in a traditional horse fair or other market. This applies to agricultural produce, such as home made butter or vegetables, as well as livestock.

Although many fairs are gone and markets have taken over, areas still have local traditions. A provision which requires individual sellers of farm produce to have a licence, to be registered or to have a tax clearance certificate and to be subject to the penalties would be bureaucratic and inoperable.

Amendment No. 7 (e) covers a variety of items, including sweets, chocolates, confectionery, the teams' colours, favours from a tray, etc., sold outside Croke Park or at any club football match particularly in the summer. Will we demand that the thousands of people who sell ice creams, minerals, lemonade and the teams' colours in each parish throughout the country should have licences? This is not an effective way to deal with this issue and it would be impossible to implement this in a rational or feasible way.

Amendment No. 7 (f) covers the selling of ice cream and newspapers. We will have major problems with newspapers and periodicals. Homeless people in London are now selling a magazine called, The Big Issue. This magazine was recently launched in Dublin to try to give people on the margins of society an opportunity to earn a living. We will make it difficult for these people if we demand tax clearance certificates and so on. The selling of newspapers is a tradition on the streets of our capital city and many other cities.

I do not see the problem in relation to the sale of fish. Paragraph (f) deals with the sale of agricultural goods. If we make it obligatory for each farmer to have a licence, then markets or fairs, which sell agricultural goods, will cease to exist. We should consider the types of casual trading and where it takes place throughout the country. Casual trading is a rich, colourful tradition and part of a way of life. We do not want a sanitised country where everything must be done under a roof and within strict economic parameters. We must introduce procedures which can be implemented for such trading. We should extend the list of exempted areas along the lines of the amendments proposed and then allow the relevant local authorities as specified in the original section of the Bill, to determine on the basis of their experience and knowledge of the categories traditionally operating in their area, whether to exempt them.

Mr. Crawford

I am not sure if Deputy Costello is in favour of the Bill but he seems to be pushing the amendment. Like Deputy Gregory, I am worried that we are putting too much pressure on newspaper boys and people selling strawberries, etc. It is not reasonable to require these people to have tax clearance certificates. If Revenue was notified about this issue in the same way it was suggested the Department of Social Welfare should be notified, then Revenue should follow it up if it is worthwhile.

The situation is slightly different in Cavan-Monaghan, for example due to traders who cross the border. Towns, such as Carrickmacross, are blocked by traffic and parking space is restricted every Thursday. The town is on the N6 route and people who would normally stop there for refreshment can no longer do so. I am not sure the local authority will be able to solve the problem. We must ensure that the legitimate taxpayers and shop owners, who pay rates to the urban council, are allowed remain in business and show off their wares. On Thursdays in Carrickmacross lorries block the view of the shop fronts. This is unfair and must be rectified.

Trains of travellers moving into an area, as Deputy Ned O'Keeffe mentioned, are business people rather than itinerants. They move into an area with lorry loads of gates and people worry that they are not there only to sell gates, but for other purposes. The genuine traders in hardware shops are under extreme pressure.

Will the Minister take account of the small trader or the ICA group, which sells agricultural products and not treat them as criminals or oblige them to provide tax clearance certificates before they start? Will he also take into account the problems caused by the big time traders who travel from town to town who may not pay their taxes as do others?

Mr. Haughey

A number of speakers suggested that this Bill is excessive and too bureaucratic. However, I thought the opposite and that the Bill reflected greater decentralisation and flexibility in the regulation of casual trading. Local authorities are often unsuccessful in seeking new powers but this is one area where power has been devolved to local authorities, and I welcome that.

Members referred to a number of special cases throughout the country, such as the sale of fruit and vegetables in Moore Street in Dublin, the sale of strawberries on the roads to Wexford, the sale of newspapers in city centre areas, or, as was mentioned, the sale of hats and scarves, etc. outside Croke Park or other football grounds. The purpose of this Bill is to allow flexibility in dealing with these cases and to allow the local authority to decide what comes under the definition of casual trading. I hope the Bill will allow local authorities deal with these special situations and bring about the exemption of these cases.

