Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 7

PRIVATE TEACHTAS' BUSINESS. - SHOP HOURS (DRAPERY TRADES, DUBLIN AND DISTRICTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

SECTION 7.

In Section 4 of the Act of 1925, the words "twenty pounds" are hereby repealed and the following words substituted therefor, that is to say—"fifty pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month."

Mr. JOHNSON

I propose the following amendment:

To delete the section and insert a new section as follows:—

"If any person contravenes the provisions of this Act he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable on conviction—

(a) in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding one pound;

(b) in the case of a second offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and

(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month."

As a result of the discussion on the last occasion, at the suggestion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, an amendment that was down in my name was put forward to fill what might have been considered an omission—that is to say, to provide a penalty clause. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 was not dealt with and was allowed to pass, but it will be essential on Report Stage to move to delete that sub-section. Perhaps I should not say "essential" but rather "desirable." The amendment which is on the Order Paper in my name is to delete Section 7 and insert a new section which embodies a section of the existing Act plus a proposal in the Bill which came up from the Special Committee. I gather that the only difference between this amendment and that which is pretty generally accepted is, that in my amendment and in that which came up from the Committee there was provision in the case of a third, or subsequent, offence for a fine not exceeding £50, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month. It must be remembered that the alternative is at the discretion of the magistrate and it is a maximum of one month. It is important to remember that it is only applicable in the case of an offender who has persistently and deliberately broken the law and it cannot apply until after two committals, and then as a maximum.

Therefore, I think the case for this alternative of a term of imprisonment is easily proved. The fine of £50 is agreed upon as a maximum penalty, commensurate with a third offence, but it is quite easily conceivable that a £50 fine would be profitably borne rather than obey the law, and if such appears to the magistrate to be the state of mind of the defendant in such a case, I desire, and the Committee agreed, that the magistrate should have liberty to impose a maximum term of one month's imprisonment if the offence seemed to him to warrant it. There is not much in the point that is referred to in sub-section (2) of Deputy Doyle's amendment. So far as the repeal of Section 4 of the Act of 1925 is concerned, it will make no difference whether it is left in or out. Perhaps from my point of view it might be better repealed, so that I have no objection to inserting that if Deputy Doyle would like to press it. But I do urge upon the Dáil the necessity for including an alternative of imprisonment, and that where there has been a persistent and wilful violation of the law the magistrate should have power to inflict this maximum penalty.

Dr. HENNESSY

I will ask Deputy Johnson to accept Deputy Doyle's amendment instead of his own. My objection to Deputy Johnson's amendment is the provision for a month's imprisonment. Deputy Johnson's amendment does not say whether these three offences are to occur within three months or extend over one year or five years. One can see that a third offence occurring within three months of a previous offence would be far more serious than if the three offences were extended over five years. I think imprisonment in the circumstances is altogether a punishment that does not fit the crime, and I would ask Deputy Johnson to accept Deputy Doyle's amendment, which is in all essentials the same, with the exception of the imprisonment alternative.

Mr. WOLFE

Having been one of those who listened to the evidence given before the Special Committee, I have come to the conclusion that effective penalties are absolutely necessary. There is no doubt that the present law is very largely evaded. That was admitted before the Committee, and it is quite necessary that penalties should be provided. These amendments before us differentiate between first, second and subsequent offences, which is quite right, because a man may unwillingly disobey the law once or twice. But he cannot be allowed to go on for ever putting the law at defiance, and if the penalties are not such as will make him obey the law you might as well not have the law at all. Therefore, I hold that they should be made effective in such a way as would put an end to this evasion of the law that, as far as I can see, has gone on ever since the passing of the Act of 1925. I am strongly in favour of the retention of this option of one month's imprisonment, and I am entirely in agreement with Deputy Johnson's amendment.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is Deputy Johnson agreeing to the suggestion to take out these words?

Mr. JOHNSON

No.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

To settle the point at issue between the two amendments, I could take an amendment to delete the words in Deputy Johnson's amendment.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

Will I be in order in moving the deletion of these words?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

In Deputy Johnson's amendment to delete the words in paragraph (c) after the word "pounds" the words "or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month." Yes, I accept that.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

I move the deletion of these words. Personally I have no desire whatsoever to make it easy for anybody to contravene this Bill, but I consider that a penalty of imprisonment in a case like this is making it a kind of criminal offence. I look on it as a rather severe penalty. I understood Deputy Johnson to say that it matters very little, and I think the £50 fine is sufficient as the maximum penalty, because if it goes so far that people would commit offences to that extent a month's imprisonment would be far easier than a fine of £50.

