I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 7, line 12, Section 8 (1), to insert after the word "Parts" the figure "I".
This is a drafting amendment.
Mountjoy Square, Dublin, Bill. - Shops (Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1937—Report Stage (Re-committal) (Resumed).
Amendment No. 20 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 7, line 15, Section 8 (1), to insert after the word "shop" the words "or the representative of such proprietor".
The object of the amendment is to put the representative of the proprietor in the same position as the proprietor for the purpose of the section.
Amendment No. 21 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 7, Section 8 (1), to delete paragraph (c).
What is the meaning of that?
We are proposing to change this section by a number of amendments. Objection was taken to it on the Committee Stage, and this alternative, I think, will make the section at least protective enough for our purposes, while meeting the views expressed by Deputies. Amendment No. 23, of course, is to be considered in connection with this amendment also, because the two amendments together effect the change in the section which Deputies urged and which I agreed to make.
I agree that the section is very much improved by the deletion of paragraph (c), which really gave power to the Guards to institute third degree methods. I am very glad that that has completely gone.
Amendment No. 22 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 7 to delete Section 8 (2) and substitute the following new sub-section:—
(2) If any person—
(a) obstructs or impedes an inspector in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on such inspector by this section, or
(b) refuses to produce any record which an inspector lawfully requires him to produce, or
(c) produces or causes to be produced or knowingly allows to be produced to an inspector any record which is false in any material respect knowing the same to be false,
such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
Amendment No. 23 agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 7, lines 50 to 56, to delete Section 11 and substitute the following new section:—
Every Order made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such Order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which such House has sat after such Order is laid before it, such Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such Order.
The purpose of this amendment is to substitute for Dáil Eireann, each House of the Oireachtas. I think that, despite the objection I raised myself on the last stage, we can reasonably assume the safe establishment of a Second House, and consequently the form of this section, which requires Orders to be laid before each House, will be inserted in this Bill.
Under the Constitution there are two Houses, and I presume the Minister will not want to make any order before the election of the Seanad.
I can give the Deputy no information on that.
The Minister cannot do it then?
It might be off then.
Amendment No. 25 agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 8, before Section 14 (2), to insert the following new sub-section:
(2) It shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to permit any person whose age is less than fourteen years and who is a relative of such proprietor to do shop work except as a part-time occupation.
This amendment was proposed by Deputies on the Second Stage. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent proprietors of shops allowing relatives under 14 years of age to serve as shop assistants except as part-time.
There is a certain reason for protecting juveniles.
Does the Deputy object to this amendment?
I do not.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 9, Section 16 (8), to delete line 28 and substitute the following:
"Act, 1931 (No. 56 of 1931), but does include any juvenile (other than any such apprentice) who is a relative of the proprietor of a shop and who works regularly as a member of the staff of such shop;"
Under the Bill there is power to prevent the employment of juveniles.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 9, line 51, Section 16 (10), to delete the figure "7" and substitute the figure "9".
That is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Norton I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 10, line 7, Section 17 (1), to delete the figures "10" and substitute the figure "8".
This is to fix the limit of the day's work for a juvenile to terminate at 8 instead of 10 o'clock.
I do not think I could agree to that. There are occupations in which juveniles are employed where their attendance up to 10 p.m. might be required. It is subject to the 48-hour week which the Bill makes law. There is no prospect of a continuance of the system which prevails in shops where juveniles are employed until a late hour at night. If the juvenile is employed up to 10 o'clock, he will have to commence at a late hour that day. I do not think the alteration proposed in the amendment serves any useful purpose. It would not improve the conditions of employment, nor is it likely that juveniles would be replaced by adults.
Under the Conditions of Employment Act there is provision that they cannot work after 8 o'clock. Is there any distinction there?
There is a distinction between industrial occupation and employment of the kind covered by this Bill. Industrial employment is repetition work which is detrimental to the interests of the juveniles, and it is necessary in industrial employment to restrict the employment of juveniles to a much greater extent. For that reason we restrict the employment there to 40 hours. I think most people will agree that in the case of young persons there is a very great difference between the type of employment in a commercial house and the sort of work they would have to do in an industrial concern.
There is one matter about which I am not altogether clear and that is in regard to the way in which juveniles will be affected in refreshment houses, restaurants and hotels. In a subsequent amendment longer hours will be permitted than are allowed outside. Are juveniles to work a greater number of hours in hotels and refreshment houses than in ordinary shops?
The hours for juveniles will be the same hours as in the shops of the class in which they are employed.
In view of that fact, is there not a stronger case in industrial employment to have them work after 8 o'clock?
We do not allow juveniles to be employed upon shop work at night.
The Minister will not, therefore, accept the amendment?
Oh, no.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 31 is consequential on the decision on amendment No. 30. The amendment is:—
In page 10, line 16, Section 17 (2), to delete the figures "10" and substitute the figure "8".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:—
ln page 10, line 17, Section 17 (2), to delete the words "catering trade" and substitute the words "business of serving meals to customers for consumption on the premises."
This principle was discussed on Committee Stage, and it is to meet the matter that was then debated that I have brought in this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 10, at the end of Section 17, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(5) This section shall apply in respect of a juvenile who does shop work regularly for the proprietor of a shop and who is a relative of such proprietor.
