I move:—
|
Go gceaduíonn Dáil Eireann naConvensiúin seo a leanas do dhaingniú ar son Shaorstáit Eireann agus a tíolaiceadh don Dáil an 29adh lá so d'Abráin, 1925:— |
That Dáil Eireann approves ofthe ratification in respect of Saorstát Eireann of the following Conventions which were presented to the Dáil on this 29th day of April, 1925:— |
|
(a) Convensiún i dtaobh Díomhaointis; |
(a) Convention concerning Unemployment; |
|
(b) Convensiún ag socrú an aois mhinimum chun leanbhaí do ghlaca i bhfostaíocht cheárdais: |
(b) Convention for fixing the minimum age for admission of children to industrial employment; |
|
(c) Convensiún i dtaobh Fostú Ban i rith na hoíche; |
(c) Convention concerning Employment of Women during the night. |
|
(d) Convensiún i dtaobh obair oíche dhaoine óga i bhfostaíocht cheárdais;: |
(d) Convention concerning the night work of young persons employed in industry; |
|
Convensiúin le n-ar ghlac Có-dháil Idirnáisiúnta an Oibreachais 28adh Mí na Samhna, 1919, i rith a gCéad Shíosóin a comóradh i Washington 29adh Deire Fomhair-29adh Mí na Samhna, 1919, agus |
adopted on 28th November, 1919, by the International Labour Conference during its First Session held at Washington 29th October-29th November, 1919, and |
|
(e) Convensiún ag socrú an aois mhinimum chun leanbhaí do ghlaca i bhfostaíocht ar muir ní le n-ar ghlac Códháil Idirnáisiúnta an Oibreachais an 9adh Iúl, 1920, i rith a nDara Siosóin a comóradh i nGenoa 15adh Meitheamh-10adh Iúl, 1920, agus |
(e) Convention fixing the minimum age for admission of children to employment at sea adopted on the 9th July, 1920, by the International Labour Conference during its Second Session held at Genoa 15th June-10th July, 1920, and |
|
(f) Convensiún i dtaobh an aois chun leanbhaí do ghlaca i bhfostaíocht thalmhaíochta, ní le n-ar ghlac Códháil Idirnáisiúnta an Oibreachais an 16adh Mí na Samhna, 1921, i rith a dTríú Siosóin a comóradh i nGeneva 25adh Deire Fomhair-19adh Mí na Samhna, 1921. |
(f) Convention concerning the age for admission of children to employment in agriculture adopted on the 16th November, 1921, by the International Labour Conference during its Third Session held at Geneva 25th October-19th November, 1921. |
I spoke last night on the first resolution, as to a distinction between conventions and recommendations. In this motion I am dealing with six conventions, and I do not want to make any pretence that anything very abnormal is being done with regard to the ratifying of these conventions. It really amounts to a clearing up of the position with regard to certain conventions which were passed at a time when we were not members of the League of Nations, and consequently were not members of the International Labour Organisation. If I might refer to the resolutions in bulk, the position that we wish to achieve is something like this: Since the beginning of the International Labour Organisation seventeen conventions have been passed at the conferences held in Geneva, of which the Saorstát has ratified two by resolution in this House and in the Seanad. There are, therefore, fifteen outstanding, and I am moving to-night to add six to the two, which would leave nine outstanding.
One of these, No. 7 in the list, as they are numbered in the official Labour publications, is a question of the prohibition of white phosphorus in matches: but the law prohibiting white phosphorus in matches, which was passed in 1909, is in force in this country, so that as far as the effective application of that is concerned, we are doing all that is necessary. I am not moving to ratify that convention to-night, because there was a convention which was afterwards adopted by the International Labour Organisation, and there is a distinction about which I am not too clear at the moment as to the formal method of ratification, or adherence. We can do what is requisite immediately we discover what is the proper method to adopt towards it, as we have legislation actually effecting what is necessary for the purpose of the convention. On the formal point of adherance we are actually in line with it, but we are not moving to adhere to or ratify it to-night.
That leaves eight outstanding. Of these eight, four—two passed at the second Conference of 1920 on Unemployment Indemnity, which refer to seamen and employment for seamen, and Nos. 16 and 17 passed at the third Conference in 1921, setting out the minimum age for the employment of trimmers and stokers, and the question of compulsory medical examination to be repeated annually for young persons employed at sea—are being left over because they fall to be discussed and will come more properly within our province when we deal with the merchant shipping legislation which will be brought before this House either in the autumn of this year or early next year. That leaves four, about which I am making no motion this evening, one of these being the question of hours which was agitating Deputy Good last night. Another is what is known as the Maternity Convention, No. 3 of the Conference of 1923, and No. 14, dealing with the use of white lead in paint, and No. 15, which entails a weekly rest of twenty-four hours in industry. The situation, therefore, will be this, if these conventions are put through to-night, that of seventeen conventions we have already ratified two, and we are moving to ratify six to-night.
