Conditions of Employment Bill, 1935—From the Seanad.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 2. After the word "employer" in line 38 the words "or to some other person nominated by such employer" inserted.
The definition of outworker in Section 2 of the Bill was, it was through, such as to permit of the possibility of the obligations on employers under the measure in respect of outworkers to be evaded by bringing workers outside this definition through an arrangement under which the work done by the outworker would be delivered not to the employer but direct to the customer or some other person and, consequently, the insertion of these words was suggested in order to prevent such a possibility of evasion arising.
Question agreed to.
I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—
Section 4, sub-section (2). After the word "applied" in line 30 the words "in their entirety" inserted.
This amendment was carried on a division by the Seanad on the motion of a Labour Party Senator. I think that there is a misunderstanding in certain quarters as to the effect of it. Labour representatives in the Dáil and Seanad expressed some concern about the provisions of Section 4, which gives the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to grant exemption from the Act where the amount of industrial work done in the carrying on of an undertaking is so small that the provisions of the Act could not be conveniently applied. There was evidence of a desire to limit the circumstances under which that power could be exercised. The amendment, however, in my opinion creates the possibility of the power being exercised much more frequently than would be the case if the amendment were not there.
If the provisions of the Act cannot be conveniently applied in relation to a particular establishment, subject to whatever regulations or exclusions under another part of the Act may be made, then this exemption can be granted. But if it is found that the obligations of the Act can be applied in their entirety, then different considerations arise and it is quite possible that the result of the insertion of the amendment would be that the powers under Section 4 would be exercised more frequently. I think the amendment was really due to a misunderstanding. It seems to me to be directly contrary to the interests of Labour and that it is also at variance with the attitude taken up by members of the Labour Party in the Dáil and Seanad on the general provisions of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—
Section 4, sub-section (2). After the word "Act" in line 35 the following words inserted:—"Other than the provisions relating to annual leave, the minimum age for the employment of young persons, the employment of outworkers, employment on Sundays and public holidays, the registration of wages agreements and the provisions relating to penalties for offences."
This again relates to Section 4, and in my opinion if it were inserted it would make Section 4 inoperative entirely. If there is necessity to have power to grant this exemption licence in the case of an undertaking where the amount of industrial work done is so small that the provisions of the Act cannot be conveniently applied, then the exemption must be complete. It would be impracticable to provide that certain and only certain provisions of the Act should apply. If it is practicable to operate the provisions of the Act which are named in the amendment in respect of such undertakings, then it is possible to operate other provisions of the Act also. The circumstances under which I contemplate that such a licence will be issued will be where only one or, at most, two workers out of a large number will be employed upon work that might be held to be industrial, but which is really carried on for the purpose of a commercial undertaking. In such circumstances it is not merely administratively more convenient, but it is also desirable from other points of view that the workers concerned should be really treated as commercial workers.
I informed the Seanad that it was my intention to introduce proposals for legislation to provide for the regulation of the conditions of employment in trading establishments similar in principle to those provided by this measure in relation to industrial establishments. It would be a very undesirable situation if we had in an establishment of that kind one worker whose conditions of employment were subject to regulation under this Act and all the remaining workers subject to regulation in respect of conditions of employment under another code. There is, I think, no ground for the apprehensions which have been expressed that this power may be used generally. I think it will be used very rarely indeed, and then only where it is obviously desirable in the interests of the workers concerned as well as in the interests of the administration of the measure.
I do not think that the acceptance of this amendment would be likely to result in the creation of the numerous difficulties the Minister has endeavoured to mobilise in respect of the case for the rejection of the amendment. The object of the section is to say that where the amount of industrial work carried on in a particular establishment is so small that the provisions of this Act cannot be conveniently applied to it, then the Minister may upon an application from the person carrying on such undertaking grant a licence to employ workers to do that form of work while remaining exempt from the provisions of the Act. I think in that portion of the section the Minister has ample power to get over any difficulty which may present itself in applying the entire provisions of the Act to that particular form of industrial work.