Major COOPER

Deputy Doyle was not a member of the Committee that considered this Bill, and he is absolutely within his rights in moving any amendment to it. But I must say that I am a little surprised at Deputy Hennessy. This amendment, or an amendment similar to it, an amendment providing for imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, was moved in Committee and was agreed to in Committee without opposition from Deputy Hennessy.

Mr. JOHNSON

As a compromise from three months.

Dr. HENNESSY

I rise to a point of explanation. I might explain that we had a most unworkable Committee. We first had a Committee on which the promoters of the Bill had a majority, a majority that they were entitled to, considering the decisive vote that was given here on the Second Reading. But certain opponents of the Bill brought the matter before the Dáil, and it was referred back to the Committee of Selection, with the result that five opponents of the Bill were appointed. We had five supporters, but they were not as stalwart supporters as the others were opponents, and then we had a Chairman who should be neutral and who had only a casting vote. We had often to agree to things, or apparently to agree to them, because we had not the voting power to defeat them. Moreover—and I regret that Deputy Cooper has not stressed this—I did object to the month's imprisonment in the very language with which I have objected to it to-night, and I think it was due to me that the Deputy should have said that.

Major COOPER

My recollection— perhaps it is imperfect—was that Deputy Hennessy did not divide the Committee on this. The official record says: "Amendment agreed to."

Dr. HENNESSY

Yes, for the reason I have stated, that we had not a majority of the Committee to divide on it.

Major COOPER

Deputy Hennessy's complaint is that the Committee were not amenable to arguments. To say that he had not a majority is utterly unfounded. I moved two amendments and they were both defeated. In the first the voting was four to four, and I was defeated on the Chairman's casting vote. On the other the voting was seven to three, and yet Deputy Hennessy says that he had not a majority. He had the majority in every case where it was possible for him to put up an argument at all. In this case he did argue against it, but his argument was so feeble that he could not even carry sufficient supporters on a vote, and he did not dare to divide. What are the facts? The facts are, as were shown to the Committee, that 25 per cent. of the total trade in a drapery shop is done after 6 p.m. on Saturday. Therefore, there are big profits to be made by staying open late. Another fact that was shown, and on which Deputy Hennessy has not laid stress, is that the larger drapery shops, which now close at six o'clock, if this Bill passes in its present form, will feel it necessary to keep open, shops making big profits, shops to which a fine of £50 would be a small thing, a bagatelle. Deputy Johnson's amendment provides for an old principle of the Brehon law. I am not asking the Dáil to take it on my authority. My authority is the authority of Deputy MacNeill who, when I moved an amendment to the Shop Hours Bill last week, said to me: "You may not be aware that your amendment is the same as a very old principle in the Brehon law whereby an offence that was trivial and only punishable by fine became punishable by imprisonment if it was repeated over a series of times." Deputy Hennessy spoke about a series of times, and said that an offence that would be properly punishable if repeated three times within six months might not be so properly punishable if it was repeated three times over a period of five years. I agree with that, but does Deputy Hennessy think that the magistrates are all gone mad? The District Justice has a discretion under this section. He need not impose imprisonment at all, and if there are any extenuating circumstances he will not. It merely gives the court power to impose imprisonment in a case in which the Act has been repeatedly broken, in which the law has been defied, and I do hold that where there are considerable profits being made you should put the sanction of imprisonment at the back of the law. I hope that Deputy Doyle's amendment will be defeated.

Mr. LYONS

I support Deputy Doyle's amendment. I think the words "one month's imprisonment" are really unnecessary. We should not propose to go so far as to make any of the small shopkeepers criminals. Deputy Cooper has gone very far into the question of the necessity of having such offences punishable by a month's imprisonment, but I would like him to take the case of a company having large premises, owned by five or six or eight people. Which of these will get the month's imprisonment? Will it be the entire company?

Major COOPER

The managing director.

Mr. LYONS

I thought the managing director would only be an employee?

Major COOPER

Oh, no, he is a director.

Mr. LYONS

I think Deputy Johnson's amendment is going a little too far. I am sure he does not wish to see any citizen put into prison for such a trivial offence as this. I agree that the penalty of £50 should be quite enough. If the offence is repeated, let the fine be even more than £50, but I suggest that you should not make criminals of respectable traders by putting them into prison for a month.

Mr. MULVANY

I think we are discussing a whole lot in anticipation. What small traders are looking for is a little bit of an extension on Saturday evenings from 7.30 to 9 o'clock. I do not think they are such a bad lot that they will not conform to the Act of Parliament which is being enacted for them. I do not think there is any necessity for labouring this question of a £50 fine or a month's imprisonment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am perfectly in agreement with Deputy Mulvany. The amendment that was put forward in Committee, in the name of Deputy Nagle, was that the penalty should be £50 or imprisonment for three months or both. That was discussed very fully, and it was suggested that the words "or both" should be deleted. That was agreed to. Then, finally, for the purpose of unanimity on the Committee it was agreed to reduce the maximum panalty to one month. Now we have the result of that feeling of conciliation which appeared at the Committee. Deputy Doyle says he thinks the fine of £50 would be much more of a deterrent than imprisonment for a month. I have no doubt it would be to very many small traders, and I am quite sure that if a defendant in a case of this sort were to make that appeal to the magistrate, "Instead of sending me to gaol for a month please fine me £50," the magistrate would very likely agree.

