In Committee on Finance. - Shops (Hours of Trading) (No. 2) Bill, 1937—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce;
the expression "retail trade or business" includes the business of a barber or hairdresser, the business of a dyer or cleaner, the business of the lending for reward of books or periodicals, the business of a pawnbroker, the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquors, and retail sales by auction, but does not include the sale of programmes and catalogues and other similar sales at theatres and places of amusement;
the expression "wholesale shop" means any premises occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale to customers resorting to the premises; the word "shop" includes—
(a) any premises in which a retail trade or business is carried on;
(b) any wholesale shop;
(c) any warehouse occupied for the purposes of his trade by any person carrying on any retail trade or business or by any wholesale dealer or merchant;
the word "proprietor" when used in relation to a shop means the person who carries on business at that shop; the word "week" means the period between midnight on Saturday night and midnight on the succeeding Saturday night;
I move amendment No. 1a:—
In page 3, line 25, to delete the words: "the business of a dyer or cleaner" and substitute the words "the business of serving customers in connection with the business of a dyer or cleaner or launderer."
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much about this amendment, because I have already tackled the Minister three times on this matter. I claim that I have done part of his work for him because I have added the word "launderer," which he had already added to the Conditions of Employment Act and not added to the Hours of Trading Bill. I do not know whether it is his intention to bring it in or not, but there was an amendment down by the Minister to include it in the Conditions of Employment Act. However, I think that this amendment does give us what we want, and at the same time leaves all the shops and offices in the factory, used for the purpose of receiving laundry, dyeing and cleaning parcels, still under the operation of those Bills. I hope the Minister will agree to accept the amendment.
I think an amendment of this kind is necessary, and I am prepared to accept this one in principle. Perhaps the Deputy would allow me an opportunity of consulting the Parliamentary draftsman as to the form the amendment should take by holding over his for the next stage. Such an amendment, I agree, is required. Otherwise, a laundry might be held to be subject to the provisions of the Bill even though the work done in it was industrial work within the meaning of the Act of 1936. A similar question arose on the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Bill when I indicated that I would produce an amendment on the next stage extending the reference to the depôt work of dyers and cleaners to depôts generally where goods are received for cleaning or repairing. A similar provision may be necessary in this Bill, and I undertake to have the matter considered.
There are, in fact, possible changes in the wording of this measure which may be consequential on the ultimate form of the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Bill. It will be necessary, therefore, I think, to keep one stage of this Bill ever until we have seen the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Bill in its final form in order to ensure that the terminology of both will correspond. Whatever changes there are in the definition of a dyer and cleaner, and whatever provisions are made in respect of the work of a launderer in one Bill, may cause consequential changes in another. An amendment of the kind that the Deputy suggests will be required, and I undertake to have it available for the next stage of the Bill.
Is it to be inferred from what the Minister has said that it is his intention to recommit this Bill again as well as the Shop Assistants Bill?
If necessary. I am not sure that it will be necessary in the case of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, line 33, to delete the words: "to customers resorting to the premises."
In the section as it stands—
"the expression ‘wholesale shop' means any premises occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale to customers resorting to the premises."
The words "resorting to the premises" limit the operation of the Bill and we object to that. You may have objectionable types of shops to which customers do not resort. The object of the amendment is to have that type of shop covered by the Bill.
The same question arose in connection with the Conditions of Employment Act. It is desirable to distinguish between a wholesale establishment which is, in fact, a shop, and a wholesale establishment which is, in fact, an office. The words used are intended to make that distinction. I have asked the Parliamentary draftsman to consider whether the words are completely satisfactory; whether the expression should not be a place where goods are kept to which customers may resort rather than the phrase used here. Subject to whatever verbal changes, if any, which may be considered desirable, I think it is well to keep that distinction because we are legislating here for conditions of employment and hours of trading in shops which are, in fact, shops and not establishments which are, in fact, offices.
It is necessary to have a distinction between a wholesale establishment which is conducted like a shop as against a place that is an office only. Hence the distinction which appears here. While the actual wording of this may be reconsidered, the purpose of it will not be changed. We are anxious to ensure that this Bill will apply only to premises occupied by a wholesale dealer where goods are kept for sale to a customer who might resort or be at liberty to resort to the premises. In any event, whatever wording we have in the other Bill will have to be reproduced here. It will be the same in both Bills.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2, 20, 31 and 46, all relate to what are known as "travelling shops."
Yes. They all drop, if this drops.
Are all these related to one another?
They all relate to travelling shops. I am not certain if they cover exactly the same ground.
If Deputy McGowan says the amendments are consequential one to another I am satisfied.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 3, before line 41, to insert the following words:—"the expression ‘premises' includes any van or other vehicle, barrow or stall whether stationary or not stationary in relation to which any retail trade or business is carried on."
In certain parts of the Bill there are certain obligations imposed on certain places where goods are sold. I presume it is the intention of the Minister to ensure that the travelling shop is caught. I take it for granted that that is his intention. Section 8 (4) states:—
"The provisions of this section shall extend to any place where any retail trade or business is carried on as if that place were a shop and as if in relation to any such place the person by whom the retail trade or business is carried on were the proprietor of a shop."
It is considered that perhaps the word "place" would not catch the travelling shop and the idea of this amendment is to ensure that the travelling shop will be caught. Therefore, the word "premises" is defined as indicated in the amendment. Perhaps the better way of explaining the amendment is to say that it is to make assurance doubly sure that the travelling shop is caught by this legislation.
I think what the Deputy would in fact achieve is to restrict to some extent the scope of the Bill. The term "place" is all-embracing. The phrase which the Deputy quoted is intended to apply to a vehicle or to any place, whether it is a premises, or a van or a stall or a barrow, where any retail trade is carried on, and even to a place where retail trade is carried on even if there is no premises or stall or barrow or van. The effect of the amendment would be therefore to restrict to a limited extent the scope of the Bill. It would confine its operation to retail trade carried on in a premises or from a van or other vehicle, barrow or stall.
No. I suggest it includes that.
They are all included in the term "place" which is wider and which makes it clear that a barrow or a stall or a premises or a van, provided retail trade is carried on, is covered by the Bill. Therefore, I have to resist the amendment because the amendment, I think, achieves the reverse of what the Deputy has in mind, to some extent, in so far as it limits the scope of the Bill rather than extends it. There is no doubt whatever that the phraseology of Section 8 (4), which is repeated through the Bill extends the scope of the Bill to cover travelling shops, stalls, and barrows. It even extends it wider than that because it extends it to catch any trader carrying on retail trade anywhere, in any place.
I do not agree that because the definition says that "premises" shall include certain articles or vehicles that places not mentioned in that shall be excluded. I do not see that.
The Deputy's proposal is to substitute for the word "place" the word "premises." Therefore, he confines the scope of the section to premises, even though he puts in another sentence to make it clear that "premises" includes vans, stalls, and barrows. No matter how he defines "premises" the effect of the amendment is to restrict the scope of the Bill, because the word "place" is obviously wider in connotation than any definition of the word "premises" because we say in the Bill that its provisions shall apply to any retail trade carried on in any place, whether there is or is not a premises or stall or barrow or van. The retail trade would be subject to the Bill in any case. If the Deputy merely wants to make sure that travelling shops are covered the amendment is unnecessary. I give him that assurance most definitely.
That is our only contention and on that assurance, I withdraw the amendment.
I should like to ask the Minister, arising out of that, would street trading be caught under this? I had not thought that it was contemplated. Deputy McGowan was referring to the question of the travelling shop, but the Minister seems to say that it will be even wider. From what the Minister stated it would appear to me that it embraces street trading.
Street trading in any articles not covered in the Schedules is undoubtedly covered by the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy takes that as ruling amendments Nos. 20, 31 and 46?
Yes. I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 3, before line 41, to insert the following words:—"the expression ‘contravention' in relation to any provision includes any failure to comply with that provision or with any rule, regulation, bye-law or order construed in reference thereto."
This is a purely drafting amendment. It will be remembered that something similar to this was put down in connection with the other Bill.