The amendment seeks to provide that while you may grant exemption to an employer in these special circumstances in respect of the entire provisions of the Act, there are certain provisions which you ought not to exclude the employer from; in other words, if he secures exemption from the provisions of the Act in the general way, that you ought at least to tie the employer down to recognise that he ought to grant to such worker the annual leave which is provided for the same class of worker in other sections of the Bill; that he ought to be required to observe the minimum age for the employment of young persons; that he ought to be obliged to comply with the section dealing with the employment of outworkers; that employment on Sundays and public holidays should be made to conform with the provisions of the Bill, and that the registration of wage agreements should also be observed in respect of each worker. The Minister has not told us in what particular respect it is difficult or impossible to retain those sections of the Act for application to an industrial worker who might be exempt from the other provisions of the Act.
Let us take the case of an establishment mainly commercial but employing two industrial workers. An application is made to the Minister to exempt those two industrial workers from the provisions of the Act. The Minister may make an Order under this section granting such exemption, but he can insist that in respect of those two industrial workmen they are to get their annual leave the same as other industrial workers; that the minimum age of employment is to be recognised; that the wages agreements are to be registered, and that they are to be treated the same as other industrial workers similarly classified are treated in respect of employment on Sundays and public holidays. There is no real difficulty for the Minister in accepting this amendment. I cannot see any single difficulty in the way of making it applicable as part of the licence which may be granted to an employer in respect of any exemption which he may secure under this section. The Minister says it is his intention ultimately to introduce legislation for application to trading and commercial establishments similar in their effect upon the workers to the provisions of this Bill, but that is not a reason for rejecting this amendment. If the Minister is ultimately going to apply conditions of this kind to workers in trading and commercial establishments I think he ought to accept this amendment; leave it in this Bill until such time as the new Bill is operative; then when conditions are uniform for both industrial and commercial workers the effect of this section will cause no real difficulty either for the Minister or for the employer, because whether the worker is commercial or industrial he is automatically covered by one section or other of either Bill. I think the Minister ought to accept this amendment. It is an eminently reasonable one, and I think the Minister will find it extremely difficult to show in what way it would be inconvenient either for himself or for the employer to observe the limited provisions set out in this amendment.
It seems to me completely illogical to say that where the Minister is satisfied that the amount of industrial work done in some establishments is so small that it is impracticable to apply the provisions of this Act he may grant an exemption licence, except in relation to all the main provisions of the Act—the provisions of the Act relating to annual holidays and minimum age employment, and so on. The effect of the amendment is to nullify the section. If there is need for the section then the amendment must be defeated, but if the amendment goes in the whole section may as well go out, because it is completely foolish to say that an exemption licence may be granted, if it is not practicable to apply the Act, except in relation to all the main provisions of the Act. The provisions set out in the amendment are in fact all the main provisions of the Act. I again quote the example of the case that gave rise to this section, the case of the girl in Woolworth's operating a small printing machine for the printing of visiting cards on the counter of the shop. That was held to be industrial work, and if the Seanad amendment were accepted the particular employee engaged upon that work would have not merely certain rights that the other employees have not yet had conferred upon them, but the management would be under the obligation of displaying the statutory notices provided for in relation to these matters, and the Department would be under the obligation of arranging for a periodic inspection of the place to ensure that in relation to these matters the provisions of the Act would be carried out. In relation to such establishments we will have a similar code of legislation, with similar but alternative enforcing machinery. It is obviously more convenient from the administrative point of view that the other legislation and the other enforcement machinery should operate in relation to such establishments, rather than that this Bill and the machinery which will be established under this Bill should apply. It is not a matter of very great importance. My objection to this amendment is that it nullifies the section. If, in fact, it were passed it would be completely impracticable and impossible to grant the exemption licences which we consider may be necessary in very rare circumstances.
Would it not be advisable that, as a harbinger of what is to come, even one girl in Woolworth's would get the benefit of those holidays and other conditions?
The only argument is that one or two employees throughout the country may be delayed in having applied to them the principles for the regulations of the conditions of employment that this Bill lays down for industrial workers, but the particular workers concerned are not properly industrial workers at all. They are much more properly described as commercial workers, and consequently should be dealt with under the legislation dealing with commercial workers. It is essential to have this power of exemption to deal with that very rare case that may arise. The effect of this amendment would be to make it impossible to use this power, because if we are going to apply all the main provisions of the Bill to such worker, we may as well apply the whole lot.
