Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Feb 1938

Vol. 70 No. 4

Shops (Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1937—Recommittal (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 34.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

As Deputies will have noted, this amendment proposes to repeal the entire Section 18 and to substitute a number of new provisions therefor. In so far as the ordinary class of workers is concerned, the outstanding point of these new provisions is a slight reduction in the number of hours of overtime that may be worked in a period of four weeks, or in the course of a year. There is no variation in the hours of overtime which may be worked in each week. The principal change, however, to which no doubt Deputies have directed their attention, is the introduction of a new period of 56 hours which will apply in respect of workers employed in hotels. When the Bill was introduced, it applied only to a certain limited class of hotel workers, and I informed the House during the discussion in Committee that it seemed clear that we should either have to exclude hotel workers altogether, or include them all. I came to the decision to include them all, but I recognise that, in doing so, we are creating new difficulties and that the circumstances applying in hotels are in many respects dissimilar from those applying in ordinary shops and that different provision in respect of hotel workers will be necessary.

The Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, distinguished between industries, making different provisions for those industries which were worked by day and those which had to be worked by a continuous process. For the day industries, a 48-hour maximum week was prescribed, and for the continuous process industries, a 56-hour maximum. I think we can see some similarity between the type of work done in a hotel and in a continuous process industry in so far as the work proceeds ordinarily around the whole period of the day, and that there is, therefore, a justification for a differentiation between the maximum hours permitted in hotels and those permitted in shops. There are other considerations which apply also. In respect of a very large number of hotel workers, it is correct to say that they reside on the premises in which they work and, consequently, there is no time lost by them in going to or proceeding from their place of work to their homes. The provision of a longer normal working week for hotel workers involved, as a consequence, a variation in the maximum hours of overtime permitted. I think that it is necessary that some liberality in respect of overtime for hotel workers should be authorised.

Many Deputies referred to the circumstances existing in hotels which cater particularly for a holiday trade, where a very large rush of business occurs at particular seasons, and very often very limited seasons, while considerable slackness is experienced at other periods of the year. To enable the proprietors of such hotels to cater for abnormal business of that kind, occurring in very restricted seasons, some exceptional provision in respect of overtime is necessary. It is proposed to make that here for hotel workers. While Deputies may be perturbed by the institution in the Bill of a longer working week than that originally contemplated for all shop workers, I think it can be said with confidence that the inclusion of all hotel workers within the scope of the Bill will mean a very great improvement in their working conditions. Even the 56 hours authorised by the proposed new section will involve in many cases a substantial reduction in their working hours, whereas the operation of the holiday and the half-holiday provision will confer on these workers benefits which they did not previously enjoy.

I think the general scheme, the sum total of all the various provisions, will mean a substantial improvement in the working conditions of this class of workers. I do not say that we are fixing 56 hours as the normal working week for hotel workers in perpetuity. It is, of course, necessary again to remind Deputies that what the Bill proposes to do is to fix the maximum limits beyond which workers cannot be employed. It establishes the minimum standards of employment which must be observed, and there is, of course, nothing to prevent any hotel proprietor observing better standards, or any hotel worker seeking to obtain them. In any event, the experiment in the regulation of hotel work which this Bill will commence will enable data and experience to be obtained which will perhaps permit of fresh legislation governing that type of work at some future date. I am satisfied that we should not go further than it is proposed in this new section at present in the regulation of the hours of work in such shops.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are seven amendments tabled to Section 18. The section, as recast in amendment No. 34, appears to contain concessions on the lines suggested by amendments Nos. 35 to 39. Amendment No. 40 would not fit in with the redrafted section. It would be possible, making certain alterations, to allow those amendments to be submitted to the proposed new section. That course, however, would be unsatisfactory in many ways. I suggest that Deputies might consider how far the concessions, or what appear to me to be concessions, meet the points raised, and then resubmit their amendments mutatis mutandis on the Report Stage.

Mr. Dillon

I think that suggestion was made and pretty generally approved last night, and it was agreed, subject to the approval of the Chair, that leave would be asked to recommit the Bill on Report Stage only in so far as amendments were concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister assented to that suggestion, I think.