But this penalty clause does not deal with small traders. It deals with traders, small or great, and the fear of a fine of £50 would deter the small trader, no doubt. The fine of £50 is the proposition of Deputy Doyle, but the fear of one month's imprisonment may deter the big trader where the fine of £50 would not. If there was any advantage, on the part of the big trader, in breaking the law persistently and successfully, a fine of £50 would not frighten or deter him, but one month's imprisonment may. That is why I insist on the imprisonment as an alternative, the alternative to be at the discretion of the magistrate in the case of a persistent, deliberate and flagrant offender. I challenge Deputies to search their memories to find cases in which magistrates are in the habit of inflicting the maximum penalty for every offence. They are not in the habit of doing that. It is a well understood practice that the maximum penalty is not inflicted except in cases where the offence is a flagrant one, and where there are no extenuating circumstances or a reasonable defence of any kind put up. That is all that is asked here: that the magistrate shall have the power, in the case of flagrant offences and where there are no extenuating circumstances, to send the offender to prison for a month if he deems the offence flagrant enough.

Major COOPER

Deputy Lyons has reintroduced into the debate the misleading term on which this Bill got a Second Reading. He talked about the small trader. We tried in Committee, when we got the representatives of the Association promoting this Bill before us, to find out what a small trader was. I came to the conclusion, from the evidence I heard at the Committee, that there is only one definition of a small trader—namely, a man who wants to keep open until 9 o'clock on Saturday evenings. He may employ eleven or even fifteen assistants, but if he wants to keep open until 9 o'clock, then he is a small trader. I have here in the report of the committee some figures which were put before us by the people for whom Deputy Hennessy speaks. These figures were put before us by a chartered accountant employed by their association. They show that on a Saturday in November, 1924, the average takings in a shop which they call "C" were £135. We were told that fifty per cent. of the business represented by that sum was done after 6 o'clock. That is to say, that almost £70 worth of business was done after 6 o'clock. Are we going to deter a man doing that amount of business from breaking the law by a £50 fine, without any other penalty.

Dr. HENNESSY

Is that typical of all the other traders?

Major COOPER

I do not know whether it is typical or not, but these are figures selected by the Association which has asked Deputy Dr. Hennessy to promote this Bill.

Dr. HENNESSY

Quote the smaller ones.

Major COOPER

There were five given altogether. In one shop employing six assistants the takings on a Saturday were £27; in another, £30; and in the one I mentioned a moment ago, £135. In others, the figures given were £61 and £24.

Dr. HENNESSY

How much do they take on the other five days of the week?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot have the proceedings of the Special Committee repeated here.

Major COOPER

The figures put before us at all events went to show that 50 per cent of the takings on a Saturday were in respect of business done after 6 o'clock. The figures submitted by the Association prove that. There were no figures produced to show what was the amount of business done between 7.30 and 9. It is evident at all events that there are shops represented in the Small Traders' Association doing a trade after 6 o'clock on Saturdays that is valued at from £70 to £100. How is £50 going to be a deterrent in these cases if it pays them to keep open? It will be even more farcical in the case of the larger shops now closing on Saturdays, but which as a result of the passage of this Bill and of increased competition may be forced to open. I hold with Deputy Johnson that unless this Bill is to be a farce, we must have a penalty of imprisonment as a last resource, and only as a last resource when a fine fails and then again fails. If a shop persists in keeping open in defiance of the law, as some shops are doing now, then the penalty of imprisonment is your last resource and you cannot abandon it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 15.

Tá

• Pádraig Baxter.
• Thomas Bolger.
• John Conlan.
• Seán de Faoite.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• Connor Hogan.
• Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
• Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• John T. Nolan.
• Michael K. Noonan.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Risteárd O Conaill.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Pádraic O Máille.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Nicholas Wall.

Níl

• Seán Buitléir.
• Seoirse de Bhuldh.
• John J. Cole.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• John Daly.
• Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• David Hall.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Liam Thrift.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Lyons and Mulvany. Níl: Deputies Cooper and Johnson.

Amendment declared carried.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The original amendment is now before the Committee.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

Will it be necessary to add to the section, sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1925?

Major COOPER

I suggest that Deputy Johnson might withdraw his amendment in favour of the original amendment proposed by Deputy Doyle. There is no harm in having the sub-section.