I would like to defend the special position of traders in Dublin, particularly those in Moore Street. They are, not to use a cliché, part of what we are; they are part of our tradition, culture and folklore. The Garda Síochána, various business groups and trade organisations pay excessive attention to traders in Moore Street and elsewhere, some of which is unnecessary. We must get our priorities right as to how we run the business of this and other cities. There are real crime issues, which need the attention of the Garda Síochána. Business organisations and groups should tackle other important issues affecting the business community. The issue of trading, particularly in Dublin city, has been over emphasised. I defend traders, what they stand for and the fact that they are part of our culture and tradition.

Buskers may also be linked in with traders. They provide an enjoyable service in the city. At present buskers are unduly harassed in Dublin, another example of getting our priorities wrong. We should not be bureaucratic in everything we do. That should be the message coming from this Bill in that local authorities are getting more power to deal with these situations.

I welcome the fact that charities are exempt from the terms of casual trading. A member referred to a magazine for the homeless which should be exempt. It is important to specify that casual trading for charity purposes is excluded and that it is not considered to be casual trading.

Mr. R. Burke

I welcome the Bill. Section 2 recognises how things are. Casual trading has always been a feature of economic life, probably more so now, in a regulated way, than ever before. The Bill strikes the right balance between the rights and obligations of casual traders, while at the same time it protects the interests of established traders. I know from correspondence I have received that those involved in trade in towns, for example, shopkeepers, welcome this Bill. They do not want it to be amended; they want it to go through in its present form. They pay rates and taxes and are caught in every way for each obligation the State imposes. Established shopkeepers in towns deserve respect and protection from the State. This Bill strikes the right balance and I support it.

Mr. Quinn

A number of points have been made. I would like to know whether the Members want central Government to regulate what is "exempted activity" on a standard basis around the country or whether it want this to be done by local authorities. The idea of this Bill— this was articulated at great length on Second Stage — is that, with one or two obvious exemptions, the local authority would have the power to implement the proposals contained in the amendments tabled by Deputies Costello, Gregory and Quill. I am prepared to move either way, if I get the committee‘s view on this. However, it seems to go against the thrust of what Members have said time and again about wanting more powers given to local authorities.

Section 2 (4) states:

A local authority may, as respects its functional area, by bye-laws under section 7 [which is an extensive section] add to the classes of selling specified in subsection (2) and that subsection shall, in relation to that functional area, be construed and have effect in accordance with any such bye-laws for the time being in force.

If the people of Cork, who elect the members of Cork City Council, believe news vendors selling The Evening Echoare an intrinsic part of the city’s tradition, then Cork City Council may decide to exempt news vendors and add them to the three categories in section 2(2). If, however, Deputy Quill does not trust the councillors of Cork City Council to exercise that particular view in regard to the historic traditions of Cork and would like me, as a “Dub”, to do so on her behalf, I am prepared to do so. If Deputy Gregory or Deputy Costello believe they cannot bring their persuasive powers of debate to bear on Dublin City Council to address the “constituency of Molly Malone” and would prefer me to do it from here and not go across to City Hall, where I share benches with Deputy Costello and nearly shared a bench with Deputy Gregory on the Civic Alliance, then I am prepared to do so. However, it seems to cut the ground from beneath their feet that local authorities should get more power.

It seems Members do not trust the local authorities of which they are members to bring in the exemptions they seek. I am prepared to consider this on Report Stage and, in respect of what Deputy Bruton said about some amendments, I am prepared to consider a number of them. We must get this Bill right. I had the benefit of extensive briefings from my officials who met with registered traders who have grievances in relation to some categories of trading to which Deputy Crawford referred. There are other traditional patterns of trade which, as Deputy Haughey said, are part of what we are and that we interfere with them at our peril. The way people are brought into the tax net could be done in a manner which is less "heavy" than what is suggested. However, that is a separate issue.