When does the Minister expect to introduce the code for commercial workers?
Look at what fulfilment of Fianna Fáil promises it would be to have one living specimen of hope!
We will have about 150,000.
They have not come back from America yet.
In consequence of this amendment?
The Minister says he has in mind the case of Woolworth's where the printing of cards is done. It may be no harm to remind him now that that establishment is, I am told, making latchkeys. There is probably no limit on the extent to which they may develop in other respects.
But there are limits to the extent to which they will get exemption.
Would it be any great harm if a sufficient amount of inconvenience were caused to Woolworth's to induce them to abandon the printing of visiting cards, and let that work go back to recognised printing establishments in the city? Would it be any great harm if sufficient inconvenience were caused to induce them to abandon the making of latchkeys by young girls, and allow proper keysmiths in the city to do that work? I do not see that the Minister ought to take power under a section of this kind to treat in any specially sympathetic manner the activities of a firm of that kind who are invading the normal spheres of industrial activity, which is at present qualified in a very definite way and recognised as belonging to particular spheres of crafts, the Minister wants a section in this Bill to say that if Woolworth's want to undertake the printing of visiting cards they ought to get exemption for the time being, and that if Woolworth's are to engage in the making of latchkeys they are to get exemption for the time being for the girl making the latchkeys; and that if next week they want to engage in the making of any other commodity of an industrial character, they are to get exemption. I would imagine that the Minister would have taken the other view. He would lose probably the only argument he has if he took the other view, for Woolworth's would rapidly adjust themselves and they would change very rapidly. If that firm is able to pay 100 per cent. on its shares it is not the kind of institution that should come to this House and ask for special legislation to get them out of a difficulty.
Suppose the latchkeys are made in an ordinary establishment by one employee, does the Deputy think that that establishment should be classified as a factory and made subject to a factory legislation?
I do not see much difficulty in doing it in the manner indicated in the section. Would the Minister say what difficulty presents itself? Supposing he grants an exemption to Woolworth's in respect of a girl engaged in printing visiting cards, is there any difficulty in saying to Woolworth's, "You must grant the girl holidays and you must pay her for these holidays?" That would not interfere with the organisation of an institution such as Woolworth's.
But it would necessitate the enforcing of the whole Act if you enforce part of it. These workers are workers subject to the Act.
You describe these as industrial workers in the Bill. You said printing was industrial work, but now you want to say it is not when it is done by Woolworth's.
No; if I am selling socks, and I want to print window tickets, what is my position?
Surely there is a difference there.
It is a matter of definition.
The Minister has laid down a definition of industrial work and he now wants to say that when this is done by Woolworth's it is not industrial work. I want the Minister to say to Woolworth's when granting that exemption licence:—"Remember, you must grant holidays to that girl in respect of whom you are getting the exemption and you must pay her during these holidays, and whatever agreements are made by her union must be registered and you must comply with them." What is the difficulty of saying to Woolworths:—"This being industrial work, we want to preserve the Sabbath; you must not employ that girl on Sunday or on a bank holiday?" There is no difficulty in making this reply to Woolworth's or to any other firm. If we should have legislation applicable to all Woolworth workers, then the Minister ought to accept this amendment in the section until legislation applicable to the general body of commercial workers is introduced.
Is Deputy Norton challenging a division?
After these arguments I am hoping to carry a division.
Question—"That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3"—put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 48; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Ta: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Everett and Pattison.
Question declared carried.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—
Section 4, sub-section (4). Before the word "notice" in line 44 the words "seven days" inserted.
It is merely to provide that seven days' notice should be given of the revocation of a licence under Section 4 and I do not think that is unreasonable.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). After the word "day" in line 8 the following words inserted:—"When it falls on a week-day or, when it falls on a Sunday, the 27th day of December."
This is merely to provide that when Christmas Day falls on a Sunday the 27th day of December shall be substituted as a public holiday.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). Before paragraph (b) a new paragraph inserted as follows:—
(b) St. Stephen's Day when it falls on a week-day or, when it falls on a Sunday, the next following Monday, and."
This makes the same provision in respect of St. Stephen's Day.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). All after the words "Whit Monday" in line 11 deleted down to the end of paragraph (c) and the words "and the first Monday in August" substituted therefor.