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes.

Amendment 2a, by leave, withdrawn.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A question is raised as to whether sub-section (2) is necessary. That seems to be a question of law. What is the argument for it?

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

It re-enacts the Act of 1925, with the exception of substituting £50 for £20.

Professor THRIFT

We are talking now, I suppose, of this addition of Deputy Doyle to the amendment originally proposed by Deputy Johnson. We seem to have two rather contradictory things in the Bill. If it is passed, in the first instance, you retain the 1925 Act and make this Act run concurrently, But if you pass this amendment there remains in the 1925 Act no penalty for any offence against it. If there should remain any point in the 1925 Act, not touched by this new Act, it will be an offence for which there is no penalty. There may be offences which are not covered, and the effect of the new addition will be to bring us back to where we were last Wednesday. Has Deputy Doyle looked into that point?

The PRESIDENT

I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty in this case. I have taken a strong line against the introduction of this measure, and I have voted against the principle of it from the beginning. Now I find myself in the position that we have presented to us the last of three Acts which deal with shop hours. This particular one refers to the other two but was found defective last week, having no punch in it. We get the punch this evening, but now that we get it, we find that if this amendment is passed Section 4 of the Act of 1925 is repealed. While we have the punch for this Act, it is taken out of the portion of the Act passed last year. It is to the honour and credit of the Dáil that Acts should be properly drawn, and passed in such a way that the administration of the law in regard to them should not bring the Oireachtas into contempt. If this measure is passed, as I judge it now, unquestionably the Oireachtas will be brought into contempt and we will probably have the District Justice, when a case comes before him, finding himself in a fog as to what is really the law in regard to this matter. Unquestionably there was something missing last week; some weakness in the measure which came before us. The only amendment now before the Dáil is Deputy Johnson's, and I take it it is withdrawn.

Mr. JOHNSON

I prefer my own amendment, but I see no real objection to sub-section (2).

The PRESIDENT

If sub-section (2) of Section 7 is passed, I do not see my way clear except in one particular; that I would have to move, either on the Report Stage or at some other stage, that this Bill be discharged. I say that now without prejudice to my own views on the question. I would endeavour to produce a Bill for the consideration of the Oireachtas which might be altered but which would not be nonsense. I very much fear that if this measure is proceeded with it will be one that will not reflect credit on the Dáil.

Dr. HENNESSY

I think the promoters of this Bill have really been trifled with. It is the people responsible for the introduction of this amendment that are bringing ridicule on the Dáil and not the promoters.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Section 4 of the Act of 1925 is a section that imposes penalties. We have repealed Sections 3 and 6 of the Act of 1925, so it is not clear whether any penalty is required now. In order to get on with the business, perhaps we could insert this section in Deputy Doyle's form and before the Report Stage the President could have some inquiries made from sources open to him, and not open to Deputy Doyle, for the purpose of seeing what the exact legal effect of the repeal of Section 4 of the Act of 1925 would be. Apart altogether from what people think should be in the Bill, at least the Bill would then be made regular and proper. Perhaps we could do that now.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I point out that in Section 4, which it is proposed to repeal, there is a proviso, and the proviso says: "Provided that nothing in this Act shall render a person liable to any penalty for serving after the closing hour specified in Section 3 any customer who was in the shop at such closing hour." If it is repealed of course there will be an offence for serving a person who is in the shop at the closing hour. Deputy Doyle wants that. I hope his clients will like it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Section 3 of the 1925 Act is being repealed by this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is construed in the new Act.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

To put it bluntly, the opinion required on this Bill is that of the Parliamentary draftsman.

The PRESIDENT

That is my difficulty. I was not aware until now that it was required, and I am not in a position to promise when he will be able to pronounce on it. With all respect to the promoters of the Bill I think the proposition facing the draftsman is one to stagger him.

Dr. HENNESSY

These amendments were drafted in accordance with the instructions of a Minister.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to say that the Minister is not under my control.

Dr. HENNESSY

We will leave it at that.

Amendment 2b put and agreed to.