In amendment No. 19 on the other Bill.
I am not going to duplicate the debate by arguing it very much further, except that I think there is a certain difficulty in interpreting certain statutes as to what is the definition of the word "contravention." I think it has been the practice here not to define it. It is extremely doubtful when the phrase is used "in contravention of this particular section," whether or not that would cover an Order made under the Act. In an English Act, the Shops Act, 1934, I think you will find that the word "contravention" is defined for the first time.
I am advised that it is unnecessary. In any event, if the need for the amendment is as widespread as the Deputy suggests, it should take the form of an amendment to the Interpretation Act rather than an amendment to one Bill of this kind. If the Deputy wants to press the point he might promote a private Bill to amend the Interpretation Act. So far as I am concerned, I must rely on the advice given by the Parliamentary draftsman and his assistants, and I am advised by them that definition of the term "contravention" is not necessary.
It is defined in the 1934 Act, which was passed in England.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 is one of a series dealing with chemists' shops.
It is a Government amendment which I am moving:—
In page 3, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:—"the word ‘chemist' means a person entitled to keep open shop for the sale of poisons under the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, as amended by the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment Act, 1890."
I think it would be right that Deputies who have amendments to define the term "chemist" in connection with particular sections of the Bill should have regard to the terms of this amendment, which is certainly not so wide as some of them propose. The definition given is one which I have settled in consultation with the Minister for Justice. That definition is, I think, adequate and will secure that the various sections of the Bill in connection with which the term "chemist" is used will have the exact scope and operation which I intended in framing it, and not the somewhat wider scope which other amendments seemed to indicate might be urged by Deputies.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 4, at the end of the section to add the following sub-sections:—
(3) The proprietor of any shop may on giving not less than one month's notice to all persons employed to do shop work in his employment substitute for the purpose 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) Feast of Corpus Christi;
(c) Feast of SS. Peter and Paul;
(d) Feast of the Assumption.
(4) The following provision shall have effect for the purpose of the next preceding sub-section of this sub-section, that is to say:—
(a) the notice mentioned in the said sub-section shall be in writing and may be given to any person by handing a copy thereof to him personally or by posting a copy thereof in a conspicuous position in the place in which such person is employed;
(b) no day mentioned in the said sub-section shall be substituted under that sub-section in a year in which such day falls on a Sunday;
(c) when a day mentioned in the said sub-section is substituted under that sub-section by the proprietor of a shop in respect of any year, the day so substituted shall in that year and in respect of all persons employed by such proprietor to do shop work be a public holiday within the meaning and for the purpose of this Act instead of the day for which it is so substituted.
This amendment, I think, does not affect any other amendment. It endeavours to secure a provision similar, although the wording may not be exactly the same, to that included in the Conditions of Employment Bill. It gives the employers the right to substitute Catholic holidays for certain public holidays mentioned in the section.
I think the amendment has been moved under a misunderstanding. There is nothing in the Bill concerning the closing of shops on public holidays. The only clause in the Bill which touches in any way on the question is sub-section (2) of Section 17 which gives the proprietor the right to remain open on the half-holiday immediately preceding or immediately following a bank holiday if he closes on the bank holiday. The amendment does not appear to be necessary in this case and I do not think it should be urged. I gather from the terms of it that the Deputy had in mind the question of the conditions of employment of shop assistants rather than the hours of trading in shops. In connection with the other Bill, that is the Conditions of Employment Bill, an amendment of this kind might be moved. An amendment was, I think, in fact, suggested by the Deputy but was not pressed on the Committee Stage. The question will again come forward on the Recommittal Stage of that Bill.
That may have been one of the intentions of the amendment but the other is exactly as indicated in sub-section 2 of section 17. The idea is to put Catholic holidays on a par with bank holidays. In certain places down the country the majority of the shops do, in fact, close on Catholic holidays and the day before is in a good many places regarded as a kind of half day or as a kind of Saturday. The idea of this proposed section is to put the Catholic holidays on the same basis as a bank holiday. I think the Minister will agree that in certain parts of the country Catholic holidays are observed to a great extent. In some places they are observed even better than Sundays.
I think the Deputy is under a misunderstanding. What we say here is that the proprietor of a shop may keep open on the half holiday immediately preceding or following the bank holiday. We do not propose to give him that right in connection with these other holidays. It is an entirely different proposition to talk about permitting him to substitute one for the other. He can always close his shop on any day, if he wishes. There is nothing in the Bill to compel him to keep open. He can have a holiday every day in the week if he likes and, therefore, this section is really unnecessary in relation to this Bill. I do not think the Deputy has quite grasped it.
There is a provision in the existing law which requires a shopkeeper to close for a half day in each week. We exempted him from that obligation in the week immediately preceding or immediately following one of these statutory public holidays, provided he closes on the holiday. In the case of these other holidays he can shut or open if he wishes. It is true that in some parts of the country, it is the general practice of shops to shut on Church holidays. It is equally true that in other parts of the country these are regarded as the best business days of the year and it would be impossible to adopt any general provision of this kind in relation to them. If the proprietor of the shop desires to close on one of these holidays, he can, of course, do so but he must also close on the half-holiday.
The Minister will observe that we have a subsequent amendment down which asks that all shops be closed on a certain public holiday.
In the event of that amendment being passed, the subject matter of this amendment will arise very much. It will also arise in connection with sub-section (2) of Section 17. That is our reason for pressing it.
Perhaps the Deputy would allow the amendment to stand over until the operative amendment has been discussed.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
It can always be re-moved on the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 4.
(1) The following provisions shall have effect, in relation to the making of an order to which this section applies, that is to say:—
(a) before making such order, the Minister shall cause a draft of such order to be prepared and shall cause to be inserted in theIris Oifigiúil and in such newspapers circulating in the area to which the proposed order is intended to apply as he thinks proper a notice—
(i) stating his intention to make such order,
(ii) setting out the terms of such draft order,
(iii) inviting all interested parties to make to him within a specified time such representations in relation to such draft order as they may think fit;
(b) the Minister shall not in any case make such order until the expiration of the said specified time;
(c) at the expiration of the said specified time, the Minister may, after consideration of any representations made to him within the said specified time, make such order in terms of the said draft, without modification or with such modifications as he thinks proper.
I move amendment No. 6:—
On page 4, before Section 4, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this section, it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to keep such shop open on a day which is a public holiday for the serving of customers.
(2) This section shall not apply to any shop in which either the only business carried on therein is an exempted business or all the businesses carried on therein are exempted businesses.
(3) Each of the following businesses shall be an exempted business for the purpose of this section, that is to say, subject to the operation of an order made by the Minister under sub-section (4) of this section, any business specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
(4) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section declare that any business specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall cease to be an exempted business for the purposes of this section and upon the coming into force of such order such business as is specified therein shall cease to be an exempted business for the said purposes.
(5) The Minister may whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order (in this section referred to as an area exemption order) declare that—
(a) any particular area specified or delimited in such order shall be an exempted area for the purposes of such order, and
(b) this section shall not apply in respect of any shop situate in such area.
(6) Whenever an area exemption order is in force, this section shall not apply in respect of any shop situate in such area.
(7) Where any of the following businesses, that is to say:—
(a) post office business,
(b) the business of selling medicines or medical or surgical appliances when carried on by a chemist,
(c) the business of selling by retail intoxicating liquors,
(d) the business of selling meals for consumption on the premises,
(e) an exempted business,
is carried on in such shop nothing contained in this section shall render it unlawful for the proprietor of such shop to keep such shop open on a public holiday for the serving of customers if such shop is so kept open for the purpose of any transaction connected with one or all of the businesses mentioned in this sub-section and for no other purpose.
(8) The Minister may by order under this sub-section revoke or amend any order made under this section (including this sub-section).