This is merely a consequential amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
The following amendments were also agreed to:—
8. Section 7, sub-section (2). The words "in the said next preceding sub-section" deleted in line 18 and the words "throughout this section" substituted therefor.
9. Section 7, sub-section (2). The words "that sub-section" deleted in line 19 and the words "this section" substituted therefor.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments Nos. 10 and 11:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). All after the word "substitute" in line 22 deleted down to and including the word "section" in line 25 and the following words substituted therefor:—"For the purposes of this section, any of the following days for St. Stephen's Day when it falls on a week-day or, when it falls on a Sunday, for the next following Monday."
Section 7, sub-section (4). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
(4) Any employer may, on giving not less than one month's previous notice to all persons in his employment, substitute, for the purposes of this section, in any year any of the following days for Easter Monday, Whit Monday, or the first Monday in August, that is to say:—
(a) Ascension Thursday,
(b) the Feast of Corpus Christi,
(c) the 29th day of June,
(d) the 15th day of August.
These amendments provide as follows: Under the Bill as it stands an employer can substitute for any of the public holidays set out in Section 7 (1) any of the Church holidays mentioned in sub-section (3). Because there was a danger that employers might substitute a holiday occurring in the winter for a holiday in the summer, these amendments were agreed to. The purpose of them is to provide that the only holidays that can be substituted for Easter Monday, Whit Monday, or the 1st Monday in August, are Ascension Thursday, the Feast of Corpus Christi, the 29th June or the 15th August. The amendments provide that the substituted holiday must occur at the same time of the year as the public holiday substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
The following amendments were also agreed to:
12. Section 7, sub-section (4). The words "purpose of the next preceding sub-section" deleted in lines 34-35 and the words "purposes of the two next preceding sub-sections" substituted therefor.
13. Section 7, sub-section (4). The words "the said sub-section" deleted in line 36 and the words `each of the said two next preceding sub-sections" substituted therefor.
14. Section 7, sub-section (4). The words "the said sub-section" deleted in line 41 and the words "either of the said two next preceding sub-sections" substituted therefor.
15. Section 7, sub-section (4). The words "the said sub-section" deleted in line 44 and the words "either of the said two next preceding sub-sections" substituted therefor.
I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16:—
Section 10. After the word "and" in line 38 the following words inserted:—"upon being so laid and no sooner shall become operative and shall have effect but".
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that regulations made under the Act will not come into operation until they have been tabled. The case made for the amendment was that there was a possibility that delay might occur in tabling the regulations and that consequently the power of the Oireachtas to revoke by resolution. any such regulations should be lessened, in so far as annulment might be delayed by delay in tabling the regulations. While theoretically there may be some force in that contention, in practice it is necessary to have regulations come into force upon a date about which the public can be fully informed. If there was a possibility of misunderstanding as to the date on which regulations became operative, it might have serious administrative consequences, and, in fact. cause injustice in certain cases. Furthermore, it is desirable that there should be power to bring regulations into operation as quickly as possible after it has been decided to make them. That applies particularly to a Bill of this kind. Section 10 of the Bill, as Deputies know, is similar to sections which have appeared in all measures providing for the making of regulations. I agree that the effecttiveness of the section depends upon the action of the Minister in charge of the particular Bill in carrying out the obligation of laying the regulations upon the Tables of the Houses as soon as may be after they are made. But it would be undesirable to have regulations operating from any other date except the date upon which they were made, because that is a date which can be clearly and definitely known and of which adequate notice can be given to the interested parties. The difficulties that would arise if there was any doubt as to the actual date from which the Act should operate would be very great and for that reason the amendment must be disagreed to.
