On the last occasion that the Bill was before the House this amendment was very fully discussed. The gist of it is to ensure that the 48-hour week will be preserved, and that if the Minister gives permission to a shopkeeper to work his employees in excess of 48 hours a week that he will have to pay them overtime. The section as it stands strikes completely at the root of the idea of a 48-hour week. It would give the Minister power to direct that overtime could be worked, and that overtime rates need not be paid.
Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) (No. 2) Bill, 1937—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
In sub-section (2) line 36, to delete the words "this section" and substitute the words "the next following sub-section".—(Deputy McGowan.)
I indicated that I think it is desirable to have power to make an Order, after consultation with all the parties likely to be interested—representatives of the workers and the proprietors of shops—to extend the ordinary hours of work in a particular trade at particular periods. The only objection which could be offered, in my opinion, to that is as to the manner in which that power might be exercised, but as I say I think it is desirable that the power should be there. I agree that, the power being there, it might be used for the purpose of negativing the whole purpose of the Bill, but I think that is most unlikely. Once a 48-hour week is established as the normal working week under the Bill, it is unlikely to be departed from: that is to say, that the hours of work are unlikely to be extended by Order except in cases where it is obviously desirable in everybody's interest to do so. Sub-section (5), of course, makes it possible to reduce the normal working hours below 48 as well as to increase them.
The appearance of this sub-section in the section is due to the experience we have had of the operation of the Conditions of Employment Act relating to industry. I have no doubt that very exceptional and unusual cases will arise where it would be agreed by everybody, workers and employers alike, that some modification of the conditions of the Act should be made, and it is desirable to have the power to make a modification in such circumstances. I would be very slow, indeed, to agree to deprive the Minister for Industry and Commerce of that power. I think he should have it, even though I think it should be exercised only in very exceptional circumstances.
Am I to understand from the Minister that he is prepared to stand over an employer working his employees for more than 48 hours and not paying them overtime rates for the work they do?
I did not say that. What I want to convey is this, that I do not know the circumstances of every trade. I think that, in relation to the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, there were many industries the conditions of which were so unusual that a very extensive use of the exemption powers under the Act had to be made in order to permit them to be carried on at all. It is quite conceivable that there may be shops in respect of which arrangements would be made between the proprietors and employees to work, say, 40 hours in one week and 54 hours in another week, and to observe the 48-hour week, not by having a limit of 48 in each week, but by a limit for the month as a whole. It may be no less the desire of the proprietor as the desire of the workers that a continuation of that practice should be facilitated. The existence of this section enables us to do that. We would not be able to do it if this power of exemption were not there. So long as it is provided that the power of exemption may not be exercised without consultation with the organisations which are representative of both parties, I think there is a reasonable safeguard, because the Deputy may be assured that, if there is any abuse of the power, any attempt to operate these orders for the purpose of negativing the policy approved by the Dáil, the matter will come to the Dáil and be rectified here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I take it that that governs amendment No. 62. The next is amendment No. 53.
Amendment No. 53 is consequential on an earlier one.
The object is to procure that a refreshment house may not be described under this section as a shop. What is the Minister's attitude towards that?
I have indicated that I was not prepared to exclude refreshment houses from the scope of the measure. We discussed that on amendment No. 51.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
I move amendment No. 54:—
In sub-section (2), line 39, to delete the words "forty-eight" and substitute the word "forty".
The purpose of the amendment is to secure that a 40-hour working week should apply to shops. It will be observed by Deputies that in the United States a 40-hour week is now applied universally, and in many cases large firms are moving towards a 35-hour week. Earlier to-day the Dáil discussed, amongst other things, the rates of unemployment relief, and I think that under modern methods of production in industry, and also better methods of distribution through shops and otherwise, it should be possible to make a contribution towards the solution of unemployment by shortening the hours of employed workers. That, no doubt, is part of the Minister's intention in introducing this Bill; but I do not see any reason why this country should not be in the forefront of the movement for a shorter working week. Personally, I think that a 40-hour week is reasonable, and, therefore, that the amendment should be accepted.