(9) If the proprietor of a shop acts in contravention of this section, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
The purpose of the amendment, as the Minister has already said, is to make it obligatory on the proprietor of a shop to close on a public holiday, or if you substitute a Church holiday, on a Church holiday. In fact, its purpose is to make it compulsory on the proprietors of shops to close on these public holidays or Church holidays. There is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, which makes it compulsory on the proprietor of a shop to close on any particular holiday, even on bank holidays, including Christmas Day or St. Patrick's Day. The purpose of the amendment is to see that the closing of shops on certain holidays will be compulsory. It is pretty generally recognised that Christmas Day is a day for general closing. Even in the Post Office last Christmas we had that experiment tried, I think, very successfully. We also have that in regard to public houses. I think the same also applies on St. Patrick's Day. The others would follow similarly if this amendment were accepted.
I am afraid the Deputy has not given any reason as to why the amendment should be accepted. I should like him to say why we should make it the law that shops should not be allowed to open on those days. I think that is the ground upon which he must argue his amendment.
The point I make is that you do suggest that certain days should be observed as holidays in shop life. I think it is rather ridiculous to have those holidays named, Christmas Day, St. Patrick's Day and so on, while at the same time there is no compulsion on a shopkeeper to close on those days. There is no compulsion on him to observe a holiday even on Christmas Day or St. Patrick's Day. In other words you leave it optional. You say: "Those should be days on which shops would close generally." I think that is the intention of naming the holidays. At the same time you do not say: "You must close;" you leave it optional. Surely the purpose of a holiday is to relieve the drudgery and tension of shop life; to allow those days to be definite holidays; to name them specifically, so that the people engaged in shop life would know definitely that those days are holidays. If it is specifically laid down in the Bill that, say, the first Monday in August is to be a public holiday, then shop assistants and others engaged in shop life will know definitely that they are to have a holiday on that day. I cannot see the force of naming those days as suggested holidays, without definitely deciding that they must be holidays.
The Deputy is clear, of course, that under the Conditions of Employment Act shop assistants are given the right to a public holiday. They are not allowed to work upon that day. That being so, I do not know that there is any real public ground for prescribing that shops must be closed. In so far as we are dealing with the conditions of employment of shop assistants, it is prescribed or proposed to be prescribed that shop assistants must not work upon the public holidays, other than those employed in the exempted trades, of course. When we have provided for that, when we have protected shop assistants against being obliged to work on those days, is it necessary to go further?
The Deputy has not said why.
I think it is apparent. You say that shop assistants are not to work on certain public holidays, but you say to other people who make their own arrangements to carry on their shops: "You can keep open, and you can compete unfairly with the people who observe good conditions and are good employers." In other words you are catering for the bad employer; you are catering for the people who employ no labour but work their own business. They are put in a favoured position unless this amendment is accepted. The purpose of the amendment is to have fair competition all round. We may take it that in the City of Dublin the assistants are getting the holidays in the principal shops, but the shops up in the back streets are keeping open because they may have nobody employed. They are competing unfairly with the good employers.
To add force to that argument, I think the Minister will agree that the definition of the word "relative" in the Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) Act was very broad. It extended to great lengths, with the result that those people are able to have the services of their sisters and their cousins, and their aunts, in competing unfairly with the man who is employing shop assistants, and who as a result of previous legislation has got to close. The intention of this amendment is to protect the good employer against unfair competition. I think the Minister will agree that it is a reasonable suggestion.
I should like also to support this amendment. I think the Minister, in asking for reasons, really put the strongest case there is for this amendment into the mouths of those who are supporting it, when he referred to the fact that shop assistants are bound to get the public holidays under another Bill. He indicates, therefore, that the shopkeeper who does not employ shop assistants, or who employs only relatives, can keep open on public holidays, while the shops which do employ assistants are compelled to close. I think that the element of competition is a very important matter in considering any kind of shops legislation. I think the Minister must admit that the greatest obstacle to legislation of this kind is the existence of small shops which employ nobody or employ only relatives, and are in competition with the larger shops. I would go further and suggest that the smaller shopkeepers themselves would welcome legislation of this kind, and would welcome this amendment. The small shopkeepers, just as much as anybody else, would be glad to close on say, Christmas Day, and other public holidays, but the fact is that each of them is afraid of the other. No small shopkeeper can close as long as another one is open, and the position to-day is that a lot of those small shops are staying open day and night, week in and week out, all over the country, and in Dublin City as well as elsewhere. They would all be glad to close if there was legislation ensuring that, when one is closed, all the others are closed.
Is it the Deputy's view that those public holidays should be treated as Sundays?
Then I want to point out what it is the Labour Party are proposing should operate on a public holiday. On Sundays, according to the Labour Party's amendments to this Bill, the sale of intoxicating liquor should be prohibited.
The sale of table-waters, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery, ice cream, tobacco, or smokers' requisites should be prohibited. The selling of meat, fish, milk, cream, bread, confectionery, fruit, vegetables, flowers or other articles of a perishable nature should be prohibited; also the business of a post office. The Labour Party has all those amendments in. There is a suggestion that we should make the public holidays the same as Sundays, and therefore, upon those days, prohibit the sale of the commodities I have mentioned. That would not be a public holiday; it might be regarded as a day of public mourning.
Sunday is a day of public mourning at present?
The Labour Party tried to make it so.
It does not include certain exempted businesses.
They are set out in the Fourth Schedule, but from this list of exempted businesses the Labour Party wants to delete the business of selling intoxicating liquors, sweets, chocolates, sugar, ice cream, tobacco or smokers' requisites, meat, fish, and so on. They want all those shops to close on Sundays and public holidays, and they still persist in calling them public holidays.
Would they close the bookmakers?
I think there is a case for, and I am prepared to consider the possibility of, having the named public holidays regarded from the point of view of the law the same as Sundays, but in doing that I am going to ensure that the list of exempted trades specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill is not going to be restricted, because I do not think they could possibly be regarded as public holidays if there were further restrictions in the manner proposed.
The Minister seemed surprised that a case should be made for closing down shops on certain days but this demand is not a new one. I am old enough to remember 25 or 30 years ago when the Gaelic League and other sections of the national movement claimed all over the country that on St. Patrick's Day there should be a closing too.
But so it is not, in many cases. I do not think there is any need to make a case here for the closing down of shops on Christmas Day. I do not think there is any obligation on us to make that case. I think the case is an obvious one, and as a matter of fact the case with regard to St. Patrick's Day is one that has been made for many years and made with very great vigour 25 years ago. Hence, I do not think there is anything abnormal or revolutionary in a proposal of this kind, and I think the Minister ought not to endeavour to slide away from the question in the rather light way in which he has tried to slide away from it.
What I am trying to find out is whether all these amendments are to be taken as representing the whole idea, in regard to shop hours, of the Labour Party or whether they are to be taken as separate points. If the Labour Party tell me that we should treat the public holidays in the same way as Sundays, allowing to remain open on these holidays the shops that we allow to remain open on Sundays, and compelling to close those shops that we compel to close on Sundays, I am prepared to say that there is a lot to be said for that and I am prepared to consider the introduction of an amendment to the Bill that would meet that purpose; but if they do say that, then they have got to extend considerably their views as to the type of shops to be allowed to remain open on Sundays and holidays, because it would be an impossible position to create precisely the same conditions for public holidays that the various amendments moved by Labour Deputies suggest should exist upon Sundays. I think that they did not give the matter very serious consideration when they put down these amendments, because it would lead to an impossible situation if you were to prohibit the sale of, say, ice cream on Sundays.
Is the Minister prepared to consider the suggestion made at the outset as to having public holidays regarded as the same as Sundays?
I should like to consider the matter further. If there is any objection to introducing an amendment of that kind, it is rather in the nature of an instinctive reaction against legislating unnecessarily. I think that these public holidays have been observed and will be observed, and if that is so, there is no reason why we should legislate and put the obligation on the Guards to deal with people who may depart in some respects from the letter of the law. I certainly have no objection, but I should like to consider the matter, particularly from the point of view of the reaction upon rural towns of providing that the public holidays must be observed. Of course, there have been these rights of substitution in regard to Church holidays, and possibly there are some towns in the country where neither are observed and where shops do not close down for either public or Church holidays. Therefore, I should like to have an opportunity of consulting the representatives of these rural areas before deciding on the matter. I suppose it will be admitted that many of us are bringing city-bred minds to bear on the matter and that different conditions exist in rural districts, and it must be remembered that this will apply to rural districts as well as to towns. I am prepared to consider it in the light of whatever modifications might have to be made for rural districts, but I want to make sure that everything that interferes with the exemptions provided for in the Fourth Schedule will be resisted.