The issue here is not what are the exempted categories, but the relationship between City Hall and Dáil Éireann in respect of these areas. I would like to hear what Members have to say about this. For example, do Members want Deputy Costello's amendment No. 7, paragraphs (d) to (h), inclusive, which could be added by the Civic Alliance in Dublin City Council or by a majority of members in that council? If Deputy Costello, or any Member say they do not believe this can be delivered at the city council and would prefer it to be done here, I will consider that. If that is what I am being asked to do on behalf of the Government, then those Members are saying that devolution of serious powers is not something they want. I put this to every Member because everybody who has spoken on this issue is a member of a local authority. I presume Deputy Quill is a member of Cork City Council, she was a member at one stage and she would be familiar with this.

I pose that question to the movers of the amendments. I have the power to include these exempted categories by regulation, as set out in section 2 (3) and, as I read the Bill, local authorities to which Members belong also have the power to do so provided they can persuade a majority of their local authority or council. That seems to be the issue, not the definition of the categories. We could spend a lot of time arguing about the definition of categories and I wish to hear the views of Members before we proceed.

Mr. R. Bruton

We want devolution of power to local authorities. This Bill is offering them very limited powers. They can allocate casual trading licences on the basis of rationing and refuse someone a trading place only if one is not available. They are hidebound in that regard. They cannot evolve a practice under section 2, they can add to the exemptions but cannot modify existing exemptions. There is no possibility for the local authority to evolve practice in the way that would be possible if one devolves power.

It is interesting to contrast section 2 (4) with section 2 (3) where the Minister is taking on himself the right to amend by addition, deletion or alteration but the local authority can only add and if it adds it cannot remove. Quite clearly there is a difference in the power the Minister is offering the local authority. It is bizarre to say they must designate every place where a licence holder could trade. It is ludicrous for a newspaper vendor selling papers at the corner of Merrion Square to tell the local authority it must designate the corner of Merrion Square, put it on display, be open to appeals to the District Court, dispute whether the corner of Merrion Square is a designated place for a person selling a newspaper, go into the court and defend it if they want to protect the right of that newspaper vendor. That is not devolved power.

If we devolve power we must do so honestly and give local authorities the right to make discretionary decisions in this area. The more important thing, at the root of most of the requirements for exemption, is that in all the other areas of the Bill the Minister is proposing what most people feel are excessive powers.

In relation to tax clearance, I have a memo from the Revenue Commissioners that proper accounts for tax purposes and any other business records which would normally be kept in connection with the business of the applicant must be maintained. That is an unreasonable demand for a newspaper seller on a street corner. If they are looking for proper tax accounts, does he have to engage an accountant to deliver them? This man must be registered for tax but it is up to the Revenue Commissioners to satisfy themselves in relation to the way he is running his business and whether he has a tax liability.

A vendor who has had a conviction can lose his or her licence for five years without trial. That is excessive in terms of ordinary civil rights. In no other business would one misdemeanour be enough to remove a person's livelihood for five years. A convicted criminal has the right to get a casual trading licence but someone convicted of selling flowers without a licence is open to losing his or her livelihood for five years. There is no right of appeal built into the legislation. While we want devolved power, it should be devolved in a way that gives people dealing with the local authority reasonable rights.

There should be a test of what is reasonable in relation to fees. Fine Gael could go along with the idea of local authorities deciding the exemptions but the Bill has to be taken out of the bureaucratic straitjacket being put on every trader, from the tiny operation on a street corner to a very substantial operator administering a big business, presenting very strong competition to legitimate traders. The Minister needs to show willingness to modify the Bill in more areas than he has to date if we are to accept that devolution to the local authority is the way to deal with a wider range of concerns behind the amendments.

Mr. Gregory

The Minister asked a direction question and I will confine my comments to answering it. I am elected as a legislator and I do not intend to abdicate that responsibility to anyone. However, I have argued for devolution of powers to local authorities and I do not see any contradiction in that. If we as legislators have particular concerns regarding exemptions we must list them. We can resolve the problem of devolving power to the local authorities in the manner mentioned by Deputy Bruton by allowing them the power to add to, delete from or change that list giving the circumstances in their own area in whatever way they see fit.