Mr. Lemass

Before the discussion proceeds, I should also draw attention to other changes which the amendment effects in accordance with various suggestions made in Committee. We are prohibiting the employment of juveniles under 16 years of age on overtime at all. The overtime provisions, so far as they affect juveniles, relate only to juveniles over 16 years of age. Reference was also made to the difficulty in determining what would be the normal working week for a worker in a week in which he received a holiday, and in order to deal with that circumstance, we are providing that the worker shall be deemed to have done eight hours on a day on which he gets a whole holiday, so that if he gets a holiday in a week he will be entitled to overtime in respect of any period in excess of 40 hours' work within that week. We are also providing that where a shop assistant does industrial work for his employer, or where he works for another employer, the total work done by him is to be taken into account for the purpose of determining what his working hours were.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister say what has become of sub-section (4) of the original Section 18?

Mr. Lemass

It is now sub-section (6).

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I agree with the Minister. I think there is considerable difference between the workers in hotels and the workers in ordinary shops, owing to the fact that the shop assistant is there the whole time working, and in the case of the hotel worker. there is a very considerable interval in the day during which he is not working, but just sitting down. That makes a substantial difference. What puzzles me in this section is sub-section (4), which refers to the question of leave (sub-section quoted). The whole holiday there is part of the assistant's annual leave, and that whole holiday is to count as eight hours of shop work. I think I understand what the Minister means. If one day of the 14 is taken casually, the Minister intends, I think, that that should count as eight hours of work. Suppose this state of affairs comes about: the holidays are taken not on a Monday, but in the middle of the week. Let us assume that the 14 days run from Wednesday until the following Wednesday week. Then, it appears to me that every one of these 14 days will count as eight-hour working days so far as part of the first week is concerned. If the holidays run from Tuesday, the assistant will have free Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday of that week, and these will count as eight-hour working days. I do not think that that is the Minister's intention. In the following week, they would not count in that way because he would be getting the whole of that week, but the days in the following week on which he would still be on holiday would count as eight hours because he would not be getting the whole of that week. I do not think that it was the Minister's intention that, if 14 days were taken consecutively, they should count as eight-hour working days for the week in which they occur.

Mr. Lemass

I am not sure that I understand the Deputy properly. The difficulty we had to contend with was that the Bill prescribed, as a normal working week, a week of 48 hours. The question would then arise: What would happen in the week in which a shop assistant gets the whole period or gets two or three days of annual leave? Could the 48 hours be crowded into the remainder of the week — into three or four days or into five days. In order to deal with that situation, we had to fix, in relation to the day on which he gets leave, a number of hours in respect of which he could be said to have worked for the purpose of determining what the working week would be. A shop assistant who gets one day as a whole holiday, if he is working the normal working week, will work 40 hours in the other five days. If he works more he is entitled to overtime pay.

Mr. Dockrell

If an employee has a holiday, on that holiday, for purposes of calculation, he is assumed to have worked eight hours.

Mr. Lemass

That is so.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Take the case I put. He is working one day in the week and, for the other five days, he has holidays because he is taking his annual leave. As the section stands, that would count as 40 hours. The Minister says that the number of hours he works in the week will be taken as 48, and that 48 hours will have to be taken off the 216 hours in any period of four consecutive weeks. The period of hours is not confined to one week. It will come off the 216 hours in any period of four consecutive weeks and it will come off the 2,600 hours in a year. I do not think that that is the Minister's intention. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates the point I am endeavouring to explain. It is very difficult to explain it.

Mr. Lemass

It is correct to say that the assistant will be deemed to have worked eight hours both for the purpose of sub-section (2), which deals with the ordinary working week, and for the purpose of sub-section (3), which deals with overtime. Otherwise, it would be possible to contemplate the possibility of a man getting five days' holidays in the week and being required to work 60 hours in one day.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am not thinking of that. The time comes off the long period. If a man is allowed 14 consecutive days' holidays, commencing on a Monday, no trouble arises. Nothing is taken off the 216 hours for the 14 days' annual holiday and nothing is taken off the 2,000 hours. On the other hand, if the holiday begins on Tuesday then this section operates and the five days' holidays are to be counted as 40 hours, which will be taken off the 2,600 hours, so that there will be a considerable difference between the annual holiday beginning on a Monday and the annual holiday beginning on a Tuesday. That is what puzzles me.