We are prepared to accept that.
I think that both the Minister and the Deputies who have spoken have got away from the main point involved. I think Deputy Hurley made it clear that what the Labour Party want to get at is this: That if there are certain conditions which compel a shop employing paid labour to shut up, shops of a similar type, which are run by unpaid labour —members of the family and so on— should be compelled to close at the same time and under the same conditions, because it would be unfair to the man paying labour to have to close up his shop while those who are carrying on with unpaid labour should have the advantage of being allowed to open. I think that is the main point Deputy Hurley wished to bring out, and I think it is one that should commend itself to the whole House.
Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 4, before Section 4, to insert the following new section:—
It shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to keep such shop open for the serving of customers on Christmas Day.
This amendment is going further than the other amendments, but the idea is, without yea or nay, or without apologies to anybody, to have complete closing of every shop on Christmas Day—without any reservations, exceptions or anything else, to have complete closing down on Christmas Day. That is the gist and intent of this amendment, and I do not think the Minister can say that there can be any doubt about the meaning of its wording. Of course, I know that when amendments are proposed in this way the Minister is reluctant—and, I suppose, rightly so—to accept the amendment as worded, even though he agrees with the principle of the amendment. Therefore, in putting down an amendment the object, as a rule, is only to convey to the Minister a certain idea, and then, if the Minister accepts it, he can have the amendment put down in his own way by his own Parliamentary draftsmen. The idea of this amendment, as I have said, is to have complete closing on Christmas Day. We are alleged to be, and we are supposed to be, a Christian country. In fact, our new Constitution starts off with the words "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity," and furthermore, it goes forth as uttering to the world that we are a great Christian country. Well, I think that as several Bills have been brought into this House since the Constitution was passed which were termed Acts for the purpose of implementing the Constitution, this amendment is another way of implementing the Constitution since we start off in the Constitution with the words "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity." I think the amendment should commend itself to everybody who is a Christian, and particularly it should commend itself to this country of ours called Ireland.
There is no excuse for opening on Christmas Day, I hold, but different employers and people do find excuses for having their shops open on Christmas Day and having different other places open. As a result, in a good many instances, employees suffer, because they cannot get home on Christmas Day, or because they are released at such a time on Christmas morning that there is no conveyance to bring them home. Without going any further, I think it will be agreed at least that it has been an established custom in this country for everybody to spend Christmas Day at home. In fact, I would nearly wager that the Minister himself spends Christmas Day at home. I think it should be our intention here, as a Christian State, to endeavour to have complete closing of all shops on Christmas Day, and if we are a Christian country, to have Christmas Day celebrated or acknowledged in a Christian way.
I am completely opposed to this amendment. It is possible that I may not be as good a Christian as Deputy McGowan, but in my opinion there is nothing contrary to the Christian view in allowing certain classes of shops, as defined in this Bill, to operate on Christmas Day. I suppose Deputy McGowan would be logical enough to urge also that labour of all kinds should cease on that day, and that no public transport service, no public electric light service or public water service or any other kind of service should be compelled to operate on Christmas Day; but if he will agree that public transport services and other such services are required, and that people must work in order to provide them, then perhaps he will also agree that some exceptions to his rigorous rule in regard to shops will be necessary also. I suggest that it would be rather un-Christian, for instance, to turn out all the hotel guests on Christmas Eve, because they could not be served on Christmas Day, and to tell them that they must stay out until St. Stephen's Day because the hotels must shut. That is what would happen if this amendment were carried in its present form. It may be his idea of Christianity to make it illegal for a chemist to sell medicines to a sick person, or bandages and iodine to a person who is injured, or in any other way to engage in the business of selling the goods he ordinarily sells throughout the year. I do not think so. I think that if the Deputy considers this matter again he will see that there must be exceptions to the general rule.
You cannot shut the hotels, because a good many spend Christmas in hotels. I hope that when my family grows up I will be able to release my wife from the labour of preparing the Christmas dinner and that we may all be able to spend the day in an hotel. I think it is desirable to permit the chemist to sell urgent medicines—and perhaps medicines are more urgently required on the afternoon of Christmas Day than on other days. I think the Deputy will have achieved his good Christian purpose if we can get Christmas Day observed as on a Sunday in respect of the carrying on of the retail trade. I certainly do not propose to go any further and, therefore, the difficulty that the Deputy anticipates in the framing of this amendment will not arise, because I am going to vote against it.
As usual, the Minister has gone further than what is suggested in the amendment. This amendment was put down to convey a general idea and if the Minister agreed with it he could then get his draftsman to frame it in his own way. It is not the intention to close hotels.
But what would be the effect of it.
I think I prefaced my remarks by telling the Minister that when his Parliamentary draftsmen got at it they might considerably maltreat it. The intention is to close particular types of shops on Christmas Day. If the Minister could go through a town or even the city on that day he would realise the conditions of which I speak.
I have often bought gifts on Christmas Day that I forgot to purchase on Christmas Eve, and I was glad of the chance.
Perhaps there was a sale on Christmas Day? The intention underlying the amendment is to have certain shops closed on Christmas Day, such as paper shops, sweet shops and so forth. There can be no case made for opening them. They could close the same as other premises. The question of hotels does not arise. I think the amendment should be accepted. I gathered from the Minister that he felt the conditions on Christmas Day should be the same as on a Sunday. The publichouses do not open on Christmas Day, but they open on Sunday. We indulge in different forms of activity, sporting and otherwise, on a Sunday. Does the Minister want to have Christmas Day in Ireland the same as the English Christmas Day, where they play Association football matches and make it a general day of rejoicing?
There is nothing in this Bill compelling anybody; it merely prescribes what they may not do.
The amendment suggests that certain shops, for which no case has been made, shall not be allowed to open. So far as opening chemists' stores would be concerned, there might be a case of a sore head, and surely there are doctors enough available, and they have all the necessary equipment to deal with cases of emergency? I cannot visualise a doctor writing out a prescription for a person with a sick head. I am sure that doctor would have everything necessary at hand. If these shops are allowed to open on Christmas Day, they will sell everything from a needle to an anchor. When he compares Christmas Day with a Sunday, the Minister makes a definite error. I ask him to accept the principle of the amendment, and he can later put it in his own words.
Up to this there has been no legal restriction on the carrying on of retail trade on Christmas Day. Most Deputies will agree that Christmas Day has been reasonably well observed by the retail traders, and there is no reason to assume they are going to develop all the evil habits Deputy McGowan foresees. There is nothing in the Bill to compel them. We just simply leave the law as it stands, in order to ensure that it will operate on Christmas Day the same as on a Sunday. I am not saying that Christmas Day is the same as a Sunday. I think we are going far enough when we fix the legal limits as to what people may not do on Christmas Day in the future the same as in respect of a Sunday. Personally, I do not think it is an un-Christian act to do many of the things the Deputy seems to deplore. I would not mind playing golf on a Christmas morning. I have often done it. If I find myself short of cigarettes or tobacco, I am glad to purchase them on Christmas morning. I think most people will take the same commonsense view as that which I have expressed. I do not know whether the Deputy wants to see a completely workless Christmas Day, on which everybody will stay at home and nobody will have to labour. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that, if the Deputy wishes to carry out a crusade for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 go together.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1) (a), page 4, line 30, to delete the words—"a specified time" and substitute the words "eight weeks from the date of the publication of the said notice (in this section referred to as the specified time)."