We should not pass the buck, pretend we do not exist and give the responsibility to the local authority because the issue is too hot to handle, we have big businesses breathing down our necks on one side and other interests on the other side and we do not want to make a stand ourselves. I am not prepared to accept that. A number of Deputies listed areas of concern to them whether in the centre of Dublin in Moore Street, North Earl Street or on street corners selling papers. Other Deputies mentioned people selling strawberries on the side of the road in Wexford or fish at a quay side. We as legislators must act on our responsibilities. We were elected to represent those people. If we feel they should be exempt we must put that into the legislation and if we feel there are variations in circumstances around the country, the local authorities in those areas can also be given the power under section 10.

Another aspect of this Bill is wrong. We already have a list of exemptions in current legislation. If we remove those exemptions, we are telling local authorities that this is the way the Government wants it. The clear message we are sending out to the people concerned who use vendors, the people whom we represent, is that we are removing their current status. We are defining them as traders in the legislation while at present they are exempted. We cannot do that and at the same time say the local authority can change it back again if they wish. That is abdicating our responsibilities.

A number of Members feel other areas should be exempted from the legislation. Those exemptions should be allowed but the local authority should be allowed to add to or remove from that list as they see fit depending on the circumstances in their own area of authority.

Mr. Costello

The Minister has come to the nub of the question and given us two options. The first is whether we want to list as broadly as possible, and as listed in the 1980 legislation, the areas which it is deemed should be exempt from the provisions in the legislation or, second, whether we want to devolve all that power to the local authority. I indicated earlier that I perceived the former to be the correct approach because while the purpose of the Bill is to devolve power to the local authority, the Minister is also giving direction to the local authority — from central Government and from the parliamentary elected representatives from all over the country—via an overview of what the situation should be.

An overview is a collective of all the areas of casual trading that we believe should not be subjected to the economic bureaucracy of mainline business, the resultant penalties and the lack of an appeal mechanism built into the legislation. If accounts are not up to date and properly audited a licence will not be renewed; no other legislation provides for such an overwhelming penalty on anybody trading. Mr. Michael Smurfit does not have to face up to having a tax clearance certificate before he gets a licence to trade.

We should list all the areas in section 2, extensive as it is. Amendment No. 7 takes the exempted areas mentioned or listed in the 1980 Act and brings them forward as amendments to this legislation. Where we are devolving the authority it is for each local authority depending on its precise, specific knowledge of its functional area to decide whether it wishes to alter, delete or add to — I take Deputy Bruton's point that as well as adding it should be entitled to delete — whichever section is appropriate to the requirements of its casual traders. That is the most effective way of dealing with it.

Over the last 14 years because the local authority in Dublin chose to turn a blind eye to people who had licences to trade but who did not have sites to trade and made no attempt to provide sites for them it effectively criminalised them. This meant that men and women, particularly middle aged women, were chased — and are chased to this day — through the streets of Dublin, hauled before the courts and many of them have ended for up to two weeks or a month in prison, at a time when we hear so much about overcrowding in our prisons. That is not the direction our criminal law should take.

We have a responsibility in this matter and we must abdicate it to show the local authorities the way we think this legislation should operate. We should then leave it to each local authority to choose — having debated in its own forum — how to regulate and what by-laws to introduce in relation to the particular casual trading category that applies to its area.

Miss Quill

On Second Stage I repeatedly and emphatically told the Minister that I supported the main thrust of this Bill, the basic principles on which it is based and the principle of devolution of power from central Government to local government. I did not think it would be necessary to repeat that today. At the outset the Chairman advised us that this was not Second Stage and to be brief in our comments.

I trust local authorities and I am a member of one but I am here today in my capacity as a legislator and we are making law. I hope the intention is to make good law, in my experience that is law that is enforceable and which can be implemented. If the aspects covered by the two amendments I proposed are to be kept within this law the Minister is not giving power to the local authorities but a poisoned chalice. It was done before by central Government when the rates on domestic dwellings were removed and they were to be supplemented by rate support grant. This would not be the first time that central Government handed a poisoned chalice to local government.