Mr. Lemass

I think that it is necessary to maintain that. It is necessary that eight hours in respect of every day's leave should be taken from the total number of hours he might work in four weeks because otherwise you would have a position where the whole of the four weeks of permitted overtime might be concentrated into two weeks. As a matter of fact, it could not be worked in that time, having regard to the overriding maximum of an 11-hour day.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

In one case, the annual holiday will have to be taken off the 2,600 hours and in the other case it will not. Whether it will or not, will depend on what day of the week it commences.

Mr. Dillon

May I direct the attention of the House to this aspect of the question: This Bill is intended to be a code which will rigidly bind every shop proprietor in the country and every breach of which will make him liable to the law. You have the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has been consulting his permanent officials, probably, for the last six months about this Bill; you have Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, a lawyer of wide experience; you have members of the Labour Party, who have probably consulted over this measure with their trade union officials, and it is abundantly clear that all of them find considerable difficulty in arriving at certainty, even after discussion, as to what the exact meaning of these provisions is.

Mr. Lemass

How did that become clear?

Mr. Dillon

I have listened to what took place between Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenny and the Minister. What are the feelings of the small shopkeeper in Collooney going to be when trying to keep within the law? He has three separate schedules to consider and a weekly modicum of hours of about six different periods in respect of each.

Mr. O'Brien

The shopkeeper will become a lawyer.

Mr. Dillon

He would want to. Let me urge this on the House, that all the active participants in this legislation are men whose minds are principally bent on conditions obtaining in Dublin, Cork and the larger cities. Not a single one of them has turned his mind to conditions obtaining in rural Ireland, with the exception of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. I do not deny that the other Deputies taking part in the debate are experts, probably, on shop conditions in cities but there is no analogy between conditions in city shops and in the rural areas.

Mr. Heron

That is why the Bill is necessary. The conditions being laid down in the Bill already obtain in the cities.

Mr. Dillon

Then this Bill has been promoted fraudulently and falsely, because, as I understood, it was to remedy abuses where juvenile shop assistants were kept working endless hours in small shops in Dublin and neighbourhood.

Mr. Heron

In very small shops.

Mr. Dillon

We cannot have it both ways. If Deputy Heron says that conditions in Dublin are ideal, then we ought to know that the Bill was drafted to remedy abuses existing in the country, but not a single word has been said about that in the debate. If certain types of abuse exist in the country—and I am sure there might be abuses existing there—then this Bill has not been handled with an eye to conditions in the country. There are strict regulations as to the maximum number of hours that may be worked in a given week. My recollection is that either in this Bill or in the Shops (Hours of Trading) Bill there was some proviso that at certain seasons of the year there would be greater laxity in the matter of overtime. It appears from Section 18 that there is no differentiation between the Christmas season and any other season as to the maximum number of hours overtime that can be worked in a week. Nobody wants to have overtime unless it is necessary, and the employer has to pay his employees more for working overtime. But, suppose that Christmas falls on a Saturday, and that Monday and Tuesday are normal working days, when the assistants work eight hours, the country people would have only Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of that week for their Christmas shopping. All the work would be concentrated into three days. How are you going to get the work done if there is not sufficient overtime to keep the shelves filled? The thing cannot be done. Once you fix this no shopkeeper is going to make an assistant work overtime when it is not necessary. It seems to me to be an extremely imprudent thing to have the overtime hours as rigid as that in a country town. It simply will not work, and people will have to be sent home without their Christmas goods. There are those who say that that kind of objection can be offered to every reform of legislation. If I were making this objection in respect of the whole year round, or if I said that if shopkeepers in country towns were not allowed to remain open until 9 o'clock the people would not get what they wanted, I would agree with Deputy Heron that that is the kind of obstructive demurrer that might be offered to every piece of legislation. That is not the case I make. I am making the case that at Christmas these people have to wait for money to come from America, or from the Christmas fair, because they will not do their shopping until they have something to pay on account They get the money either from their children or from what they sell at the Christmas fair. It may be said that that is a bad system but you would have to abolish the whole credit system in rural Ireland if you want to do away with it. If you cannot meet the convenience of the people in respect of Christmas requirements real hardship will result. I do not blame the Minister for Industry and Commerce for feeling that that is not a valid objection, because he does not know anything about it. He was born in the City of Dublin and has lived all his life in it.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputy come to the point. What does he propose?