I am opposed to the amendment. It is, of course, a matter upon which one could initiate a debate which might last for days; but, as I have no desire to do that, I content myself by saying that I do not think the circumstances existing here are such as to justify us in requiring by legislation a maximum working week in shops of 40 hours. I think that the general adoption of a 48-hour week will be a sufficient improvement of the present conditions to make us feel satisfied that we have done enough in this measure. I notice that Deputy Dockrell has an amendment to increase the hours from 48 to 50, and, perhaps, we should discuss both together. I should like to say, however, in reference to Deputy Heron's remark, that it is theoretically possible to abolish unemployment by reducing the hours of individual workers, provided their earnings are reduced in proportion to their hours of work. A reduction of hours of work without a reduction of earnings, however, could have no effect upon unemployment whatever.
Would not the Minister agree that it has been proved in many cases that output has increased with a reduction in hours?
It is true in some cases that it has happened, but it is true in other cases that it has not happened. In that connection, I should like to refer the Deputy to a report prepared by the United States Government upon the effect of the reduction of hours of work in industry in America presented by them to the International Labour Office. The Deputy will, I am sure, be able to get the report in the Library in one of the publications of the International Labour Office. He will find there that the effect of the reduction of hours varied considerably from industry to industry and the variation was so great as to lead one to the conclusion that no general deduction could be made at all as to the effect of the reduction of hours on output or earnings. What I say is that theoretically it is possible to abolish unemployment by reducing hours of work and at the same time reducing earnings. In so far as they have abolished it in Germany and Russia, that is how they have done it. Everybody was put to work, the standard of living was fixed, and the earnings of the individual were determined by the amount available. He had to do his work in any event and he got what could be made available for him. Here and in Great Britain, France and the United States of America the movement has been towards effecting a reduction of hours of work for the purpose of increasing the leisure of workers and giving them in leisure the benefit of the technological developments which have taken place without reducing their standard of living. So long as we work on that theory, and I think it is a fairly sound theory in our circumstances, we must however conclude that no solution for the problem of unemployment is to be found in a reduction of hours, whatever other advantages may be secured, and the solution of unemployment must be found by a different method. That, however, is a theoretical discussion and I do not want to start a debate upon it.
I carefully considered before introducing this Bill what were the maximum hours of work that we would provide for. In relation to some trades, it was with considerable hesitation that I fixed the maximum at 48 hours. I think there would have been no comment if the maximum had been fixed at a higher figure in respect to certain trades where existing agreements recently made provided for a longer working week. However, I felt it was better to take a reasonable maximum and make it uniform. That is what the Bill proposes. I do not think a 40-hour week in distribution would be regarded as a reasonable maximum, nor do I think it possible to introduce it without considerable dislocation, particularly having regard to the fact that the maximum hours of work in occupations much more strenuous than those usually involved in retail distribution are longer than Deputy Heron proposes should operate in the retail trade.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 54a:—
In sub-section (2), page 10, line 39, to delete the words "forty-eight" and substitute the word "fifty".
I do not want to press the Minister if he does not wish to accept the amendment, but I should like to hear what he has to say on it.
Amendment No. 58a and amendment No. 64 go with this amendment, I think.
On this matter of the maximum hours of work to be provided in the Bill, the Deputy can take it that the Government made up its mind. It is the type of matter on which we say that once we make up our minds, we shall adhere to the provisions of the Bill and I shall be compelled to resist any amendment either to increase or to reduce the figure.
As we are taking a group of amendments, I would be obliged if the Minister would look at Section 16, sub-section (6) where the word "juvenile" is defined as a person bound by indentures of apprenticeship at the commencement of the Act or a person who is employed as an apprentice under rules made by an Apprenticeship Act of 1931. Does that mean that after the passing of this Act it will be no longer possible to sign indentures with an apprentice, except under rules made by an apprenticeship committee because, as the Minister is aware, there are no rules applying to apprentices working in retail shops under the Apprenticeship Act of 1931? At the present time apprentices simply sign indentures in the ordinary way. Will it be open to sign indentures in the ordinary way after the passing of the Bill?
I do not quite grasp what the Deputy means. Section 16 which we passed places a restriction on the employment of an undue number of juveniles and we excluded from the definition of juveniles certain people, that is, those who are now employed under an indenture of apprenticeship. In other words, the operation of that section will not require the dismissal of somebody who is an apprentice under indentures nor will it apply to a person who is employed as an apprentice under rules made by an apprenticeship committee because if there is a committee, there will be rules dealing with this question.