Mr. Quinn

If I recall correctly the Deputy supported that proposal and I did not.

Miss Quill

I was not here at the time. I was far from here.

Mr. Quinn

Still trying to get in.

Miss Quill

The newspaper vendors I described in my amendment are not peculiar to the streets of Cork or Dublin; they are on the streets of every town and city. I used Cork as an example just to prove a point. If we are putting a requirement on local Government to somehow implement a law in respect of newspaper sellers we are setting them an impossible task. Simply put, it will not be possible for them to do it.

In Cork there are 150 such persons. How could the local authority set about designating 150 spaces for people who sell newspapers on the streets and determine designated areas for such people? It would be impossible. It would spend the next 25 years trying to resolve that problem and trying to frame by-laws. We would all be dead and gone and the matter would still not be resolved. It is absurd to try to bring the activity carried out by newspaper sellers on the street within the ambit of this Bill. We are making law and I ask the Minister in particular to exclude the categories to which I referred.

It is equally absurd — although this is not a matter for local authorities — to expect such people to provide tax clearance certificates, bearing in mind the extent of their economic activity and their income. It will not be possible for local authorities to designate areas for newspaper vendors and we should not put that requirement on them. I ask that of the Minister not in the spirit of scoring points between local and central Government, but in the spirit of common sense and the advancement of the principle that we are making law that can be enforced. Nothing brings law into disrepute more than designing or making new law that cannot be and is not enforced. That brings all law into disrepute.

I respect the key principles of this Bill. I want it to emerge from this committee as a law that can and will be enforced and, for that reason, I appeal to the Minister to exclude the categories of newspaper vendors I outlined in my amendment. It has nothing to do with the devolution of power to local authorities but with the exercise of common sense.

Mr. Wallace

On the same point as Deputy Quill, I also make a strong appeal to the Minister. There is a unique group of vendors in Cork which we call the "Echo boys". They earn their living distributing newspapers early in the morning and in the evening and they do not consider themselves casual traders.

I pay tribute to the Minister for introducing this Bill. For many years we have demanded action to deal with Irish and foreign traders who descend on a town and sell goods on the streets for a day and then leave, having devastated the local communities and the environment. The cost of rectifying the damage falls on the local authorities. We welcome the Bill, appreciate most of its points and consider sections of it worthwhile.

However, this legislation has grave implications for news vendors in Cork. I support Deputy Quill. News vendors who have never worked at any other trade are very concerned. They are not all young boys and girls but grown people making a living who are worried this legislation as it stands will affect them in a detrimental way. In complimenting the Minister for introducing the legislation, I ask him to bear these points in mind and accept these amendments. The Minister should exclude that vulnerable sector, many of whom would find it difficult to get other jobs. The Chair is aware of this unique situation. I hope the Minister can accept these amendments.

Mr. McCormack

How would the local authorities licence and control itinerant traders who sell gates, farm implements, cars and vans on the side of the road and horses in urban areas?

Mr. Quinn

I am more than willing to co-operate with Members so that the Bill reflects the concerns and the interests of all. I do not have a monopoly of wisdom on this matter, but there are three central issues involved. Local authorities have a responsibility to designate areas where casual trading can take place, either in specific markets or their entire functional area, as in the case of news vendors. What Deputy Bruton said is patent nonsense. One cannot designate the northeast and the south-east corners of Merrion Square. It would be like trying to regulate those who help people park their cars around Dublin city.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Minister could allow them to do that.

Mr. Quinn

As I understand the Bill, one could, for the purposes of a certain type of activity, give someone a licence to sell newspapers anywhere in Dublin city. There is nothing in section 7 to prevent this. We can discuss it when we debate section 7.