Question—"That the new section stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.
Day.	Hours.
Monday and Tuesday	From 9 a. m. to 6 p. m.
Wednesday and Thursday
Friday	From 9 a.m. to 6.30 p.m.
Saturday	From 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move: To delete "9 p.m.," and substitute "8 p.m." The case that was made here when subjected to examination was not by any means supported by evidence tendered. We were told, in the course of a discussion here, that the trade by the small traders in the city was, as to 50 per cent., a Saturday trade, and as to its Saturday trade, fifty per cent. of it was done after the hour of six-thirty. We were told that that could be confirmed by the production of books and figures properly audited by an authorised and chartered accountant. The Committee invited the Association to produce that confirmation, to select their own establishments or shops in different parts of the city and without giving us the names of the shops they submitted the analyses of Saturday takings of certain weeks in certain months for three years. The allegation and the case which was made here and sought to be made in the Committee failed completely when the papers were produced by the accountant. There was no case at all made that the takings were of such a magnitude after the hour of six o'clock as was represented. There was no case at all made of any production of books to show that after eight there was any considerable trade. The case for the nine o'clock closing on a Saturday appears to be a case for a few people who desire to be open after their rivals are closed. The seven-thirty hour was an hour which allowed a certain class of shop to remain open when, shall I say, their organised competitors, who had, perhaps, a better view of their responsibility to the community and to their assistants, were quite willing to continue their closing at six-thirty, allowing the other comparatively small section, so far as the centre of the city was concerned, to remain open for an hour longer. With the desire to open until nine o'clock, the pressure of that particular kind of competition is calculated to force all the shops in the locality to follow the example of the few, with the result that we shall have in the city the old practice of keeping open every Saturday until nine o'clock. Of course, that means halfpast nine for assistants. As I said, there was no case made by the production of books to show that the takings are any way considerable after the hour of eight and even after seven-thirty. I am asking the Dáil in Committee to agree that there shall be the concession up to eight o'clock, but that we shall not agree to extend the hour to nine. I do not think it is worth while going into any prolonged argument. I could analyse these figures and perhaps show Deputies and the public certain conclusions that were not intended to be drawn from the figures presented, but I refrain from that at this stage, and I ask the Dáil to agree that eight o'clock is long enough for traders' shops to be open in the city.

Dr. HENNESSY

I am sorry that we who are concerned with the promotion of this measure cannot accept Deputy Johnson's amendment to close the shops at 8 o'clock, or his further amendment to close them at 8.30. The production of the books proved one thing that, I think, will not be questioned, and that was that these small traders did fifty per cent. of their week's trade on Saturdays. The books were not so kept that they would give you any idea of each hour's trading on Saturday, and for that reason they failed to prove the volume of business done after 6.30 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. That is about the sum total of the argument. If any idea could be got of the amount of trading done after 6 o'clock, the shopkeepers in question should have kept an account of their trading for each hour on Saturday. It is obvious that that is not a very practical proposition. I think that Deputy Johnson has overstated his case, or has drawn false conclusions from the fact that we were not able to prove that after 6.30 p.m. on Saturday these traders did 25 per cent. of their business. Deputy Johnson speaks of large traders making a gracious concession by their being ready to close at 6.30 p.m., and giving one and a half hours extra to the small traders. Before the 1925 Act of July last these large traders closed at 6.30, and the small traders did not close until 10 o'clock, so where was the concession?

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Deputy say what he is referring to know? When he speaks of small traders, is he speaking of shops that have 15 or 12 assistants?

Dr. HENNESSY

I am not speaking of assistants in shops, but for those who are engaged in trading for the industrial or working classes—that is what I mean by small traders, people who have shops of that kind, engaged in working class areas, and doing working class business. As the books will show, in many cases the turnover of these people for the whole week is only about £100 or £120. Where the turnover is, say, £120, £60 worth of the trading was done on a Saturday. These traders say that the hours before the closing at 9 or 10 o'clock were the most important. For that reason we are simply seeking to restore to these people the privileges —I will not say the privileges but the rights—they enjoyed before the 1925 Act, and which have been filched from them because of a misunderstanding.

Professor THRIFT

I joined this Committee with my mind not made up one way or the other. Quite the reverse. I listened to the evidence put up very attentively, with the exception of about one hour, when I was not present, but the evidence given then was put forward in the form of documents which I studied afterwards. I feel bound to say that, according to my judgment, two cases were attempted to be made. One was that the most important part of the takings was taken after the hour of 7.30 p.m. The other case that was sought to be made was that restricting the hour of trading to 7.30 p.m. prevented the most important section of the community from making their purchases with any sort of convenience. I am bound to say that the evidence given was not sufficient to establish either of these points, and, therefore, I support Deputy Johnson's amendment.

Mr. MULVANY

As one of the Committee, I would like to say a few words in opposition to the amendment proposed by Deputy Johnson. I believe in the truth of the old saying that we must creep before we walk. These small traders are looking for a little concession in order to put them on their feet so that they will be enabled to walk. I attended the meetings of the Committee on every day, and I listened to the evidence for and against. The opposition from the merchant drapers was not of a very serious nature. The real opposition came from the Distributive Workers' Union, and the gentleman who represented that Union was asked his opinion as regards the number of shops in the city. He said there were too many, and he was asked what effect had that on the prices. He said the more shops the higher the prices. I do not believe in that, and I do not believe there is one in the House who would believe in that theory.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do.