This deals with the section which relates to the meaning of closing orders. The provision in the Bill as it stands is that the Minister will make and cause to be published an order which will be operative after any possible objectors have been given a reasonable opportunity of making their objections. The term is defined only as a specified period. I think in other legislation of this kind dealing with trade boards and otherwise there is a limit put on that specified period and the purpose of the amendment is to put on such a limit. I seriously suggest that eight weeks is a reasonable time in which objections might be made or in which representations might be made by any person who desired to make them. Perhaps the Minister will accept the principle of the amendment, which simply puts a limit on the time. There is a tendency in legislation nowadays to give to Ministers very wide powers which they will use at their discretion. I have no doubt that the present Minister would operate that power fairly according to his lights, but we are legislating for all time, at least for a possible future Ministry, and I think the Minister should agree that two months is a reasonable time.
It is really a small point and I would much prefer to leave the Bill as it stands. I have always found that arbitrary provisions in respect of time and places generally led to difficulty and very often to delay. The Deputy has the idea of speeding up the operation of the Bill, but I think he missed the point. A Minister who wished to delay making an order need not rely on the term "specified time." He can give notice of his intention to make the order, but once he gives notice, the Deputy may be certain that he has made up his mind that the order is to be effective and he will insert such reasonable time as appears to him necessary to ensure that the interested parties will have an opportunity of appreciating what is going to happen and making their representations. I would much prefer to leave the time unspecified. It will mean more expedition than under the rather arbitrary provision which the Deputy suggests.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are consequential.
Amendment No. 9 is consequential, and amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) The Minister may, before exercising any power conferred on him by this Act, cause a public inquiry to be held into the matter which is the subject of the exercise of such power and appoint a fit and proper person to hold such inquiry, and every person who, in the opinion of the person appointed to hold any such inquiry, is substantially interested in the subject matter of such inquiry shall be entitled to appear and be heard at such inquiry.
(2) Evidence given at a public inquiry held under this section shall, if the person holding such inquiry so requires, be given on oath (which such person is hereby empowered to administer) and any person who gives false evidence at such inquiry shall be guilty of perjury and punishable accordingly.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 5, at the end of the section, to add the following sub-section:—
(3) If after holding such inquiry it appears to the person holding the inquiry that it is expedient that a closing order should be made under any section of this Act, he shall prepare a draft order and submit it to the Minister together with his report thereon and after considering the draft order and report thereon the Minister shall if he is of opinion that it is desirable that a closing order should be made publish notice of his intention to make such order.
Section 5 gives the Minister power to cause a public inquiry to be held. That is one of the functions which the Minister holds under the Bill with regard to the exemption of certain classes of shops from the weekly half-holiday. But Section 5 does not prescribe that the person holding the inquiry shall make a report or prepare a draft order. Under the Shops Act of 1912, the Minister had power to direct a person to hold an inquiry, and in that case the person holding the inquiry had to make a report and draft an order. I think it would be desirable to have an amendment to this effect inserted in the Bill.
I think the amendment is entirely unnecessary. I do not see that anything is to be gained by putting the matter upon this formal basis. Here discretion is given to the Minister. He is given power to cause an inquiry to be held, and in the exercise of that power to appoint a fit and proper person to hold such inquiry if he thinks it is desirable, but it is for him to decide whether or not that information is to be made public. The insertion of the amendment would change the scope of the inquiry and cause considerable delay. I would prefer the Bill as it stands. The Bill says that the Minister may make an order to hold a public inquiry. It is necessary to have this section as it stands so that power will be there requiring evidence to be given and making it a penalty to commit perjury or give false information. That is the reason why the section is there as it stands. It is undesirable that we should go further and make it a formal inquiry with a written report at the end. That would cause delay and it would restrict the Minister in the choice of the person to hold the inquiry. If the amendment were insisted upon it might work out so that the inquiry would not be held. At any rate, the Minister will endeavour to get the information by inquiry and this would be carried out by his own officers.
Amendment No. 11, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Every person guilty of an offence under any section of this Act shall, save in the case of an offence for which a special penalty is provided by this Act, be liable on summary conviction thereof to, in the case of a first offence under such section, a fine not exceeding £10 or, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence under such section, a fine not exceeding £25.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 5, before Section 6, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Whenever and so often as an application is made to the Minister by a representative number of the proprietors of shops of a particular class in a particular area and of persons employed to do shop work in connection with shops of that class in that area requesting him to make an order under any Part of this Act, the Minister shall, unless he considers the application frivolous, take such steps as may to him seem fit for the purpose of making such order.
(2) Every order made under this section shall be an hours of trading order and the provisions in Part III of this Act relating to the making of an hours of trading order shall have effect and apply to every such order as if these provisions were re-enacted in this section, save only that whenever such order relates to a day which is the weekly half holiday, the specified hour of closing may be earlier than six o'clock in the afternoon.
The Minister has power under this Bill to make an order fixing the closing hours for any specified class of shop. There is no machinery in the Bill providing for the initiation of proceedings so as to secure that closing orders will be made. It is presumed that something in the nature of uniformity of closing will be arrived at. You may have a shopkeeper in a certain town who may not act in unison with other shopkeepers and this would jeopardise the chances of the different shopkeepers and shop assistants making certain arrangements which they may wish to make.
I think the amendment is undesirable and it might be made inoperative by any individual Minister operating the Act. From the point of view of the effective administration of the Act, it is better to have the responsibility of initiating and making orders placed upon the Minister. The Minister is responsible to the Dáil and the Dáil is the body to press him to do things if he is not inclined to do them himself. It is this thing of taking the view of the traders that has made the existing Act largely inoperative. There is a provision in the existing Act for two-thirds of the traders concerned being in favour of an order. The difficulty is who constitutes representative traders. If you count heads the opinion of the smallest trader will offset and carry as much weight as the opinion of the largest trader. Then, if you regard their turnover and the size of the shop you will find that it will be difficult to lay down anything like standard rules determining whether application is to be made by a representative number of traders or by an unrepresentative number of traders. I think that in practice the applications will come in and the Minister or the officer acting for him will be able to form a reasonable conclusion as to whether they are worth taking seriously. Having come to the conclusion that they are worth taking seriously, and having ascertained the general feeling of the parties interested by the inquiry and having discovered that there is a general feeling in favour of a closing order, the Minister would make the closing order with the general view in mind to secure uniformity throughout the country. There are cases where the Minister will make a closing order without applications. The insertion of the amendment here would be interpreted to mean that the Minister should await the application before acting. I do not think that the Minister should be bound, even by implication, to await applications because there will frequently be a need to bring conditions in adjoining areas into conformity, and making an order in one area may have to be followed by making an order in another—even though there may not be any application—and without reference to opinion in the locality. Even if the amendment were restricted to Part I, I would be opposed to it. I much prefer to leave the Bill as it stands. If the Minister fails in his duty it is here in the Dáil he should be made responsible and it is here that pressure should be brought to bear and not in the form of applications from numbers of traders who may or may not be representative according to the individual views of the Minister or the person representing him.
I quite agree with the Minister that the present procedure under the Shops Acts is cumbersome. But I take it the Minister will accept representations from employers and their assistants when making an order.
I anticipate that in the ordinary course at the beginning there will be a number of orders made in order to establish the position. But when the question of changing these orders arises it will be following representations from interested parties in the areas concerned. If these representations lead to changes in some areas, they may have to be followed by consequential changes in other areas, to prevent any wide irregularities in the practice in different parts of the country. It would not be necessary to wait for representations for any other area but, once the practice has been established, the Deputy can take it as extremely probable that, unless somebody makes representations that it should be changed, no change will, in fact, be effected.
Does not the Minister agree that it is undesirable in small towns that, say, a shop engaged in the drapery trade should close on Wednesday for the half holiday and that other shops in the same trade should close on Monday or Tuesday?
That is a different matter. There is another amendment down to deal with that matter and, while I shall be arguing against the Deputy's point of view, I think we should deal with the matter on the other amendment which deals with the half day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 13:—
To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-section—
"(1) Any member of the Gárda Síochána while in uniform may enter any shop and may there make such investigations as he may think proper and may demand of any person found in such shop his name and address".