We are trying to address three basic issues here. I do not profess to have a monopoly of wisdom on how best to do it, but it will have to be done. First, everyone will have to be brought into the tax net in the easiest and most effective way possible. It is up to the Revenue Commissioners, and the Department of Social Welfare, subsequently, to carry out their duties in that regard. Second, local authorities have to designate specific areas, either markets, streets or zones, where trade can take place. I agree with Deputies Costello and Gregory that Dublin City Council has been remiss about this and has virtually criminalised a category of people who, while having been able to get a permit from my Department since 1980 at £180, cannot effectively use it. Indeed, some of my constituents want to return their permits because they are of no use to them. Third, the effect of exempting the suggested categories will be that they will not come into the tax net because they will not require a licence. Nobody will say that anyone with an income above the thresholds for taxation purposes should be exempt from taxation because they are carrying on a traditional trade. The only way to bring people into the tax net is to require them to get a licence. If that licence is merely to record them as being officially in the business or trade it is then up to the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare to go after them in the same way as they pursue others.

If they are not required to get a licence, which is what is meant by exemption, the requirement to bring people into the tax net falls by the wayside. If that requirement is not met, then we are missing the thrust of what people in smaller towns, who are critically depending on a shrinking rates base, are saying. Deputy McCormack, whose constituency extends to towns such as Clifden, will agree with me that when everybody goes to the town on a market day, so do the traders, who open up their vans and cream off what would be a weeks' trading. Fixed shopkeepers, who are liable for rates 360 days of the year are left at a disadvantage. They are not complaining about the trade, but that there is not a level playing pitch because travelling traders do not appear to have to pay tax or have the overheads of a shopkeeper.

I favour the entrepreneurial spirit and people going out in all weather to earn their living and I do not want to stop that. However, it should be done on a comparatively fair basis, in so far as that is possible. If I included all the categories mentioned in the 1980 Act and accepted the thrust of Deputy Bruton's amendment, which is that both the Minister and the local authority can add, delete or amend accordingly, that would be one way of sharing powers. However, if after a certain period, for example, Dublin Corporation or Cork City Council refused to include categories of traditional vendors and kept them outside the tax net because it is the only mechanism to bring them into it, the requirement to bring people into the tax net or to even get them registered, would be gone. I would have no option but to exercise that power under section 2 (3).

I am prepared to consider this matter. There is a major philosophical problem here. If one exempts people such as Deputy Wallace's "Echo boys", they will be outside the system. They may not be making much money — I suspect they are not — but they are still making something. Many paying PAYE feel they are making some money and since they are outside the system, they have access to all that is going. There is then a sense of inequity shared by ordinary citizens paying their taxes. That is not fair. As legislators, we have an obligation to ensure that not only is the law fair, but that it is perceived to be fair. That will not be addressed if we do not include all people in the tax net. I have not heard a way of doing this from the Deputies proposing these amendments. How does one register people for the purposes of tax and social welfare on the one hand and not come down with the heavy hand at the same time? That is the problem.

If one accepts the extensive categories in Deputy Costello's amendment, one is virtually excluding all casual traders. I do not think there is a category or a commodity that is not excluded, other than the people who sell clothing and footwear and such like at specific markets. Such people are in the commercial world and are registered traders by and large.

If I accept this series of amendments all of these people will be automatically outside the system in consequence as they are not registered for anything. The Deputies should make it clear this is what they want and that they do not believe such people should be in the tax net as they are not making money of any consequences, or alternatively, that irrespective of whether they are making money or not they should not be eligible for tax. However, I do not believe that is the view of Members, rather they suggest that the compliance requirements, which are addressed in later sections, are so onerous that they will be an imposition.

If I was to advise the House that I am prepared to consider the compliance requirements and to make them as light as possible, then I would ask the committee to give me another way of ensuring that all of these activities can at least be registered. If they are exempted they will not be registered and if they are not registered then they are outside the system altogether, and this is not what people want.

This becomes academic if local authorities, such as Dublin City Council, of which I was a member and where I served my political apprenticeship, consistently refuse to designate additional areas because of the pressure of the business community, many of whom argue that women with prams selling chocolate bars are driving them out of business, which is nonsense. There are members of Dublin City Council present and they are aware of how powerful that lobby is. The problem must therefore be recognised and addressed. It is a lobby that has seen an increase in the rates by 46 per cent over and above the rate of inflation in the past ten or 15 years and, therefore, they have legitimate concerns also.