The Minister's defence is the lamest I ever heard put forward in this House. On that line of argument it would be desirable that every Bill introduced into this House should become law on the date of publication, and not on the date on which it was passed by this House on the grounds that there is uncertainty as to how long the Bill will take to pass and receive the signature of the Governor-General. There is no more difficulty about making regulations setting out the date on which an Act will come into force, on the face of the regulations, and laying them on the Table of the House, some days ahead, than including in the body of the Bill the date on which it is intended the Act shall come into operation. It is further evidence of the steady and resolute determination of State Departments, and particularly the Department of Industry and Commerce, to usurp the functions of this House. It is becoming more manifest every day that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is impatient of any restrictions by legislation upon the activities of his Department. He wants to have delegated to him the power of legislation particularly in relation to every industrial and commercial enterprise carried on in this country. It is not desirable that regulations of far-reaching effect should be rapidly made and immediately brought into operation. We have every reason to know that the tendency of the present Government is to act precipitately in almost all things, and it is highly desirable that there should be afforded an opportunity to think twice before indication of the date upon which their Acts come into operation.
We have been told that the necessity for the Seanad does not exist. But we have pointed out that it is a very desirable thing that the Seanad should remain in order that legislation passed by this House, at the instance of the Government, should be re-examined and reconsidered in the light of more mature reflection. And the very Minister who wants the power to act precipitately comes down to this House with the Conditions of Employment Bill, which was-debated at very considerable length here, with no less than 32 amendments made to it in the Seanad most of which he is about to accept.
Almost all of which the Minister is about to accept.
Most of them unnecessary.
Nevertheless the Minister is about to accept them.
It is the easiest way out.
And at the conclusion of the deliberations of these amendments in the Seanad the Minister waxed eloquent in the gratitude he offered to that assembly.
I made no such statement. It is the usual practice when a Deputy purports to quote another in this House that he should do so accurately.
Is that a point of order? The Minister is a disorderly person, but I look, with confidence, to the Chair to restrain him. The Minister as usual waxed eloquent in his gratitude and appreciation of the action of the Seanad which had helped him to clarify his intention by passing 32 amendments to his Bill. In the same breath he asks for power to legislate widely and without reference to this House at all. He asked for power to table regulations on the date on which Dáil Eireann adjourns for the summer recess, to leave these regulations in force indefinitely—as far as I can see, without any obligation upon him to lay the regulations on the Table of the House except as soon as may be. The only justification he has offered is that it is very necessary that regulations of that kind should be brought promptly into effect. That is the one reason he offered: that there should be no confusion in the public mind as to the exact date on which they should take effect.
It is not desirable that regulations made by a Minister should come into effect without very careful review, as we have ample reason to know that the Minister is a very irresponsible person and ought not to have powers of this kind at all. That is the first point. The second is that there is no necessity whatever for any obscurity in the public mind as to when any regulations are to be put into force because it is easy to provide in the regulations that the Act will come into force, say, on the 1st of October or 1st November or 1st December, and to say in the regulations that it would come into force on such date as will give the Minister time to table regulations in this House or the Seanad before the date set out in the body of the regulations. I, therefore, urge the House to adopt this amendment and thereby put a very necessary restraint upon the Minister and his Department.
This amendment could cause no administrative difficulty for the Minister unless he has a desire to prevent the Dáil from knowing the type of regulations which had been made, or are about to be made, until such time as this power to annul the regulations had elapsed. If the Minister desires that the Dáil should know the regulations made under this section, or under any other section of the Bill, then there is no difficulty in accepting the amendment which only imposes upon him the obligation of laying the regulations upon the Table of each House, as soon as may be after they are made. On so being laid upon the Table, but not sooner, the regulations become operative and these may be annulled in the usual manner provided in Bills which passed through the House.
The simple purpose of the amendment, therefore, is that the Minister, let us say, to-day makes up his mind that a regulation in certain terms has to be made. He is obliged to lay that regulation on the Table of the House, and it is only when he takes the positive action of laying it on the Table that it becomes effective. That is not imposing on the Minister either any undue burden or putting in his way any unnecessary impediment. What the Minister has to do in order to ensure that a regulation becomes operative is to lay it on the Table, and from that day, but not carlier, it becomes effective. What the Minister is really resisting in this is any obligation requiring him to put a regulation on the Table to show that that is the starting date on which the regulation becomes effective. Unless there is to be complete contempt for the principle of laying regulations on the Table of the House, and complete contempt of the right of the Dáil to annul regulations, I do not see what reasonable objection the Minister can have to an amendment of this kind.