There is one to which we in fact adhered, having legislation in force, that is No. 7, and there are two sets of four which we are leaving over. One set deals with questions connected with seamen, and that four will more properly come up to be dealt with at the time when merchant shipping is discussed. Then there are the other four about which we are taking no action at the moment. As to these four, the question of hours is one which we are leaving over because we do not think it proper that a country like this should ratify a Convention which has more application to a highly industrialised country. It seems absurd that we should ratify it while the highly industrialised countries have not yet proceeded to do so, particularly those which are nearest us and with which we are in competition.
The Maternity Convention we do not propose to ratify at the moment, because certain regulations in force here under the National Health Insurance Act, and other Acts, set out a series of provisions on the same point which, to a certain degree, are better than what the Maternity Convention has proposed, but in certain points are not so good. But to pass this at the moment would entail a rehandling of the National Health Insurance Act, with other Acts, and we are not prepared to enter upon that at the moment. That Convention is, therefore, being left over for future consideration.
The question of the white lead prohibition with regard to paint is not being dealt with at the moment. There is such a harrowing series of statistics with regard to fatalities from the use of white lead that undoubtedly there is a prima facie case made for its prohibition. Suggestions have been made as to whether or not the danger could be eliminated by certain preventive measures, and there is an objection as to whether paint without white lead could really be as effective and as good as paint of which white lead is a constituent.
Inquiries have been and are being made, but they have not yet been sufficient for the purpose of making a decision. We will soon be in a position to deal with that matter so far as Saorstát affairs are concerned. The question of a weekly rest in industry is one which we must leave over, not because we object to the principle of the Convention, as the principle is actually in accordance with the way life runs in the Saorstát. There is practically everywhere this 24-hour rest from work on Sundays. In that respect we are completely in line with what the Convention seeks to establish. There are certain clauses with regard to compensation periods for people who work during the week and who are forced to work on Sundays. This would cause serious disturbance here to make it effective, and until we see how these clauses work in with our system of industry, we are leaving them over. I want to emphasise the position with regard to these eight. There are three about which we say nothing. As regards white lead, about which we say there is a prima facie case, we want to make inquiries to see how far the prohibition can be made effective. There are four others with which legislation in some way dealing with them will be introduced, either in the autumn this year, or early next year. With regard to the six which I am now moving to adopt, I would like to point out that no new legislation is entailed by the first five. One is a convention concerning unemployment and the legislation to give effect to what is aimed at by the Convention is in force here by the Labour Exchange Act of 1909, and by various Acts passed since 1920. Legislation concerning the employment of women and young persons on night work, and children in industries, and the fixing of a minimum age for the employment of children at sea is effected by the Act dealing with women, young persons and children which was passed in 1920. So far as these are concerned, no new legislation is required. The sixth requires new legislation. It concerns the age regarding the employment of children in agriculture. I am willing to adopt that. In this case the Convention is completely in line with the Compulsory School Attendance Bill which is in draft, and which will see the light shortly. The age established there is that referred to under this Convention. I do not say that this particular School Attendance Bill will pass without certain objections from some Deputies on the Farmers Benches. With those objections I may afterwards have some concern as an individual, but as moving this International Convention I have no interest in them. As between the Minister for Education, the Minister for Agriculture, and the farmers' representatives, there may be a conflict, but whatever may be the result of that conflict this international Labour Convention is in line with the proposals of the Bill, and as far as age is concerned, I cannot see how the proposals of the Bill are to be defeated.
If they are defeated, I believe it will be contrary to Government policy, and in so far as this represents Government policy we are moving it because the Bill which is to follow fixes the age which is in accordance with the Convention. There is another point, and that arises in connection with Schedule F, Article 2, which says: "For purposes of practical vocational instruction, the periods and the hours of school attendance may be so arranged as to permit the employment of children on light agricultural work, and in particular on light work connected with the harvest, provided that such employment shall not reduce the total annual period of school attendance to less than eight months." In moving that clause, I may say that it is in line with the Government policy as reflected in certain provisions of the Compulsory School Attendance Bill. Article 1 speaks of children who may be employed outside the hours of school attendance. It admits that that is possible, but it holds that such employment shall not be such as to prejudice their attendance at school. I expect on that a question will be raised as to whether the school hours will be arranged so as to allow children to be employed in agriculture during seed time and harvest time. That is a matter to be fought out on the School Attendance Bill between the farmers' representatives and the Minister for Education. Whatever be the result, I do not think that the Convention will be changed, because such a dispute would circle round the question of what are school hours, and whatever school hours are fixed the result will be in line with this Convention. There may be quarrels about the hours at which children may be employed at a certain period. It will not affect the Convention. We are not prejudiced as regards that question, and we will not take away from the farmers' representatives the chance of conflict which they will have afterwards. We are not tying our hands in any way. The one thing in which we are tied is with regard to the question of the fixing of the age at fourteen. That is the age to be fixed by the Compulsory School Attendance Bill. If it is something higher, it will be all the better.