Miss Coughlan

There appears to be a great impasse between what people want from the traditional point of view and the commercial activities of those who pay rent, rates and so on. The nub of the problem is that local authorities have not provided proper local trading areas. It is not about obtaining a casual trading licence. It may be about the compliance requirements, which can be considered at a later stage. I am not from Dublin but I am aware that if, for example, Dublin Corporation decided that all the traders are to be removed from Moore Street there will be pandemonium, even though such traders only have a casual trading licence.

There must be a balance struck for that which is traditional in an area. For example, in Dublin it would be terrible to see the removal of what are commonly known as the Moore Street traders, and the buskers, who are a novelty for many people. However there are difficulties. The towns of Killybegs and Ballyshannon were plagued for years at certain times with people arriving with vans, gates and so on, similar to the situation in Monaghan. They arrived, dumped their rubbish on the streets, preventing people from moving up and down, and there was neither rhyme or reason to what was going on.

However, that situation arose because we, as councillors, did not designate areas conducive to trading. They could have been moved eight miles outside the town to a field but this is the nub of the problem, whether it be in Dublin, Cork or wherever. The licence is not the problem.

Something will have to be done. Perhaps the problem will have to be taken from local authorities, who are crying for more powers, but we as councillors are not prepared to take such power seriously and use it. There is merit on both sides of the argument, but they will not come any closer until such time as the most important aspect of the problem is addressed. Adequate trading areas must be provided within every county suitable for buyers, while at the same time we must ensure that there is a level playing pitch with those who pay tax, rates, insurance, water rates and so on.

The committee could proceed to a vote and anticipate what may happen. However, the committee should allow the Minister to consider some other way of addressing the problem of casual trading areas, as opposed to the licence. This is the only way the problem can be addressed, because many of these traders have permits and, perhaps, there should be less bureaucracy in obtaining the licence.

There should be some way of coming together to strike a balance between what is required by Members of the Committee. No Member will say that people who do not earn an income should pay tax. If that is the situation Members should not be in the Dáil.

There must be fair play. There was much hassle from the farmer's lobby over the PRSI number. If people are brought into the tax net, the Revenue commissioners should not be seen to try to annihilate them. If they have a taxable income there must be fairness in the way they are brought into the tax net. People should not be punished for coming into the net. If they have got away with it for a few years and there is no substantial income lost to the Revenue Commissioners, such people should be encouraged into the tax net. Perhaps the Minister could explain this to the Revenue Commissioners and dissuade them from pursuing such people.

These people are part of a tradition of entrepreneurial activity which I encourage and support.

Mr. R. Bruton

The committee is making progress if the Minister is indicating flexibility regarding the later sections. The tax certificate is a big problem. In recent cases where tax certification became necessary for licences the Revenue Commissioners went back over the entire period during which a person was trading with the licence. With regard to casual trading this means that the Revenue Commissioners would effectively be going back, perhaps many years, requiring traders to prove that they had kept proper accounts and so on.

The Revenue Commissioners have the right to pursue anyone, but they do not have the right to hold up the continuation of people's livelihood until they establish all these matters. Therefore, if the Minister is indicating some flexibility on this it is to be welcomed.

The Minister appeared to indicate that if the local authorities decided on certain exemptions he would take them back. If, for example, they decided to exempt newspaper sellers or strawberry sellers the Minister would not be happy with that and in a couple of years would seek the tax certificates of such traders. This reveals an element of schizophrenia on the Minister's part in so far as while he wants there to be devolution, he will take back such devolved powers if the local authorities do not act in the way he wishes.

This is what the Minister proposes regarding tax certification, but not with regard to what he considers to be the primary issue of inadequate designated spaces. The Minister is not going to exercise such power but will allow the local authorities, according to the Bill, go on their merry way and not designate places. The Minister cannot have it both ways where he proposes to override the local authorities on some issues and criticise them on others.