Mr. MULVANY

Well, you are one. Opposition is the life of trade. I think it is only fair that these people should be given the chance they are asking for. The people who are big traders to-day had to start at some time in a small way, and work their way up, and I think it is not too much to ask that this little concession should be given to the small traders.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

This discussion has produced some curious coincidences. The first and most remarkable is that the President and the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Johnson, have agreed on technical grounds to crush out the small traders in Dublin. The second remarkable fact is that figures were produced to induce the House to vote on the last amendment. These figures set forth the takings of certain shops referred to in this amendment. These takings were so large that it was argued by Deputy Cooper that a fine of £50 would be a mere flea-bite, and on the strength of that he quoted the Brehon laws. I was induced, and I also believe Professor Thrift was, to vote for that amendment on the grounds that it was in conformity with the Brehon laws. A different set of figures are now produced by Deputy Johnson, who quotes not the takings but the amount taken after certain hours. In this case why should not the Brehon laws apply? The great principle of the Brehon laws was equity and justice. If equity and justice demanded that a fine or imprisonment should meet an offence, it also demanded that justice should be done to the person brought before the Court. Where is the equity or justice in Deputy Johnson's figures? The Deputy quoted some personal observation of his own. I think those of us who are acquainted with the trade of the small traders in Dublin will agree that this measure, which was designed to relieve them from the hardship of the 1925 Act, is a just and necessary one. Taking into account all these circumstances and the consideration this Bill got from the Select Committee, I think no member of this House should be induced to vote for the amendment.

Mr. B. O'CONNOR

I would like to give reasons why it is necessary that these shops should be open until 9 o'clock on Saturday evenings. I approach this question from a different angle to some of those who have already spoken. Nearly all the speeches we have heard here were directed to proving that 50 per cent. of the trade of these shops was done on Saturdays, especially in the afternoon. My reason in asking that these shops be allowed to remain open until 9 o'clock is for the accommodation of the public. The people must be considered as well as the small traders, and there is a demand from the people to have these shops open. I know, for I live amongst them. It is most ridiculous that unless a working man's wife goes out before 7.30 she cannot shop. It is for that reason I support this measure—in order that the shops be allowed to remain open for the accommodation of the people. I do not believe in this interfering and meddling with the people or with business. There must not be this coercion. People should be allowed to run their business in a reasonable way, and should not be hampered. I think the common-sense of the House will agree it is not unreasonable that the shops in Dublin and district should remain open until 9 o'clock p.m. on Saturdays for the accommodation of the people.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It is most amusing to hear Deputy after Deputy getting up and admitting they were asleep last July when the Act was going through. So far as that Act is concerned they saw no injustice in making shopkeepers close at 7.30. The promoters of this Bill say that they want to give the people a chance to live and make a living. They talk of it being in the interest of the working classes to keep shops open now until 9 or 10 or 11 o'clock on a Saturday night. I have not much experience of shopping in Dublin and do not pretend to know much about it, but it seems to me that the average working man and his wife do not wait until 9 o'clock on a Saturday night to purchase goods in drapery shops. It does not happen in actual fact, and if shops were compelled to close at 7.30 and if the working man or his wife wanted to make purchases in the line of drapery they would make them before the shops closed at 7.30. I have no doubt that if the Dáil agreed that shops should be allowed to remain open until 9 o'clock or, say, 10 o'clock, that a considerable number of people would be found to advocate that they should be allowed to keep open until 11 o'clock. There is no question about that. But young people, and especially young girls in many cases who are kept behind the counter serving people from 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning until late at night should be considered in this matter. Surely it is long enough to keep any assistant at work from 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock in the morning until 8 or 9 at night. As I stated, I do not pretend to have very much knowledge of shopping in this city, or of shopping at all, but I believe that the shops that remain open until 7.30 give reasonable opportunities to people to make the purchases they require.

The PRESIDENT

I did not intend to speak, but in view of what Deputy Doherty has stated it is due to me that I should say something on this matter. I did not enter into any conspiracy with Deputy Johnson or with Deputy Cooper to wipe out the small traders. I look at this question as one big question concerning a particular trade. I look on the trade as a whole, and see what, in my view, is in the best interest of that trade and of all the persons engaged in it, and not of any one particular section. I find the system adopted up to this is a very scientific system in regulating constituencies. I find a large constituency in O'Connell Street, and a large constituency in Mary Street, and a very large constituency in Henry Street, each of which has only got one vote. Then I go down a small street, and I find there a very small constituency which has also only one vote, but that small constituency is just as big as a great big one that probably has 100 or 200 times the number of persons engaged in it. There are people who call that a scientific distribution of constituencies, and others who would call it jerrymandering, but in order to get from that whole body a view I think the persons interested come in. In business, my policy, when engaged in it, was the elimination of waste. If you get to a point where every possible source of waste is eliminated, you have a fair chance of realising where the profits are going to come in. I am not satisfied that modern conditions in the city of Dublin require drapery shops to be open until 9 o'clock on Saturday night. I am not at all satisfied with that.