Quite. Suppose that hereafter you want to take in an apprentice?
He will be subject to whatever restrictions there are here.
Will he be an excluded person?
No. The definition limits the number of juveniles employed in any shop in relation to the number of adults, but for obvious reasons we exclude from that limitation persons who are now indentured apprentices because it would be unfair to require an employer to dismiss them, nor will it apply to any apprentice employed under the rules of a committee for the simple reason that the rules committee themselves will make rules dealing with that matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 55:
In sub-section (2), line 39, before the word "shop" to insert the words and brackets "(or in the case of a juvenile forty hours)".
This amendment proposes to establish a 40-hour week for juveniles. Under the Conditions of Employment Act of 1936 a 40-hour week is established for juveniles and we seek to have the same principle embodied in this Bill.
I considered this matter and I do not think the circumstances are precisely the same. The nature of work in a shop is different from the nature of work in a factory. I think the main objection to the employment of juveniles for unduly long hours in a modern factory lies in the monotonous nature of the work. Persons engaged in these factories, particularly juveniles, are usually employed upon a continuous repetition of the same process. That stunts their mental growth and is detrimental to their general health. Employment in a shop is on a different basis. There is not the same monotony attached to the work. There is variety occasioned by the fact that they are in direct contact with members of the public and in these circumstances I do not think that it would be detrimental to juveniles that they should be required to work 48 hours in shops. If that conclusion is correct, I think it is simpler to leave the hours of work for juveniles the same as for adults because it will of course simplify considerably the enforcement of the Act.
Juveniles may be used for running messages or for cleaning windows.
I am referring to the extent to which they are employed on shop work. If they are not employed on shop work they are not covered by the Bill at all, consequently there is no restriction on their hours. I do not know that it would be held that a 48-hour week in such an occupation is unduly long. I do not think it is unduly long. It is a matter upon which a certain amount of difference of opinion might arise but in my view shop work for 48 hours a week is not unduly harsh on any juvenile. Some of them at present are working 70 or 75 hours.
Under the Bill, I think it will be agreed that there is nothing to prevent a juvenile working overtime or being asked to work overtime by his employer. In view of that circumstance, I think that Deputy O'Brien's amendment should be accepted. A juvenile should not be expected to work more than 40 hours a week. I think the Minister is familiar with the terms of the British Shops Act of 1934 and, in that particular legislation, a juvenile's week is limited to 48 hours and overtime is expressly prohibited. In other words juveniles may work 48 hours a week but they cannot work overtime. If there was something of that nature included in the Bill, this amendment would not be necessary but owing to the fact that such a provision is not present, we are definitely of opinion that this amendment should be accepted by the Minister and that this measure should be on a parallel with previous Bills that have gone throught the Dáil concerning children in industrial employment, by which they are limited to a 40-hour week. I cannot see that there is any difference between the conditions under which children work in industrial employment and the conditions under which they work in shops. In fact, in many cases you will find that the work of a juvenile in shops is far more difficult than that of a juvenile in industrial employment. Industrial employment may consist of holding a bobbin, carrying a basket or standing watching machinery whereas a juvenile employed in shop work has different types of work to attend to. They have to run here, there and everywhere and go out in all kinds of weather. Generally speaking, the work of a juvenile in a shop is as hard if not harder than the work carried on by juveniles in industrial employment. I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. I think it is in keeping with all the principles of Christianity that juveniles should not be asked to work any longer than 40 hours per week, taking into consideration of course that in this particular Bill overtime is permitted to a very considerable extent.
Might I put this to the Minister? If the withdrawal of this amendment were considered on this side of the House, would the Minister undertake at the next stage of the Bill to introduce an amendment prohibiting overtime for juveniles in shops?