Mr. Dillon

I propose much wider discretion.

Mr. Lemass

What?

Mr. Dillon

That the overtime proviso should be suspended during the Christmas season.

Mr. Lemass

There is power to do that.

Mr. Dillon

All I want the Minister to do, in the event of the section being passed, is that he would, in respect of rural Ireland, waive the overtime provision for Christmas week. I would not ask for more because I think Deputy Heron's objection then validly applies. If you try to go beyond that you will merely pander to stock objections of all sorts.

Mr. Lemass

What the Deputy says is not necessary. There is a maximum working day of 11 hours.

Mr. Dillon

A situation could arise where it would be necessary to work longer.

Mr. O'Brien

About 12 hours?

Mr. Dillon

I am not making any case that would be absurd, and I am not suggesting that a shop should be open for 15 hours. No sane man would do so.

Mr. Lemass

That is not the point.

Mr. Dillon

If the shelves of a shop are depleted of goods they have to be restocked for the Christmas fair. Otherwise the shopkeeper might have to tell customers on the day of the fair that he would supply them but had to stay in late the night before to get the goods. An employer could then tell his assistants to go home and take a good rest after the Christmas rush. It is a time that puts a very great strain on everyone concerned with the work. It is an emergency that arises once a year and seeing that shopkeepers and their assistants live out of the farmer for the 12 months, the least they can do is to convenience them after their exceptionally arduous work. That would not be too much to ask for the agricultural community.

Mr. Heron

Will the Deputy indicate the hours that he thinks reasonable for shop assistants to work on Christmas Eve? Would it be 13 hours, 14 hours, or 24 hours?

Mr. Dillon

I think shop assistants and proprietors of shops in country towns during the Christmas season should be prepared to work as long as is necessary to provide customers with what they require.

Mr. Heron

Twenty-four hours?

Mr. Dillon

Bear in mind that there is a provision in the Bill that after eight hours assistants must get overtime. What sane shopkeeper, whose profits depend upon the difference between his takings and his overhead expenses is going to permit his shop assistants to work one second longer than is vitally necessary to get stuff ready for sale the following day?

Mr. Lemass

That is not in the Bill; that overtime must be paid after eight hours.

Mr. Dillon

Overtime must be paid for after a certain number of hours work.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It must be paid after 48 hours work.

Mr. Dillon

What shopkeeper is going maliciously to make assistants work longer than is vitally necessary to meet the profitable trade to be done the following day?

Mr. Heron

Then there is no need for the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

That is only silly talk. Of course there is need for it.

Mr. Heron

The Deputy said that shop assistants will not be asked to work longer than is necessary.

Mr. Dillon

If it involves paying overtime.

Mr. McGowan

If the assistants remain are shops to stay open till midnight?

Mr. Dillon

Casuistry can condemn or justify any case. There is no use taking a particular case. In my judgment if the convenience of the country demands that the requirements of the people be met before Christmas, then I think shop assistants and employers in rural Ireland ought to meet them. I am prepared to say that further than that the Legislature should not be prepared to make a concession. I do not believe that if you were to go round those benches and ask any single Deputy who knows rural conditions in Ireland to stand up that he will contradict what I say—not one, if they have the moral courage to say so. The next thing that I want to point out is that you prohibit all overtime for juveniles in this new section.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Wrong again.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister said so.

Mr. O'Brien

Under 16 years of age.

Mr. Dillon

Very well, open your eyes to what you are doing, and do it in the knowledge of what you are doing.

Mr. O'Brien

The Deputy should open his ears.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister stated five minutes ago that he was prohibiting all overtime for juveniles.

Mr. O'Brien

He did not say it.

Mr. Dillon

There is no use arguing about it now. I am not going to wrangle with the Deputy, who can read what was said in the Official Report. Whatever the Minister said, this Bill operates to prevent overtime for persons under 16 years of age. That may be right or it may be wrong, but at least open your eyes to what you are doing. That means that any boy who is serving his apprenticeship in a country shop must be sent off the premises at the end of his 48 hours in any given week. Either we believe in the apprenticeship system or we do not. There is a good deal to be said against the apprenticeship system; there is a good deal to be said for it. I believe it is a system which is capable of great abuse just as the boarding school system is capable of great abuse, or as most other human institutions are capable of abuse. On balance, I think that the system is a good system, and that it is a good method of getting a training for juveniles who will have to earn their living later in the ordinary way. But, if you categorically prohibit all work over 48 hours a week for the apprentice under 16 learning his trade, it means that in Christmas week — and mind you that is the week that is going to give rise to all the difficulty: the rest of the year may require adjustment, but it can be met—a certain proportion of your staff must be put off the premises and the remainder left there to get the work done.