I was informed when I was very young that the licensed houses used to be open until midnight. Then the hour was shortened until 11 o'clock, and subsequently it was brought down to 10 o'clock, and at the present time I believe it is 10 o'clock on week-days, and 9 o'clock on Saturdays. No extraordinary disturbance took place in the economic life of the people by reason of these reductions in hours, but a particular class benefited to a large extent —those engaged in it, and on whose physique a very large call was made by long hours. And in this case my view is if there are too many shops costs are going to go up. What is it that leads to a reduction of prices? Organised methods in business; you organise business on a fine scale. If you increase the handling of materials, and spread out, over an almost limitless area, all the cost of transport, and so on, are increased with the number of persons engaged in it. Modern business, to be conducted on modern lines, must see that every person handles as much as possible, and that there is no waste. In this case there is, in my view, waste. I am perfectly satisfied with this that I will not change the vote of one Deputy to-night, but I want the Committee to know the length and breadth of my views. Looking at the other case put up, I was rather surprised that we got no information as to the takings in the months of September, October, and November, 1925.

Dr. HENNESSY

They were not asked for.

The PRESIDENT

There should have been no necessity to ask for them. I should have thought they would have oozed through themselves to show the terrible results of the Act of 1925.

Dr. HENNESSY

It was the opponents of the Bill who prescribed the figures that were to be supplied.

The PRESIDENT

I thought when this Bill was introduced that we would get the reason for its introduction. The reason I would consider to be strong and what would make me inclined to discount all I have said would be if it had been shown that there was a reduction of the receipts in 1925. The Opposition did not ask for them; they were waiting to be furnished with them, but they did not come. Where were these spirits from the vasty deep that were called for and did not come? The case that should have been made was not made. Where is the case? You have shown that 50 per cent. of this business was taken between 6 and 9 o'clock. I admit that, but you have not shown that by reason of the shorter hours their takings have gone down.

Dr. HENNESSY

They were not asked.

The PRESIDENT

I should say that the proof should have come from those who are promoting the Bill. It was no business for the Opposition to ask for proof when you did not bring it in first. If you want to prove it here there is time yet before the Bill is finally disposed of. I am satisfied at present that this Bill has been very well canvassed and I wish them joy of the canvass.

Mr. WHITE

It did not take a feather out of Deputy Doherty.

Mr. JOHNSON

The President has raised the question of the figures for 1925 and Deputy Dr. Hennessy explained that the figures asked for were the figures preceding 1925. It is true the promoters did not bring in the figures in regard to 1925, and they have their own reasons for that, I have no doubt.

Dr. HENNESSY

They were not asked.

Mr. JOHNSON

The reasons for their not being asked are very clear to anybody who knows the circumstances —that the people who would be in a position to produce the figures were people who had been persistently and deliberately violating the law since July, 1925, and that any figures produced would merely be figures from people who are taking advantage of the law-abiding majority and opening, despite the closing hour. Some question has been raised about the figures and the poor small trader seems to appeal to Deputy Mulvany and Deputy Doherty, the poor small trader who is interested in this Bill. There were five different establishments, evidence from which was presented to the Committee and has been presented to the Dáil. The poor small trader of whom you are thinking, whose livelihood is at stake, must be given a chance to get on his feet—every new small trader who comes into business must be given a chance to get on his feet—the people who are employed in the daytime for pay in certain big establishments and who open small drapery shops to compete with the regular trader. These are the people who are to be encouraged to get on their feet and to create a multiplicity of small shops in the drapery trade in the city.

Mr. MULVANY

You want to keep up the monopoly.

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Doherty and Deputy Mulvany are very much interested in supporting this type of small trader.

Dr. HENNESSY

What percentage are they?

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Dr. Hennessy knows more about that than I do.

Dr. HENNESSY

You seem to know more.

Mr. JOHNSON

The promoters of the Bill in this House are very much concerned about the small traders. Now, these small traders, in the second week of the month of September, 1923, took in one shop, A, £77 18s. 9d.; in shop B, £88 3s. 1d.; in shop C, £249; in shop D, £249, and in shop E, £435. In the latter shop fifteen assistants were employed. In October the takings were much similar. In shop A, they were £59; B, £132; C, £265; D, £280, and E, £407 for the week. In November, 1923, the figures were somewhat similar, ranging from £456 to £68. In the year 1924 we have £492 for this small trader employing fifteen assistants; in October, £417, and in November, £464. That is for the second week in November. The House will see that the pitiable condition of the small trader, that is exhibited for the sympathy of the Deputies, is really quite uncalled for. It is not the small trader that is in question. It is the big trader who is promoting this measure and who is promoting it in order to try to get an advantage at the expense of his rivals.