This section was subjected to a barrage of criticism on Second Reading and I undertook to reconsider it. As a result of that re-consideration, I am moving amendments Nos. 13 and 18. Amendment No. 13 has been settled following consultation with the Department of Justice. As regards the questioning of persons, the power given to the Guards is restricted to taking the name and address of any person found on the premises who might have to be summoned subsequently as a witness in the event of a prosecution. We are proposing, under amendment No. 18, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub-section 3 which were the paragraphs which provoked most criticism. The whole section, as amended, will still be effective and will not be open to the objections voiced by Deputies on the Second Reading.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 19 are inter-related and may be discussed together.
Perhaps Deputies will consider that their point of view has been met by the Government amendments.
Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 is in the name of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney:—
In sub-section (1) to delete all words after the words "shall think proper", line 21, down to the end of sub-section (4), line 59, and substitute the words "for the purpose of enforcing this Act."
I think that the Minister has assented to the objections which this amendment was intended to override. At the same time, the amendment which I am moving makes the whole section more simple because it does away with the sub-sections under Section 8 and does not limit in any way the power of the Guards to do their duty properly in connection with the enforcement of the Bill.
May I point out to the Deputy that sub-section (1) of the section has already disappeared as a result of the acceptance of amendment No. 13.
The main difference between Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's amendment and the Government amendment is that the Deputy would not allow the Guards to take even the names and addresses of persons found on the premises. I could not agree to that.
That is not the case. For the purpose of enforcing the Act, the Guards are left all the necessary powers.
Apart from that, I think the Deputy's point has been met.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (3) to delete paragraphs (b) and (c).
Amendment agreed to.
In view of the Minister's statement and of the amendments in his name, I do not move amendment No. 19. I have no sympathy with the point of view expressed here on a previous occasion that the powers of the Guards in enforcing this Act should be limited even more than the powers of inspectors under the Factory Acts are limited. I am in favour of giving the Guards the greatest possible authority to enforce the terms of the Act subject to the limitation that persons should not be required to incriminate themselves. I think that that is fundamental but the Minister's amendment meets that position.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
On the section, is it proposed to increase the number of Guards?
The Deputy must direct his question to the Minister for Justice.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 20a:—
In page 6, line 1, to insert after the word "may" the words "by order."
This is a drafting point about which I have consulted the Parliamentary draftsman. He tells me that the amendment is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
As regards amendments Nos. 20b, 20c and 20d, in the name of Deputy Dockrell, I should like to have the matter left over. There will have to be some general provision to deal with this matter. The Seanad may be in existence before this Bill gets through. I hope it will not but, if it is, we shall have to go through the whole measure there and provision will probably be made in that House to deal with these matters. If the Bill is passed before the Seanad is constituted, this measure will fall into line with other measures in respect of which some general enactment will probably be necessary.
Amendments not moved.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
On Section 12 I should like to know what is the position as regards Orders made under, say, the Shops Act, 1912.
Existing Closing Orders are being continued by a specific section of this Bill. Their legality is being carried on until they are amended by Orders under this Bill.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 20e:—
Before Section 13 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where the premises occupied by the proprietor of a shop are divided into two or more separate departments in which different businesses are carried on such proprietor may apply to the Minister for a certificate and the Minister if in his opinion the separate departments are so constructed that they can be closed to comply with the provisions of this Act shall issue a certificate in the prescribed form defining such departments or so many of them as he may think fit and each of such departments so defined shall be deemed to be a separate shop for the purposes of this Act.
Everybody recognises that it would be within the rights of any person to have one shop on one side of the street carrying on one class of business and another shop on the other side carrying on another class of business. Under present conditions, in which a number of lines seem to be grouped together in one shop, it is obviously unfair that a trader who is carrying on one class of business should not be given the option of making such structural alterations as would satisfy the Minister, leaving out, of course, the idea that there would be merely a curtain for the purpose of evading the regulations. The idea is that subject to the Minister's approval, he should be able to make such structural alterations as are necessary to place that section of the shop in which this trading is carried on beyond any suspicion of communicating with the rest of the shop, and that in that way a proprietor would be allowed to carry on what would be, in effect, another class of business.
The amendment appears reasonable on the face of it. It has always been a difficulty with legislation of this kind to provide for the mixed establishment, the establishment in which different classes of business are carried on, and in respect to which different orders might simultaneously operate. On the face of it, it appears reasonable that where it is possible for the proprietor of a shop to make such structural arrangements that there are, in effect, two distinct establishments, they should be treated as separate establishments. That is, of course, an entirely different position from what one visualises in the case of a store like Woolworth's, where a multitude of different businesses are carried on under the same roof, and where such alterations could not be made; but where the same premises can be turned into two establishments, even though owned by the same proprietor, and arrangements made to ensure that there can be no successful evasion of the obligations under the Act, I should like to meet the case. If the Deputy will allow his amendment to stand over, I shall endeavour to have an amendment framed by the Parliamentary Draftsman to provide for the circumstances the Deputy visualises.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Does that not cover amendments Nos. 27a, 45a and 55c?
Section 13 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I hope the Minister was not trying to be witty at the expense of the State when he referred in this section to our naval commitments. The section makes it lawful to serve stores required by any naval, military or air force authority of the State, or required for any ship or aircraft on arrival at or before departure from a port or aerodrome. Does that refer to the naval forces of our own State? However, that is not what I want to draw particular attention to. There might be other exceptions where it might be necessary to open a shop for the purpose of conveniencing people at hours other than the prescribed hours of opening. For instance, in some of the country places, when deaths take place, it is often necessary to get stuff in a hurry for a wake or a funeral. The Minister might look into the section with a view to providing some more elastic arrangement for opening under certain conditions, as distinct from those applying to naval, military or air force authorities.
This is a general saving clause enabling people to serve State authorities or a ship. It appears in all these Bills, because, of course, the times of departure of ships are dependent on tides and other circumstances.
But the other conditions I have mentioned are even more uncertain, and I ask the Minister to take them into account.
There is a general exemption covering cases of emergency in the relevant parts of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) Each of the following businesses shall be an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act, that is to say:—
(a) subject to the operation of an order made by the Minister under sub-section (2) of this section, any business specified in the Second Schedule to this Act;
(b) any business declared by an order, made by the Minister under sub-section (3) of this section and for the time being in force, to be an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(2) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section declare that any business specified in the Second Schedule to this Act shall cease to be an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act and upon the coming into force of such order such business shall cease to be an exempted business for the said purposes.
(3) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section declare that any business shall be an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(4) The Minister may by order under this sub-section revoke any order made by him under the immediately preceding sub-section.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (1) (a), page 6, lines 36 and 37, to delete the words "subject to the operation of an order made by the Minister under sub-section (2) of this section".
I think we should have an all-in debate on this amendment because in amendment No. 22, Deputy O'Brien and Deputy McGowan are moving to achieve a result directly opposite to that which Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Benson aim at in this amendment. This is an enabling Bill and its general purpose is to give the Minister power to do things by order. It does not itself prescribe what is to be done; it does not lay down rules subject to which the Minister is to exercise these powers. It merely defines what his powers are and thereby substitutes the Minister in relation to the hours of trading of shops for the present authority, which is local government authority. If we are going to give the Minister powers and to allow him to exercise these powers after public inquiry and subject to the overriding power of the Dáil to annul his orders, these powers should at least be adequate to enable him to deal in a suitable manner with any situation that may arise. We, therefore, provide here for the possibility of the exempted trades being added to or subtracted from by order. That is what this section deals with and that is what these amendments deal with.