After all there is need for imposing this obligation on the Minister, and particularly on the present Minister for Industry and Commerce because, as he may recollect, the Unemployment Assistance Act provides that the Minister may make two employment orders. The House is presumably to have the safeguard of annulling regulations of that kind. Last year we had the most interesting spectacle of an Order having been laid on the Table of the House after the period of the Order had expired. Have we any guarantee that either out of a spirit of contempt for the House, or because of what I fear is a growing disposition on the part of Departments to treat this House perfunctorily in respect to regulations, we may not have another example of an Order being laid on the Table long after the House has ceased to have any power to annul it? That position in respect to that Unemployment Period Order was one that showed the danger of allowing Departments and allowing Ministers to be able to issue regulations, as if they were writs issued by the courts, and not apparently to be responsible for the terms of the regulations, until such time as it is probably ineffective, from the standpoint of this House to annul it. I do not think this amendment imposes on the Minister any restriction that is unreasonable. It asks him to accept the position that when he makes a regulation he should lay it on the Table. If he makes a regulation to-day it can be laid on the Table of the House the same day or the following day, and there is nothing to prevent it becoming effective. The House should endeavour to safeguard itself from the possibility of the Minister, under this Bill, granting an exclusion or an exemption Order for a month, as the month might have passed before the regulation was actually laid on the Table, and the House might be presented with the position that it was not able to annul it no matter how unfair it might appear to be. The advantage of the amendment is that at least the House will know the regulation has been laid on the Table, and it can investigate what is involved in it, or take steps to annul it. Under the section as drafted the Minister may follow the very same kind of tactics as were adopted in connection with the Unemployment Assistance Act.
Deputy Dillon said that I waxed eloquent about the assistance which the Seanad gave in the amendment of this Bill. I do not think that there is the slightest fear that I will wax eloquent about the assistance Deputy Dillon gave.
The Deputy was an unmitigated nuisance not merely to me but to members of his own Party. He will recollect that they spent a lot of time in the House in putting him right upon matters upon which they were informed, but upon which Deputy Dillon was misinformed. The fact that Deputy Dillon was misinformed does not prevent him speaking. We have had evidence of that to-day. I am not asking the Dáil to give me power to usurp its functions or to do anything in regard to regulations made under this Bill which has not been done heretofore. The particular section referred to, Section 10, regarding the laying of regulations before the House, is precisely similar in form to corresponding sections in every Bill providing for regulations since the Dáil was established. This section appears in all similar enactments passed by the Dáil. We are carrying this section in this Bill because we think it is a suitable provision and necessary for this type of legislation. The section caused a difficulty before. The Dáil may not remember, but Deputy Mulcahy will remember that this section was made inoperative by our predecessors, not by the device of delaying the regulation, but by the device of refusing to provide Parliamentary time for the discussion of a motion tabled for the annulment of an Order.
As the Minister is so accurate will he give us the date of that?
I am speaking from memory, but the motion related to the lease of workhouse lands in Co. Clare. It was tabled by Deputy Hogan (Clare) about 1929 and there was failure to provide time for discussion. The particular difficulty arising from this section was met by a common-sense arrangement. Arrangements relating to the Order of Business in this House can be similarly dealt with. The power of the Dáil to deal with the tabling of regulations can be met by a common-sense arrangement. I agree that it will occur. It has never occurred except in very exceptional circumstances. In so far as there is a difficulty arising out of this section, the particular method which the Seanad proposed for dealing with it is the wrong method. I am quite prepared to consider suggestions for the amendment of the section. I point to the fact that the section has been made every year, and has been embodied in every Bill of this kind for 13 or 14 years and was never questioned until now. I do not know why the form of the section should be proposed to be changed in relation to this Bill, rather than in relation to any other measure. It is desirable that there should be no doubt as to the date on which regulations can in practice be dispensed with. It is necessary to make these regulations operative from the date on which they are made, and in relation to this Bill probably more than most Bills, it is necessary that the regulations should become operative, certainly during the initial stages of the measure expeditiously. Most of the regulations made at the very beginning, that is immediately the Bill becomes operative, will be regulations exempting certain industries from the observance of some of the provisions of the Bill, until the position can be examined or new regulations prepared. The regulations therefore will enable industries to carry on the existing practices, where it seems necessary that these practices should be allowed to continue, but which otherwise might be illegal if the regulations could not be made operative forthwith.