I do not think it would be practicable to prohibit overtime entirely, nor does the British Act to which Deputy McGowan referred prohibit overtime entirely for juveniles. Juveniles between 16 and 18 years of age are permitted by that Act to work overtime during not more than six weeks in a year. I would be prepared to agree that the overtime provisions in this Bill, which were framed with adults in mind, are unduly liberal when considered in relation to juveniles, and that we might impose in respect of juveniles further restrictions upon the working of overtime than are contemplated in respect of adults. I do not know that it would be practicable to enforce a complete prohibition of overtime, but it may be possible to do so in respect of juveniles under 16 years. However, I have in mind the idea of restricting the working of overtime by juveniles rather than its complete prohibition, and while certain difficulties have yet to be overcome, it was my intention to produce on the next stage an amendment dealing with that matter. If the Deputies of the Labour Party would put their minds to work upon the type of limitation of that kind which they would prefer, and produce an amendment, I think it would be preferable. In so far as the proposal to reduce the ordinary working week of juveniles is concerned, I would be compelled to resist it, but an amendment to restrict the working of overtime by juveniles would have sympathetic consideration.
Would the Minister not consider bringing in an amendment himself?
I will consider it. There are certain administrative and enforcement difficulties, but they might, I think, be got over by having less liberal provisions in respect of juveniles than in respect of adults. It might be a wiser course to adopt the practice in the British Act and allow overtime for persons over 16 years, but that means dividing assistants into more than two classes—that is adults and juveniles— and introducing a third class, which, I think, is to be avoided if possible, because it involves considerable difficulty of enforcement where it is not easy to ascertain the age of a worker.
I think the proposal to avoid Oliver Twist conditions either in shop working or factory working will receive sympathetic consideration from all sides of the House, and I believe that this kind of legislation is the kind of legislation that might be carried through this House with pretty near unanimity, but I do urge both on the Government and on the Labour Party that they should approach those restrictive proposals cautiously, so that they can be carried with genuine unanimity. The Labour Party particularly have at their disposal among their own officials abundant knowledge of the working conditions that obtain throughout the country. What I want to remind the Government and the Labour Party of is this, that they ought to try and differentiate in their own minds between the conditions obtaining in the cities and those obtaining in the rural areas, because there is very substantial difference between the two. Nobody wants to see children working night and day. On the other hand, do not create a situation in which you will make it impossible for people who want to get their children trained in what may subsequently turn out to be quite profitable vocations for those children. Let us approach this matter with moderation, and if possible devise a plan on the lines which the Minister has suggested, restricting by all means any attempt to turn a child into a slave, but at the same time making it possible to carry on business where juveniles are employed.
Is the Minister prepared to think over the matter?
I am prepared to have the matter left over to the next Stage. We will have another Committee Stage.
We will have another Committee Stage?
Yes.
Amendment No. 55, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58 not moved.
I move amendment No. 59:—
In sub-section (3), line 46, to delete the word "sixty" and substitute the words "fifty four".
The idea of this amendment is to limit the overtime to six hours, in the event of the working week being retained at 48 hours. Generally speaking, overtime arises through necessity. Perhaps on one or two days in the week, due to a special rush of business, the proprietor of a shop may have to ask the employees to work overtime. That generally happens in the vicinity of some holiday, when the employees might have to work overtime for two days in the week, and three hours per day ought to be sufficient. The idea of this amendment, therefore, is to ensure that six hours per week should be the total amount of overtime worked.
The overtime provisions of this section are similar to those in the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. I have from time to time given this matter consideration, because I do not think it is necessary to have quite the same provisions for overtime in retail distribution as in industrial occupations, and I think we might be able to modify them to some extent, but the item in respect of which I would not be prepared to modify them is the maximum number of hours which might be permitted in any week. Having regard to the circumstances in which retail distribution is carried on, I think it is necessary to permit a 60-hour week very occasionally. In certain seasons of the year, during the week immediately preceding Christmas of 1937 for example, I am sure that a very large number of retail establishments worked their employees for a 60-hour week. That would be about the only week in the year in which they would find it necessary to do so. The same situation might arise in various towns, when some special occasion arose—a civic week or something of that kind. It might be desired to carry on for unusual hours during such a period. and the need for working overtime would hardly arise at all outside that period. I think, therefore, that we should preserve the provision which permits of the working of overtime up to 60 hours in the week, even though we might reconsider the number of weeks during which the 60 hours could be worked, by a modification of the proposals at (b) and (c) of this sub-section. I am not at all sure as to what the general view of the persons most intimately concerned is in regard to the need for those overtime provisions. I think it may be reasonably assumed that, when the law provides that a 25 per cent. increase in wages is to operate during hours of overtime, employers will not use overtime unnecessarily. It is, of course, the policy of the Government to discourage the working of overtime as a regular practice or except in circumstances of necessity, and although we recognise that it must be permitted because of the possibility of unusual circumstances occurring or to meet the conditions of particular trades, we are anxious to ensure that it will be resorted to only when, in fact, there is no real alternative. I think that that is also the view of the labour organisations catering for workers in the distributive trades. I think that their official policy is also to discourage overtime. I may say, however, that that is not the view of all trade unions and, as Deputies opposite know, there are some abuses in that regard by means of which men in certain occupations are permitted to work overtime to the detriment of their own health and to the detriment also of their colleagues so far as the earning of wages is concerned. I presume that the attitude of labour organisations, in general, would be against overtime, however, and I know definitely from statements that have been made, that the trade unions catering for these distributive trades have publicly declared their hostility to any practice of working overtime as a general policy. That is also the view of the Government.