I am happy for the committee to progress with the other sections and see if a satisfactory Bill emerges.

Mr. Gregory

I am pleased to note a number of Deputies now say that the tax clearance certificate is a big problem. I am not sure if there were that many saying so on Second Stage. I am pleased that the arguments made on Second Stage by those who felt it was a problem were listened to. When I argued against this issue on Second Stage I felt, having spoken to people that would be affected, that it would present a major problem and was oppressively bureaucratic. It was one of the main reasons I attacked the Bill as being draconian, along with the other issue of the huge fines and so on which the committee will address later.

The Minister mentioned that Deputy Costello and I castigated Dublin Corporation. I did not and do not because Dublin City Council attempted to designate pitches for the pram women, as some of us call them. I introduced a number of motions at meetings of the city council — I do not think Deputy Quinn was a member at the time — recommending areas which could be designated, one of which was Cole's Lane. The assistant city manager, Mr. Davy Byrne, met the women and accepted they had a case. He knew many of them because he met them when walking from Jervis Street and the corporation buildings. He undertook to make a test case of Cole's Lane and attempt to establish 12 pitches for 12 elderly women there.

Big stores in the area did everything possible to prevent this, with all the money and power at their disposal. They brought the corporation to court to prevent it designating these spots. When the corporation won the case and designated pitches, it discovered that the women to whom it wanted to give them did not qualify because of another draconian measure, being reintroduced in this Bill, whereby one cannot get a licence if one has been convicted of illegal street trading in the previous five years. Mr. Byrne decided to wait for three or four years until these people had five years without convictions. This meant that to designate 12 pitches for 12 women took six or seven years. This was the test case.

The people to castigate for the non-designation of pitches for these unfortunate women are the big business interests who do not want women selling from prams outside their stores. This is snobbery. Individuals in the city centre business association, in particular one, whose name I will not mention, but who is well known to the Minister, orchestrated that campaign for the past ten years or more and they are responsible for much of what we are trying to come to grips with now. They prevented any progress being made since I became a member of the council.

The business interests in the city centre should have been told before the Bill was introduced that their co-operation was needed, that the Bill would not result in them being put out of business, that we are talking about a few dozen people, mainly middle-aged or elderly women, who want a pitch from which to sell.

I agree that everybody should pay his fair share of tax. This is the view of all those I know who trade, legally or illegally, under the present system. I am glad that people are now beginning to see that the tax clearance certificate system is oppressively bureaucratic and a major problem. The crux of the problem now is that some of the major provisions here are seen to be too problematic. The answer is to withdraw the Bill and return with one which is flexible, workable and can be easily amended. It is very difficult to deal with this Bill because some of its provisions are not workable or acceptable and will cause huge problems for the people I mentioned. Most of the people in the city centre whom I represent are outside the tax net because they are the poorest of the poor. Compared to Dáil expenses, the amounts these women earn are tiny. They would not come into the tax net at any stage due to their earnings and their circumstances.

Miss Quill

I agree with the overall terms of the Bill and it is incumbent on us to bring as many casual traders as possible into the tax net. We must create a fair balance between the rights of established traders, who pay rates, water charges and wages and are the mainstay of the local economy in every city and town, and the rights of casual traders. Established traders have been put out of business because of the activities of casual traders. For this reason I welcome the Bill, which is, for the most part, well framed. I am appalled that anybody would think that we should introduce a new Bill.

The Minister should accept my amendment and I ask him for the last time to do so. I will not repeat my arguments, because I have done so ad nauseum, to exclude newspaper sellers on the streets of our cities and towns. Their inclusion is nothing more than a useless exercise in bureaucracy which will not yield revenue. We are talking about people who would not in any circumstances earn enough to make them liable for tax. This is just visiting a silly exercise in bureaucracy on local authorities. I will press the amendment when we resume.

Chairman

The debate on this Bill is adjourned until another date. The next meeting of the committee will take place tomorrow at 10 a.m. in Room G5 in Kildare House, at which we will discuss the Estimate for the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications.

The Select Committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m.