The question that arises here is a general question. It does not relate to this Bill only. The section is in the common form which has appeared in all such measures. This particular modification has never been suggested previously. I do not think it should have been suggested in connection with this measure, and the contention that it is necessary for the protection of the rights of the House, or to prevent usurpation of the functions of the Dáil by the Minister, is just nonsense. This type of legislation has become the practice and is the regular form not merely in this country but in other countries. The legislature approves of the enactment of certain measures laying down certain lines of procedure, and gives to the Minister responsible certain powers to deal with the detailed application of the principle of the measure in the particular cases they are required. It is necessary in view of the nature of modern legislation, and its effect upon economic activities, and the complex nature of those activities, and no other method of applying principles of the kind that are dealt with in this Bill to the complex conditions of modern industrial life would be effective.
The Minister has made a very weak case against this amendment. In the first place, he introduces an irrelevant example that this has been the practice in various Bills since the establishment of the State. It happens, fortunately or unfortunately, that the State gets older every day and while there was necessity for including such a provision as this in the earlier stages of the formation of the State, it has now become almost a regular practice. It cannot be done without and the principal reason for it is that Ministers do not know their minds from one day to another. In any case, assuming that it has been the practice for ten years, what exactly was the practice? Would the Minister read the precise section in the measure? It says:—
Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
There was at least that safeguard and there was at least that opportunity afforded of the regulation in question being raised in the House.
Now we have a situation in which by reason of the stupidity, the blundering, the incapacity and the incompetency of the far side of the House, the Ministry and the Labour Party, we have not got the safeguard of a second House of the Oireachtas, or at least we are going to be deprived of it within a month or two, and if Ministers and the Labour Party could do it we would be deprived of it tomorrow. At any rate, there was that safeguard. This is not a particularly important matter in view of what the Minister says. It is not terribly important and the power he is getting is not exhaustive, but he has no case whatever for objecting to the House withholding from him power from Friday until Wednesday of any week. The House sits here on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and, if necessary, it will sit on Tuesday. He is prevented from making an order only from Friday until the following Tuesday, and he objects to that and cites 10 years' experience of having these regulations laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Is there such a case likely to arise that the Minister is going to be impeded in the administration of this Act because he cannot make an order on Friday which he can make on the following Tuesday or Wednesday?
The Minister knows there is no such thing and what the Labour Party has to make up its mind about is, that, while it can give a vote very easily for disposing of one House of the Oireachtas, when it comes to a matter of this sort the other House of the Oireachtas should have an opportunity of discussing a matter such as this and ventilating its objection to it, even if it were not to pass the House. It would focus public attention upon it, but that security is gone, and what we are provided with now is a position in which, although you have two names to a bill, the person who gets the benefit of the bill can withdraw one of the names. That is a nice situation. The Minister, if he has any experience of business, will appreciate at once what a great power it is to be able to take one name off in a case of this sort.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Brian, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and McMenamin.
Question declared carried.
I suggest, Sir, that, as the remaining amendments are likely to be agreed to by all parties, I think we might conclude them now.
I think that has been agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Section 15, sub-section (4). Before the word "is" in line 47 the words "at the commencement of this Act" inserted.
Section 15, sub-section (4). Before the word "is" in line 49 the words "any apprentice who, at or after such commencement" inserted.
The object of amendments Nos. 17 and 18 is to provide that the exclusion from the definition of a young person, provided for in Section 15, will apply only to persons who are apprentices at the date of the commencement of the Act.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:
Section 19, sub-section (2). Before the word "notice" in line 20 the words "seven days' " inserted.
This amendment provides for seven days' notice of the annulment of regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20:
Section 24, sub-section (5). All after the word "work" in line 16 deleted down to and including the word "leave" in line 18.
This is an amendment which I resisted in the Dáil. It provides that the worker on annual leave may not do any other form of industrial work.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21:
Section 24, sub-section (8). The words "modification that" deleted in line 48 and the words, brackets and letter "modifications that (a)" substituted therefor; and the following added at the end of the sub-section:—
"and
(b) If such employer shall, before the commencement of this Act, have allowed to such worker in such employment year one or more days' leave which would be annual leave for the purposes of this section but for the fact that such days were not consecutive or were less than six or were both not consecutive and less than six, the said leave so allowed shall be deemed to be annual leave for the purposes of this section and such worker shall only be entitled in respect of such employment year to such number (if any) of consecutive days' annual leave after the commencement of this Act as is equal to the number (if any) of days by which the said leave so allowed is less than six."