That being so, and having regard to the imposition of the higher wage rate and the known attitude of labour organisations, the question arises as to whether any harm is being done by allowing to remain in the Bill such provisions as it now contains or whether it is necessary to restrict these. That is a question that I have been asking myself. At the moment, I am disposed to reduce somewhat the provisions under paragraphs (b) and (c), but I think it would be a mistake to reduce the provision under paragraph (a). If there were any question of the need for reducing overtime at all, it would arise in respect of a special week, and in that week I think it should be permitted up to a maximum of 60 hours.
It seems to me that it would be very seldom that an employer would be anxious to pay overtime, except in the case of a charge-hand or somebody in a similarly important position. Where the employer has got to pay 25 per cent. extra in wages for overtime, it would not seem to me to be an advantage to an employer to work overtime except in certain special cases, but it does seem to me that, unless there is a fair amount of freedom given both to the employer and the employee, the cutting down of overtime might be very serious in certain cases where there would be a particular rush of business and where there must be a certain number of hands to deal with that rush. If you are to force these people to get out in such circumstances, what is to be done? You might get in casual hands, but in an ordinary country town it would be extremely difficult to get in casual hands, and it would be practically impossible to get a trained casual hand. For that reason, I think that a reasonable amount of laxity should be allowed so far as overtime is concerned, and I venture to say that, in practice, it will be found that it is the hands who will be anxious to get overtime and that the employees will be anxious not to give them overtime. That will certainly be the case in a certain class of trade at any rate.
I do not think any difference should be made between people working in shops in the country and people working in shops in the city. As a matter of fact, I think you may take it that, due to the fact that trades unions function more effectively in a city than in the country, the conditions under which shop assistants work in country towns are far worse than those under which shop assistants work in the city. However, am I correct in assuming that the Minister will undertake to bring in an amendment, in the event of this amendment being withdrawn, to reduce the provisions under paragraphs (b) and (c) in sub-section (3), thereby reducing the total number of hours worked in a particular year?
That is what I have been considering, but the Deputy is aware that there are two further amendments in Deputy Norton's name designed for the same purpose. I am not quite sure how he arrives at his figures, but I think we might provide that, if we allow 60 hours in any week, then we would not allow 60 hours in more than a certain number of weeks in a year, thus reducing the maximum period. I have an idea that we can safely reduce the term provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c) without creating too much risk, and while I should like to have an opportunity of considering the matter further, I would indicate a general intention of producing an amendment on the next stage in respect of these matters without being definitely committed to it. I suggest that if the Deputy would leave the matter over for the present, he would be at liberty to reintroduce this amendment in the event of my not finding it possible to accede to this.
Amendment No. 59, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62 not moved.
I move amendment No. 63:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-sections:—
(3) Save as otherwise provided by this section, it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop which is a refreshment house, to permit any member of the staff of that shop to continue to do shop work in any week for a period in excess of the following number of hours, that is to say:—
(a) if such shop is situate in the area comprising Greater Dublin— 56 hours, or
(b) if such shop is situate outside the area comprising Greater Dublin—60 hours.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the immediately preceding sub-section, the proprietor of a shop which is a refreshment house, may permit any member of the staff of that shop to do shop work in any week for a period in excess of fifty-six or sixty hours (as the case may be) so that the number of hours of shop work done by such member does not exceed—
(a) seventy hours in any week, or
(b) two hundred and sixty-four hours in any period of four consecutive weeks, during which he is in the employment of such proprietor;
(c) three thousand two hundred and seventy-six hours in any year during which he is in the employment of such proprietor.