Section 17 restricts the hours of employment of juveniles. This amendment extends the provisions to juveniles who are relatives of the proprietor of the shop.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 10, line 33, Section 18 (1), to delete all words after the words "to continue" to the end of line 26, page 11, Section 18 (9) and substitute the following words:—
"to do shop work for him after the time in any day when such member has completed (whether for such proprietor alone or such proprietor and other persons) eleven hours shop work on such day.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by this section, it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to permit any member of the staff of that shop to continue to do shop work for him after the time in any week when such member has completed (whether for such proprietor alone or such proprietor and other persons)—
(a) in case such shop is a hotel, fifty-six hours shop work in such week, or
(b) in any other case, forty-eight hours shop work in such week.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the immediately preceding sub-section, the proprietor of a shop may permit any member of the staff of such shop, whose age is sixteen years or more, to do in any week shop work for him for a period in excess of, in case such shop is a hotel, fifty-six hours or, in any other case, forty-eight hours, so however that the number of hours of shop work done (whether for such proprietor alone or such proprietor and other persons) by such member does not exceed—
(a) in case such shop is a hotel—
(i) sixty-six hours in any week, or
(ii) two hundred and forty-four hours in any period of four consecutive weeks, or
(iii) two thousand nine hundred hours in any year, or
(b) in any other case—
(i) sixty hours in any week, or
(ii) two hundred and sixteen hours in any period of four consecutive weeks, or
(iii) two thousand six hundred hours in any year.
(4) Where—
(a) a member of the staff of a shop is allowed in any week (other than, in case such shop is a non-special-trade shop, a week in which he is allowed a whole holiday on every week day thereof or, in any other case, a week in which he is allowed a whole holiday on every day thereof) a whole holiday as part of his annual leave, or
(b) a member of the staff of a non-special-trade shop is allowed a whole holiday on a public holiday or is allowed a whole holiday under the provisions of Part IV of this Act which relate to compensatory holidays to members of staffs of non-special-trade shops engaged in work on public holidays,
such member shall, for the purposes of sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section be deemed to have done on the day on which such whole holiday is allowed eight hours shop work.
(5) Where a member of the staff of a shop is during any period engaged in doing industrial work, such member shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to have been engaged in doing shop work during that period.
(6) Where the proprietor of a shop permits any member of the staff of that shop to do for him shop work for a number of hours in any week after such member has completed in that week (whether for such proprietor alone or such proprietor and other persons), in case such shop is a hotel, a number of hours of shop work in excess of fifty-six or, in any other case, a number of hours of shop work in excess of forty-eight, such proprietor shall be deemed to have agreed to pay to such member, in respect of each hour of such excess, overtime pay at a rate per hour which represents the normal weekly rate reckoned in terms of hours, and increased by not less than twenty-five per cent.
(7) Subject to the provisions of this section the Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section amend in respect of shops of a specified class (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as he thinks fit) in any area specified in or delimited by such order any of the provisions of this section relating to hours, and in that case so long as such order remains in force this section shall, subject to the operation of any order made by the Minister under sub-section (9) of this section, have effect in respect of such shops subject to such amendment.
(8) Subject to the provisions of this section the Minister may by order under this sub-section revoke or amend any order made under sub-section (7) of this section or under this present sub-section.
(9) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section amend in respect of all shops or shops of a specified class (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as he thinks fit) in any area specified in or delimited by such order any of the provisions of this section relating to hours and declare that such amendment shall apply in respect of a specified period, and in that case the following provisions shall have effect, during the period so specified, that is to say:—
(a) this section shall have effect in respect of such shops subject to such amendment,
(b) if an order under sub-section (7) of this section is in force and such order relates to any shops to which the said order under this sub-section applies, the operation of the said order under the said sub-section (7) shall during the said specified period be suspended.
(10) Whenever the Minister proposes to make an order under sub-section (7) or sub-section (8) of this section, he shall before making such order consult with—
(a) in case there are, in the opinion of the Minister, any associations representative of proprietors of shops to which such order is intended to apply, such associations, and
(b) in case there are, in the opinion of the Minister, any associations representative of members of the staffs of such shops, such associations.
(11) If the proprietor of a shop acts in contravention of this section, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(12) Any interval allowed during any day shall not be taken into account in reckoning the number of hours of shop work done on such day.
I think this is an amendment which practically wipes out Section 18.
Quite so.
What is the exact position with regard to amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37? We put down these amendments to the existing section. What is to be the position now?
These amendments could be withdrawn and repeated on the next stage of the Bill. If the Minister's amendment is carried they could be moved to the new section.
I would not propose to recommit the Bill again. I think that with some possible exceptions the provisions of this amendment will meet the wishes of the various Deputies. This amendment embodies certain new provisions which were not in the section at all. I suggest to the Deputies to adopt the suggestion made by the Chair—to leave their amendments over and move them at the next stage.
The Minister is not going to recommit the amendments to the second Report Stage?
I do not want to have another Report Stage. I think one Report Stage is sufficient.
It would not involve another Report Stage if the next stage were recommitted. That is to say, so far as the amendments are concerned it would not involve another Report Stage.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on Thursday, February 10.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, the 10th February.