The object of this amendment is to provide that where the obligation to give holidays to a worker arises in consequence of the termination of the employment year of the worker within one month of the commencement of the Act, that obligation will not operate if in fact the worker has got holidays from that employer during the course of the employment year.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 22:
Section 24, sub-section (9). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
"(9) In the application of this section to workers who are young persons, the several periods of 1,500 hours, 250 hours and 120 hours shall respectively be substituted throughout this section for the several periods of 1,800 hours, 300 hours and 150 hours, and this section shall have effect in relation to such workers accordingly."
The object of this amendment could have been effected by regulation. It is not a necessary provision but there is no objection to having it in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 23:
Section 27, sub-section (1). The words "one week" deleted in line 51 and the words "two weeks" substituted therefor.
This only effects a slight change, the purpose of which is obvious.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24:
Section 32, sub-section (1). Before the word "unless" in line 9 the words and brackets "(other than industrial work done in or about the printing or publishing of newspapers)" inserted.
The object of this is to provide that industrial work done in or about the printing or publishing of newspapers would be exempted from the hours provisions of this part of the Bill, as they cannot be made applicable in that part of the industry. It is considered better to have it in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 25:
Section 38, sub-section (2). After the word "printing" in line 43 the words "and publishing" inserted.
This is merely a verbal change.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 26:—
Section 40, sub-section (1). After the word "proceed" in line 24 the words "in a satisfactory manner" inserted.
This also is a verbal change. It is not a very satisfactory amendment, but there is no reason to fight about it.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 27:—
Section 49, sub-section (1). After the word "printing" in line 13 the words "or publishing" inserted.
This is the same as amendment No. 25.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 28:—
Section 49, sub-section (7). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
(7) In the application of the two next preceding sub-sections of this section to workers who are young persons, the several periods of one hundred and twenty hours and sixteen hours shall respectively be substituted for the several periods of one hundred and fifty hours and twenty hours, and the said two next preceding sub-sections shall have effect in relation to such workers accordingly.
This amendment has the same purpose as amendment No. 22.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 29:—
Section 49, sub-section (7). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
(7) If any employer fails to pay to any worker any moneys which become payable to such worker under this section, such worker may recover such moneys as a simple contract debt from such employer.
The object of this amendment is to rectify an omission.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 30:—
Section 53, sub-section (1). Before paragraph (c) a new paragraph inserted as follows:—
(c) a notice stating the days in the current year which are for the time being public holidays for the purposes of this Act in respect of such industrial undertaking, and.
This amendment provides for an addition to the statutory notice that must be displayed by an employer.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 31:—
Section 57. Lines 20-22 inclusive deleted and the following substituted therefor:—
Whenever the Minister makes regulations or grants a licence or permit under this Act in respect of a particular form of industrial work, the Minister may, in such regulations, licence, or permit (as the case may be).
This is a drafting change.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 32:—
Schedule. In the portion of the third column relating to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920, after the word "work" the words "within the meaning of this present Act" added.
This also is a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Disagreement to amendments Nos. 2,3 and 16 and agreement to all the other amendment reported. Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
Perhaps the Minister would be able to tell us when the Act will be likely to be brought into operation?
That will depend on the attitude of the Seanad towards the amendments with which the Dáil has disagreed.
But assuming that the Seanad is not disposed to insist upon the amendments with which the Dáil has disagreed, could the Minister give us an idea as to when the Act will be brought into operation?
It would be difficult to give any precise indication as to when the Act would be brought into operation. A number of regulations must be prepared, in the preparation of which certain consultations will be necessary with a view to having them come into operation simultaneously with the coming of the Act into operation. That may take, perhaps, six months, but it is my aim to make the period as short as possible.
As a number of bank holidays are in the offing, would the Minister not undertake to bring it into operation earlier?
It might be difficult to do so and I would not like to promise to do it.
Well, will the Minister make every effort to do so?