This amendment is in rather a different category from the preceding amendments, and I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to give special consideration to this matter of refreshment houses. After all, they are not just in the same class as ordinary trading. They are catering for necessities. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Minister would be prepared to consider proprietors of refreshment houses as a special class to which consideration should be given.
The Deputy is not dealing here with any period of urgency?
No.
He is proposing that the 48-hour week, in fact, should not operate in respect of workers employed in refreshment houses, and that their hours of work should be 56 hours in Dublin and 60 hours outside Dublin.
Yes.
I intimated already that I was not prepared to agree to that. I will admit that I had very grave doubt in my mind as to the practicability or advisability of including refreshment houses and similar establishments within the scope of this measure at all. However, I came to the conclusion that, whatever arguments there might be for excluding them from the scope of the Bill, there were much stronger arguments for including them, and I felt that, if included, the workers in these establishments could very reasonably protest if they were being subjected to conditions less favourable than those of other classes of workers whose work is very similar in nature. It is quite true that refreshment houses and similar establishments are not likely to be required, under the Hours of Trading Act, to reduce the hours of trading to 48 hours in the week or 56 hours in the week. There is very little public need for requiring places of this kind to close at any hour at all, and consequently there will arise the position that the hours of trading will be different to the maximum hours of employment permitted by law for assistants. That situation, of course, has arisen, in effect, in connection with licensed premises in Dublin in the past, where the maximum hours of trading permitted by law were in excess of the hours of employment of assistants permitted under the agreements concluded by the proprietors of the establishments with the trades unions concerned. I think that, in due course, the proprietors of these refreshment houses will be able to adjust their working arrangements so as to permit of their assistants enjoying the same hours of work as the assistants in other classes of establishments. In the majority of retail shops it will be possible to arrange that the hours of trading and the hours of employment will coincide and that no difficulties will arise on that score. But, in refreshment houses and similar establishments, that will not be so and, consequently, some special arrangements may have to be made. I am aware that organisations of employers and employees have, in some places at any rate, been considering, in relation to the City of Dublin for example, what these special arrangements might be, and I feel quite satisfied when the need does actually arise that arrangements which will be generally satisfactory will emerge everywhere. This is also a question to which I have given very careful consideration. I was fully aware that it would be raised here or, if not here, it would be raised by the persons directly concerned and, having ascertained so far as I could all the relevant facts, I came to the conclusion that I would have no justification for legislating for longer hours of work in this trade than in other trades. Therefore, I propose to resist Deputy Dockrell's amendment. I think the proprietors of refreshment houses will be able to get over whatever difficulty is caused for them by the enactment of this measure.
I will not press the amendment, but I would like the Minister, between now and the next stage, to keep an open mind for representations.
I have had a number of representations, and I gather that I am likely to have more, and I have an open mind upon most questions in relation to this Bill. My mind is, perhaps, less open on this particular one than on any of the others.
Has the Minister considered the difficulty that hotels in tourist districts experience in providing a staff? They find it exceedingly difficult to get employees —that is, in the remote fishing hotels.
I admitted it before that there are difficulties in connection with hotels, and, while it is necessary that whatever provisions apply to persons employed in refreshment houses must apply to persons employed in precisely similar occupations in hotels, there is in relation to hotels a general problem of such a character that it is going to cause considerable difficulty. I have had that matter under consideration, and we may decide to eliminate hotels from the Bill, or introduce special provisions governing hotels which will permit of longer hours of work, subject, of course, to certain conditions.
I think they would be better dealt with in a special Bill.
I am not worrying my mind so much about hotels at the moment. It was a mistake originally to regard a hotel as a shop. This is, of course, a Shops Bill, and to the extent that they are in, they will have to stay in, but we may have to modify the provisions.
I am glad to hear the Minister saying that he will resist this amendment moved by Deputy Dockrell. A special case could be made for every section affected by this Bill and if all these cases were listened to there would be no Bill at all. I hope the Minister will keep his mind firmly closed on that matter.
Well, opened at one end.
Amendment No. 63, by leave, withdrawn.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again this evening.