Now, the ordinary well-organised establishment divides its work into certain routine duties for each section of the staff. The junior apprentices will be doing the simplest routine jobs. As they rise up and gain experience their responsibilities extend until the junior paid assistant is doing reasonably responsible work. If you have to put your apprentices out in the evening, and have to call upon your paid assistants to do the routine jobs that the apprentice normally does, it means that your whole organisation becomes chaotic. You are immensely hindered and involved in all kinds of difficulties that it is hard for the person who has not got practical experience of running a shop to understand. Here, again, I believe that this difficulty is going to arise almost exclusively during the Christmas season. I apprehend that if this difficulty is going to be left in its present form that, taken together with the other restrictions provided in the Bill, it will sooner or later abolish the apprenticeship system in every decent shop. Nobody who does not want to trade on his apprentices and abuse them will retain apprentices. I agree that the man who is deliberately misusing his apprentices — trying to make them do the work of salaried men — may find it worth his while to wind his way in and out of the provisions of this Bill, but the decent man who really wants to give his apprentices an honest, decent training will simply say that they are trouble enough as it is — that if on top of being responsible for the youngsters' moral and general upbringing and for teaching them their business, he has to comply with a pyramid of regulations he will say that it is not worth his while, and will clear out his apprentices altogether. It may be that the Legislature has made up its mind that it wants to do that. Very well, if you have made up your minds to do that, then, in the name of God, abolish the apprenticeship system altogether. This kind of thing will mean that the bad master will continue to take apprentices, and that the good master will chuck them. That is the worst thing that could happen. Abolish the system altogether if you want to do so now, but do not allow a situation to arise in which you will have to come back and abolish it in two or three years' time because you yourselves have created such abuses in connection with it that it is no longer possible to tolerate its continuance.

The new section also provides for time and a quarter, and this must be read in conjunction with Section 22, which is virtually unamended. Under Section 22, you provide that existing rates of wages must continue to be paid even though the terms and conditions have been improved and the hours shortened, and under this new section, you further provide that time and a quarter must be paid for any period over 48 hours which an employee works. That means that the employer who has pushed wages up to the last penny that he was able to afford to pay in existing conditions is now required to pay 25 per cent. on that high wage which he had fixed for his employees out of his own sense of duty before this Bill was ever heard of, whereas the sweater, who kept his men down to the lowest penny that he could persuade them to take, is only going to be required to pay 25 per cent. extra in consideration of the improved conditions provided for in this Bill. There are individuals whom I know who have honestly tried to squeeze out of their business the last penny that they could economically give their employees who, perhaps, are working 54 hours a week now as well as substantial overtime around the Christmas season. But making full allowance for all the profit that the shopkeeper was able to get on the basis of a 54-hour week and free overtime at Christmas, he was giving to his employees the last penny that he could afford. Let us assume that that is not only subjectively true for the shopkeeper but objectively true; in fact, that he was giving them the last penny his business could afford to pay. He is now called upon to shorten their hours and to raise these inflated wages by 25 per cent. in respect of every hour's overtime work.

But what is the position of the sweater next door who is paying the lowest rate of wages that he can persuade his employees to take? There is a nominal provision in the Bill that the Minister can fix rates of wages if called upon to do so, but the position of the sweater at present is that he need only pay time and a quarter extra on a sweated rate. That is simply not rational. It is penalising those who have tried to do their duty and is setting a premium on bad conduct in the past. The Minister may ask me, what do you propose to do? My answer is perfectly simple. It is that you cannot fix overtime rates if you do not fix wages. If you are going to provide by law that overtime must be paid for at time and a quarter, you must go on and fix minimum rates of wages for industry.

Mr. Heron

Would the Deputy approve of fixing minimum rates of wages by legislation?

Mr. Dillon

It would be much better. I have no objection to fixing minimum wages at all.

