Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Oct 1924

Vol. 9 No. 5

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS BILL, 1924.—SECOND STAGE.

This Bill is not one that could be described as of any very general importance. It is purely to deal with a small matter of administration, which I hope I will be able to make clear.

By the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, certain days in the year set out in the schedule, viz., Easter Monday, the Monday in Whitsun week, the first Monday in August, and the 26th day of December, if a week day, were made Bank Holidays, and power was therefore given to Her Majesty in Council to declare certain other days to be Bank Holidays. The powers of proclamation conferred by the Act were to be exercised as regards Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council. After the passing of this Act it was found that its provisions related solely to Banks, and accordingly by the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, Extensions and Amendments Act, 1875, provisions of the 1871 Act were extended to Government offices and the powers given to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council were extended to holidays under the latter Act. Article 28 of the Constitution reads as follows:

"At a General Election for Dáil Eireann the polls (exclusive of those members for the Universities) shall be held on the same day throughout the country, and that day shall be a day not later than thirty days after the date of the dissolution and shall be proclaimed a public holiday. Dáil Eireann shall meet within one month of such day, and shall unless earlier dissolved continue for four years from the date of its first meeting, and not longer. Dáil Eireann may not at any time be dissolved except on the advice of the Executive Council."

The powers of proclaiming a Bank Holiday given by the 1871 and 1875 Acts would, it is submitted, now be properly exercisable by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council. It has, however, apparently been considered the proper construction of Article 28 of the Constitution that the Executive Council alone is the proper body to proclaim a public holiday under that Article. Furthermore, as the law now stands, a public holiday declared under that Article would not be a Bank Holiday for the purposes of the 1871 and 1875 Acts. To cure this defect and to get rid of the anomaly of having two separate methods of declaring or proclaiming public holidays in the country, it has been thought advisable to introduce this Bill. Section 1 of the Bill simply empowers the Executive Council to appoint any day to be a Bank Holiday and provides that such day shall be a Bank Holiday both for the purposes of the 1871 and of the 1875 Acts. Section 2 empowers the Executive Council to change the dates of Bank Holidays in special cases, and Section 3 provides for the method of proclaiming such holidays.

Deputies will see, therefore, that the Bill causes no important change, and bears merely on a matter of administrative convenience. It is yet a matter that might prove of practical importance administratively, and the sole object of the Bill is to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlapping in the matter of proclaiming public holidays and Bank Holidays. I move the Second Reading.

I suppose this Bill is necessary to make easy the running of the administrative machine; but it seems to me one ought to be a little careful in regard to the powers that are sought to be given to the Executive Council, varying the days which are to be appointed Bank Holidays. The fact that there are certain days fixed by statute makes it possible and convenient for people to make arrangements beforehand, and a great deal of preparation is made in businesses and industries and by private persons long before the day comes, because it is known as a fixed holiday. I think we ought to be careful not to give too much power to the Ministry in that respect.

There is another matter that I wish to bring before the Minister in respect to public and Bank Holidays. The term holiday is, of course, pleasing to the ear, and sounds very nice; but a man is easier in his mind when he is getting a holiday if he is getting his pay for the same day. In regard to a very large number of people, when you tell them they are going to have a holiday, it means that they are going to lose their pay for that day. I would ask the Minister favourably to consider the insertion of a clause in the Bill ensuring to workmen who are given a holiday by statute that they shall have their day's pay for that holiday. I think it would be a popular proposal, and I am sure it would do justice to men who are deprived by statute of an opportunity for earning their living. I submit that suggestion to the Minister in the hope that he will give favourable consideration to it between now and the Committee Stage.

There is one clause in this Bill that needs a little more attention than is possibly devoted to it. In clause 3, I notice that the proclamation made by the Executive Council under this Act shall be published not later than the day before the day which is declared by such proclamation to be a Bank or other holiday. These holidays have somewhat of a disturbing effect on business, and I think it is very essential that longer notice than one day should be given, whenever it is proposed to constitute a holiday. One day's notice is insufficient. I would be glad if the Minister gave a little more attention to that clause, and I would like him to see if one day's notice could not be extended to seven days. That would be a suitable period to give notice of a holiday. With regard to the suggestion made by Deputy Johnson, I am sure he is quite right in saying that it would be a most popular suggestion amongst the members of his own party, but I do not know that the other section of the community would look on it in the same light.

Deputy Good will be glad to know that the point that he has raised has occurred to other Deputies. I have here an amendment that I propose to put down for the Committee Stage, and it suggests extending the period to seven days. I think that any argument in favour of that would be more appropriate then than now.

Whom does Deputy Johnson suggest should pay the employees for this holiday—is it the State, or is it the employer whom they do not work for? I take it this holiday would be granted for the benefit of the people to whom it is given, and that they prefer this holiday to working. The sugguestion is that the employer should pay for something he does not get. I would be interested to know if it is the employer that Deputy Johnson thinks should pay. If it is the State, it is all right. It would be a very nice thing to have the State paying. I would not be surprised if every second week in the year was, under those circumstances, set aside for a holiday.

I think Deputy Johnson was not very serious in suggesting what he did suggest to the Minister. I agree with him entirely that the question of holidays should be so arranged that people would get accustomed to looking forward to the days. If there is any change, it ought to be made in substitution of the present holidays for other days, and it ought to be laid down as soon as possible what the new holidays would be. I do not know if this would be the time in which to do that; probably it would not. A holiday or any day that is proclaimed, 24 hours or two or three or even seven days before will have a very upsetting tendency on trade as a whole. I think it would be very objectionable to exercise that power at short notice except in cases of emergency. I do think that people would require to know beforehand if there is to be any alteration in the days that are to be established as holidays.

I would like to be informed whether this word "holiday" in an Act of this Dáil will necessitate a working man remaining idle on the day of the holiday? I suppose it would if the man had to take a holiday. But it would be no holiday for him if he is not paid. A workman cannot afford to take holidays, and if he is compelled to take them and goes without his wages I would object to it. I would like to know from the Minister for Justice whether if it is to be a holiday the workman is to be paid for it? I know myself that if he is not paid he will not consider it a holiday.

With regard to Deputy Johnson's point about the obvious inconvenience of change without adequate notice, I think that it ought be possible to insert in the Bill a subsection 2 to Section 2, providing that the decision to change a Bank Holiday, for some special reason, from one date to another should be communicated to the public some given time in advance. I see no reason why it should not be made as much as a month in advance.

Now as to Section 3—to proclaim a particular day a Bank Holiday, that is apart from the question of change of date, I think that some reasonable notice, say a week or a fortnight, should be made statutory in connection with that. If notice were fixed too long it might preclude foreseeing the exact event that would occasion the proclaiming of the day as a Bank Holiday. But a fortnight should not be too long for that purpose, and I would consider the insertion of a provision to that effect under Section 3. As to the question of payment for Holidays, I do not think I should be drawn into that kind of controversy in a Bill of this kind. I do not know myself at the moment what the existing arrangement is, or whether there is any existing uniform arrangement. I prefer not to express any opinion. If Deputies wish to put down amendments for the Committee stage of this Bill I will have them considered. There is a great deal of force in what has been said on both sides.

Question: "That the Bill be read a second time," put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5th November, 1924.
Top
Share