The small trader is coming in, and I give those Deputies who are supporting this Bill the warning that there will be a nice clatter about their ears when the small trader knows what they are doing for him—the small trader proper, not merely the trader who deals with the working class. The working class public is making no demand for this Bill at all. The working class public will always in certain proportions be ready to go to a shop which is open whatever hour you allow the shop to be conducted, whether it sells drapery goods, grocery goods, or intoxicating liquor. You will always find customers to drop in where shops are open late. But in the experience of every trader in every country, the purchasing public accustom themselves to the regulations that the shopping establishments set up. You have that in the liquor business, as the President pointed out. There are people in the Dáil and outside who would urge and produce plenty of good reasons in favour of the universal opening of public houses, and I have no doubt if there was sufficient, shall I say boldness, on the part of the public who would like that, to express their views, we would have Deputy O'Connor saying that the public desires that these houses should be open at longer hours than they are for the convenience of the public. The convenience of the public is a very important matter. The public will accustom themselves in this business as well as in every other business to reasonable hours of opening as well as to reasonable hours of closing. I am contending here that the hour of nine is unnecessarily late. I contend that seven-thirty is ample, but as a concession, and trying to meet the small trader proper, the man or woman who has a little shop on the outskirts and who would like to have the little fringe of the trade that has been overlooked in the big shops of the city, we would allow the other half-hour, and that is the purpose of this amendment, that the hour of eight should be substituted for nine o'clock. The figures that have been adduced do not and could not prove that there is any increase in the total week's trade because of any extension of the hours of trading.

I want to impress this upon the Dáil, that if there is a sum of ten thousand pounds or one hundred thousand pounds to be spent on drapery goods by the people of Dublin, the fact that you are extending the hours by one or two hours on Saturday night is not going to enlarge the volume of trade. It is simply only extending the hours during which that trade will be done. If you do allow some to open, they will, no doubt, get an advantage, but if all open the total volume of trade is not improved and the advantage which the few who are opening, in defiance of the law, have got will, in the event of all the shops opening, be lost to that few. I agree, and I am glad to know that the President confirms my views, that the opening of a large number of houses adds to the wastefulness of the distributive trade.

Dr. HENNESSY

Legislate them out of existence.

Mr. JOHNSON

This late opening adds to the wastefulness and imposes a charge upon the public that should not be imposed. During the European War it was well-known that one of the reasons why there was rigid closing of shops much earlier than the shops in Dublin close now, was to save overhead charges, to save waste—excessive light. Much waste of that kind was saved. Do you think that when that waste is imposed upon shops that they do not carry it over to the public? Undoubtedly they do. The public have to pay those charges, and I must affirm and reiterate, until I am convinced to the contrary, that the constant addition to the number of distributors, whether in this or in any other trade, adds to the charge upon the public and, therefore, adds to the price. That is an absolute law of economics, and you cannot get away from it. I, therefore, beg to move my amendment.

Major COOPER

I want to say one word to reinforce the arguments made by Deputy Johnson in the course of his speech, and that is, that this is not a Bill in favour of small traders. In Committee I moved an amendment to restrict the operations of this Bill to persons who employed no more than two assistants, and I was voted down by seven to three. The people who voted me down are the Deputies who are in favour of this Bill.

Dr. HENNESSY

Who were they?

Major COOPER

On my side, they were Deputy Wolfe, Deputy Thrift and myself, and against were Deputies Doherty, Dr. Hennessy, Johnson, M. Conlan, Nagle, Mulvany and O'Connor.

Dr. HENNESSY

Labour.

Major COOPER

And yet Dr. Hennessy said it was a packed Committee —that it was packed with his opponents.

Dr. HENNESSY

In most essential things it was.

Major COOPER

There is no definition of the small shopkeeper, and there can be no definition of the small shopkeeper. This is a Bill to allow the drapery shops to open. Let us recognise the facts and fix the hours accordingly.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 31.

Tá

• Seán Buitléir.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• John Daly.
• Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• David Hall.
• Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Liam Thrift.

Níl

• Pádraig Baxter.
• Thomas Bolger.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Seán de Faoite.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• Connor Hogan.
• Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• John T. Nolan.
• Michael K. Noonan.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Risteárd O Conaill.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Pádraic O Máille.
• James O'Mara.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cooper and Morrissey. Níl: Deputies B. O'Connor and Mulvany.

Amendment declared lost.

Ordered: That progress be reported. The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m., till 3 o'clock on Thursday, February 11.