There are, as Deputies are aware, set out in the various Schedules of the Bill the trades which are exempted from these provisions — from the obligation to close for the weekly half-holiday, from the operation of hours of trading orders entirely and from the obligation to close on Sundays — but in connection with each of these schedules, the Minister is given power, by order, to add to the trades in the schedules, or to take some trades from the schedules and make them subject to closing orders. I think he should have these powers. It has been my experience in relation to Acts of this kind that it is inevitable that circumstances will arise which people cannot foresee and to deal with which fairly wide powers are necessary. If we are to proceed in this way, and I think it is necessary that we should do so, rather than by the more laborious manner of stating on the face of the statute what is to be the law and making that immutable, the powers of the Minister must be fairly wide and he must be given such powers as are contemplated here. We have an amendment by Deputy Dockrell which seeks to deprive the Minister of the power to take trades out of the schedules, and an amendment by Deputy O'Brien which seeks to deprive the Minister of the power to put trades into the schedules. I think he should have both the power to put in and to take out, and having said that, I am prepared to sit down and listen to the Labour Party and Deputy Dockrell argue the case out between them.
I am a good deal impressed by what the Minister said. From what he has said, I think he has made up his mind, and I do not propose to press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (1), page 6, to delete paragraph (b).
The idea in this amendment is to prevent any addition to the list of exempted businesses set out in the Schedule, so that the Minister should not have power, perhaps next year, or in other years, to make an order dealing with provincial towns, exempting, if he so desired, all trades to which the provisions of Section 15 applied, in relation to the weekly half-holiday. A Minister might come along and say "I declare all trades in the Schedule to be exempted trades." In other words, if he wanted to do away with the weekly half-holiday all he had to do was to include all trades in the Schedule and he could achieve his object. The intention of the amendment is to stop that. While there is a good deal to be said for giving the Minister certain powers, those proposed to be given in the section go too far.
Whatever might be said for Deputy Dockrell's amendment, there is nothing to be said for this one. I could understand Deputy Dockrell arguing against the Minister having power to take trades out of the Schedule, in so far as the Dáil decided that they should go in, but I certainly think he should have power to add. We are in the position that we do not know what interpretation would be given by the courts on the Schedule, and we might find trades we intended to exempt held to be not exempt, unless this power could be exercised on their behalf. As a safeguard against such interpretation of the Schedule it is necessary to have this power. I do not think there is the slightest possibility of any Minister at any time using this power to defeat the sole purpose of the Bill. There would be such an uproar that he could not get away with it. If he could get away with it, even if he wanted to do it, and if he found that the majority in the Dáil were prepared to support him, he would not do it in that particular way. All he would have to do would be to introduce a short Bill to repeal this measure and he would then achieve his purpose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (2), page 6, line 44, to insert after the words "any business" the brackets and words "(other than the business of selling by retail intoxicating liquor)".
This is one of a number of similar amendments, designed to ensure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce can make orders fixing the hours of opening and closing of licensed premises. It has been the practice to regulate the hours of opening and closing of licensed premises under special Acts for which in the past the Minister for Justice was responsible to the House. It is desired to maintain that position unchanged, and to prevent the Minister using his powers under this Bill, more particularly if he is pressed to use them, to override the Minister for Justice.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 not moved.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 7, before Section 16, to insert the following new section:—
(1) The Minister may by order made after consultation with the representatives of the proprietors of any shops concerned in the making of the order and the persons employed to do shop work in such shops fix the day on which a shop may not lawfully remain open for the serving of customers after one o'clock on one weekday in every week and every such order may fix the same day for all shops in a particular area or may fix —
(a) different days for different classes of shops, or
(b) different days for different parts of the area, or
(c) different days for different periods of the year.
(2) Unless and until such order is made affecting shops of a particular class in a particular area the weekly half-holiday in respect of every shop in that area shall be such day as the proprietor may specify in a notice fixed in the shop.
Under this Bill there is no power to fix a uniform half-holiday. The Bill requires certain shops to close at one o'clock on certain days but the proprietors of these shops can choose any day during the week. The object of the amendment is to ensure that there will be uniformity in relation to the half-holiday, particularly in small towns. We consider that to be desirable. The amendment endeavours to provide that in all towns when an application is made to the Minister by people in certain trades, he is empowered to order an inquiry to be held and to consult both shop assistants, shop owners and other local interests. He can thereupon make an order that a certain day in the week within a specified area shall be the half-holiday for these trades. I think that would be for the betterment of trade. If a provision of this kind is not inserted in the Bill, things will become more or less chaotic, as a draper in one street might close for the half day on Wednesday while another further up the street might have the half-holiday on Thursday. That would be rather hard on the assistants and to a great extent would interfere with the object of the Bill. In small towns shop assistants are, to some extent, a class in themselves having certain activities in which they indulge jointly. From their point of view it would be hard if some assistants were free on Wednesday afternoons while their colleagues were not free until Thursday. Apart from that, if there is going to be indiscriminate half holidays, business will suffer as a consequence.
I have considerable sympathy with the point of view expressed, and I would have provided for uniform half-holidays if it were practicable to do so. That was the position under the existing law. The existing law permits of a closing order being made after the holding of an inquiry and fixes the half-day. All traders must give the half-day, although they are always permitted to substitute Saturdays. While the existing law made that provision, it had the defect that it proved completely incapable of dealing with the position of mixed trading. A shop engaged in one class of trade was subject to the half-holiday provision, but another class of shop was not so subject, and could remain open for the sale of goods which it was permitted to sell. In practice, of course, it remained open for the sale of all classes of goods. That is how the half-holiday became in some instances inoperative in small towns where most shops do a mixed trade. If this Bill is to be effective we have to provide an alternative arrangement that instead of a shop being entitled to remain open, if entitled to sell any class of goods, it will be compelled to close. That is the only way to make it effective. Merely to prescribe a uniform half-holiday goes by the board. I decided that it was better to get effective enforcement than by maintaining the half-holiday proposition. I presume Deputies grasp the point that if we prescribe that a shop must close any time when it is illegal to sell any class of goods in that shop, then I think we must recognise that we cannot have a uniform half-holiday.
Nobody, I suppose, contemplates prescribing the same half-holiday for every trade. You might have a uniform half-holiday for different trades, but you could easily get into the situation in which a shop, doing a very mixed type of trade, might be compelled to close every day in respect of some class of goods that it was selling. Apart from that, I do not think the danger of a considerable divergence from the practice in particular districts in respect of the half-holiday is very real. The law in respect of half-holidays has been in operation now for a very long time, and the practice has been established in every town of having the half-holiday on some particular day. At the moment it is prescribed by law. In future it will not be, but I am quite certain that the practice will be continued. Everybody knows, commercial travellers, the rural population living in the vicinity of a town, and others — that a particular day is the half-day in that town: that there is no good in going in to trade there on that afternoon, and, consequently, they will not go in. Therefore, shopkeepers, in their own interest, will continue to close on the recognised day. It will not be to any one's advantage to open on that day, because, in fact there will be no trade doing. I think the risk of a considerable divergence from the practice, in respect of the half-holiday, that has grown up, is not very great. If it should develop I am quite certain that local chambers of commerce and other bodies will step in to regulate the matter.
It is obviously in everybody's interest that there should be a uniform day. It is in the interest of traders, because it enables the fact to be made known to people likely to come into the town for trading purposes. It is in the interest of the public who do not like to travel long distances and then find that the establishments they want to trade in are shut, or have changed their half-holiday unexpectedly. It is certainly in the interest of the shop assistants, who are put in a position to take part in organised recreation which might not otherwise be possible. In all the circumstances, I think it is inevitable that the practice will remain unchanged, and that we will have achieved our purpose in making the Act effectively enforceable by such a provision as is here. I am in sympathy with the idea of uniform half-holidays, but we cannot get it except at the cost of lessening the efficiency of the Act, and I do not think it is worth that cost.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(2) Where a shop is closed during the whole day on the occasion of a public holiday in any week and that day is not the weekly half-holiday in respect of such shop in that week, it shall be lawful for the proprietor of such shop to keep such shop open for the serving of customers after the hour of 1 p.m. on the weekly half-holiday immediately preceding or immediately succeeding that public holiday.
(3) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section
(b) suspend during a specified period within such season in respect of all shops of a particular class (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) situate in such exempted area the operation of sub-section (1) of this section.
(5) . . .
For the purposes of this sub-section each of the following businesses shall be an excepted business, that is to say:—
(i) post office business;
(ii) the business of selling medicines or medical or surgical appliances when carried on by a chemist;
Amendment No. 27a not moved.
On behalf of Deputy O'Brien, I move amendment No. 28:—
In sub-section (2), line 39, to delete the words "or immediately succeeding."
The object of the amendment is to delete the words "or immediately succeeding" and to confine shopkeepers to the words "immediately preceding."
I would point out to the Deputy that the shopkeeper is not allowed to remain open on the half-holiday immediately preceding and immediately succeeding. In the sub-section the word "or" is used and not the word "and." My argument against the amendment is that what we have here is the law at present, and unless there is a good case for making a change, why do so? I think that the great majority of shopkeepers have found it to their advantage to remain open on the half-holiday preceding the public holiday. Very few, I think, exercise their right to remain open on the alternative half-holiday — that is the one succeeding a public holiday, and I think that is likely to be the practice in future. Where an exceptional trade is carried on, it may be to the advantage of a shopkeeper to adopt the other practice, but even in that case I do not see that it makes any real difference from the point of view of the shop assistants. I prefer to leave the sub-section as it is because it is the law at present and because there is really no good argument for changing it. If the law had been in the other form originally I would argue for keeping it. What I have stated is the established practice; that the majority of shopkeepers remain open on the half-holiday preceding the public holiday. There may be cases where the type of trade carried on in a shop is such that it is more to the advantage of the shopkeeper to keep the half-holiday in the week following the public holiday rather than in the week before. There is no reason why he should not do that. The only case that I can think of in my experience where shopkeepers exercised a discretion to remain open on the half-holiday following a bank holiday was where that half-holiday coincided with a Church holiday on which the shopkeeper anticipated a large influx of country people to the city. I think there is no reason why shopkeepers should not be allowed to do that.
The reason for bringing forward this amendment is due to the results which have followed from the operation of a similar provision in the Act of 1912. Certain specific cases have been brought to the attention of members of the House indicating that chaotic conditions have resulted from the operation of the provision in the 1912 Act. In certain towns some shopkeepers keep their establishments open on the half-day preceding the bank holiday, while others select the day following the bank holiday. Shop assistants suffer as a result of this non-uniformity. I do not want to repeat what I said on a previous amendment, but a good deal of it is, I think, applicable to the amendment before the House.
It has been my experience, and I think the experience of many shopkeepers whose opinions I have obtained, that it does not pay as a rule to remain open on the half-holiday following a public holiday, because their customers come to know that they close regularly on a particular day, so that even when they are entitled to remain open under this sub-section it is not worth their while to do so because their customers do not come into town. The practice that has grown up is not to avail of the sub-section, but rather the reverse except at special times like Christmas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (3) (b), line 47, after the word "period" to insert the following brackets and words—"(not exceeding two months in any year)".
The amendment is designed to limit the period during which the operation of a half-holiday can be suspended in certain holiday resorts. I think the Minister will agree that it is likely, where you have loopholes of this kind in an Act, that he will be inundated with requests to have the provisions of the Act suspended. I suggest to the Minister that there should be some limitation. We are suggesting two months. Perhaps the Minister would be agreeable to limit this to the months of June, July and August. If he were to do that it would save him, I think, from being inundated with requests for the exemption provided for in the section as it stands.
The objection that I have to putting in any period is that a period covering all possible cases would have to be so long that everyone would expect to get an order for that period, whereas in fact the circumstances would not require it. Again, I have an instinctive reaction against tying the Minister up in a particular way of that kind in advance of knowledge of the circumstances. I do not suppose we will ever develop any winter resorts here, but something may happen in some part of the country which would justify the exercising of the power of this sub-section to a greater extent than the amendment would permit. I do not think that is likely, but it may happen, and because it may happen, or because there may be some exceptional type of case even existing at the present time of which we are not aware, I would much prefer to leave the sub-section in the more general form in which it is here rather than make it too specific in itself. From the point of view of the shop assistant I do not think it makes any substantial difference. The shop assistant has his hours of employment limited to 48 per week in any event, and that operates irrespective of whether the exemption is granted in respect of the half-day under this sub-section or not. The traders who operate in these holiday resorts have, of course, only a certain limited time in the year in which to do business, and it is necessary to give them reasonable facilities to do that business.
Apart altogether from the interest of the traders, one must also consider the interest of the public. Holiday resorts are very frequently centres of excursions. We must not always think of them as places where people stay for a week or a fortnight or a month. They are also places where people go for the day and where they might be very considerably inconvenienced by finding a certain type of establishments not open to cater for them. In these circumstances, I think there should be this power of exemption. I take it that the Deputy agrees that there should be this power to exempt, although he wants to limit it by his amendment. I would much prefer to leave it in the wider form, bearing in mind that any order the Minister makes is going to be laid on the Table of the Dáil, and if any Deputy thinks the order is improper or should be annulled, he can table a motion to have it annulled. Certainly, he can arrange to have the matter debated here. I know that the power of annulling orders is more apparent than real, because the House will always be reluctant to throw out the Government because of an order closing an ice cream shop or something like that. But the mere ventilation of the case is often sufficient to secure that irresponsible action will not be taken in the exercise of a power of this kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper:—
30. In sub-section (5) to delete paragraph (ii), lines 14 and 15, and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(ii) the business carried on by the proprietor of a shop, legally engaged in keeping open shop under the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, and the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment Act, 1890. — (Henry M. Dockrell).
I take it the Minister is considering that.
I do not know if the Deputy grasped the fact at the time, but I inserted in the Bill by amendment No. 4 a definition of the word "chemist" which goes a long way, if not the whole way, to meet the Deputy.
Amendment not moved.
I move amendment No. 30 (a):—
At the end of sub-section (5) to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(v) any business declared by an order, made by the Minister under sub-section (6) of this section and for the time being in force to be an excepted business.
I think that the Deputy is trying to do something here which should not be done. The Deputy will notice that there are two classes of businesses excluded from the various provisions of the Bill: (1) businesses which are called exempted businesses; and (2) businesses which are described in the schedules to the Bill. These are excepted businesses. The difference between exempted and excepted businesses is that the Minister can by Order alter the exempted businesses. He can add to their number or subtract from their number. But the excepted businesses are put outside the scope of his power altogether. The four businesses are: Post Office business; the selling of medicine or medical appliances; the selling of intoxicating liquor, which is controlled by another Act; and the selling of meals for consumption on the premises. These four businesses are put outside the Minister's power and I do not think the Deputy should press his amendment to give the Minister powers in relation to the number of such businesses. He is proposing to add to them, but it would be illogical to give the power to add without giving the power to subtract.
What in fact we are asking by the sub-section is that the Minister may, in relation to every other business, have certain powers to apply closing orders to them or exempt them from the obligation of closing orders. But, in relation to these four businesses, he must keep his hands off. They are going to be regulated by the Oireachtas. The Post Office is regulated by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and it would be improper for the Department of Industry and Commerce to step in and dictate to that Department how it should conduct its business. If there is anybody who wants to talk to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, it is the Oireachtas not the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The sale of medicines, of course, is excluded for the obvious reason that the time of the day or the week in which medicines may be required is subject to considerations which do not permit of regulation. We cannot prescribe the time at which some person may be injured or taken ill. Consequently, that particular business is exempt from these closing orders. Again the sale of intoxicating liquor is exempted from these closing orders because the Oireachtas deals with the matter otherwise under the liquor laws and should not permit of these laws being annulled or amended by orders made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The business of selling meals for consumption on the premises is exempted because we consider that there is no public interest to be served by restricting the hours in which the business may be carried on. In fact, it is a business which must be carried on continuously. It is because these four types of businesses are in an exceptional position that they are not dealt with as the other businesses mentioned in the Schedule in this particular way. I think it would be undesirable to give the Minister any power in relation to their number or classification.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 30 (b) not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
There are a couple of points on the section which I should like to raise.
The Deputy can do that later. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again this evening.