Mr. Heron

Would the Deputy approve of fixing minimum wages?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, if done by an informed body: if done prudently and after careful inquiry with due regard to the circumstances surrounding the different trades involved. If you are going to have regulation on that scale, I will say "yes."

Mr. Heron

We will remind the Deputy of that.

Mr. Dillon

There is no need to remind me. I am not in the habit of making one speech in Athy and another in Dáil Eireann. What I am saying now will probably be published. My answer to that question, in the light of this body of regulations, is yes, provided it is done by an informed body who will really look into the difficulties and complications surrounding the situation. If you are going to fix overtime rates, you must fix a minimum wage, otherwise you set a premium on the bad employer and gravely penalise the man who is trying to do his duty.

Let me put this last point to the House. This is the kind of situation that is going to arise. You have provided that overtime must be paid on this time and a quarter rate. Take a merchant who has honestly been paying the maximum he can afford to pay on the basis of the present hours of work, and who has also provided his assistants with three weeks' holidays with full pay, instead of the fortnight provided for in the Bill. Is it contrary to the spirit of this Bill for that employer to say to his employees hereafter: "I am going to lay you off for a week in the summer, give you two weeks' holidays and a week off without pay, and when Christmas comes round, out of the pool created by laying off all the assistants for one week in summer, I will pay you the overtime you will earn by working overtime at Christmas"? If you are to take Section 22 literally, that is certainly contrary to the spirit of the Bill, but would it be all unreasonable thing to do? I do not think it would. I should like the Minister to speak honestly and tell us what he thinks.

Mr. Lemass

It would be well if the Deputy would read the Bill instead of making speeches.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister need not be insolent and rude. If he finds that I have misunderstood the Bill, I think he will find that a lot of shopkeepers will not understand it better than I do.

Mr. Lemass

They will not make speeches about it.

Mr. Dillon

They may suffer in silence. The Minister will surely recognise that there is some value in having somebody to talk to instead of civil servants. The Minister spends all his time talking to officials who have nothing else to do only to riddle the puzzles which he provides for the public, and the public have something else to do than trying to find out the puzzles put to them by the Minister. I speak largely as a citizen who knows a great deal about the conditions which are going to be affected by the Bill. I want information, and I think this is the time to put before the Minister and the House the difficulties that some of these regulations are going to create. I think it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask whether, in the light of Section 22 with its reactions on Section 18, it would be in the spirit of the legislation to gather a pool of money in the summer by giving a week's holiday without pay, laying off the assistants for a week without pay, and giving back that money to the assistants at Christmas in exchange for such overtime as they may work? I put three or four deliberate questions to the Minister and every Deputy interested, and I think they ought to be answered before you leave the amendment.

Mr. Heron

With regard to a great deal of what Deputy Dillon has said, I think that he answered himself when he said that this kind of objection is made to every measure the object of which is to give protection to any section of the community. In the main, I think that Deputy Dillon's case has been special pleading. In reference to this question of overtime during the Christmas rush period, I suggest to Deputy Dillon that, as the Bill stands, the shop assistants on Christmas Eve, or the day before Christmas Eve, could be kept at work for 13 hours, making an allowance of two hours for meals. I presume the Deputy would permit the assistants to eat during that period of 13 hours. They will be at work for 11 hours, but if you add on the two hours for meals, they will be actually on duty for 13 hours in one day. I suggest that it is long enough to be on duty from 9 in the morning until midnight. I suggest that that is long enough for any shop assistant to work on any day during the Christmas rush or any other day.

Mr. Dillon

How do the 13 hours come in from 9 until midnight?

Mr. Heron

Well, from 9 in the morning until 10 at night or from 10 in the morning until 11 at night. Will the Deputy agree that that is long enough for any person to work on any day?

Mr. Dillon

Much too long, normally.

Mr. Heron

And long enough, I suggest, during the Christmas trade.

Mr. Dillon

That is the difference between us.

Mr. Heron

It is wrong, I think, for the Deputy to suggest that the Bill, as it now stands, is unreasonable in relation to Christmas trade conditions in country shops. That is my view. On the other question, the question of penalising the fair employer in the interests of the unfair employer, Deputy Dillon suggests that, having regard to the overtime provision in the Bill, the sweating employer will get his labour cheap and the good employer will be compelled to pay overtime rates. This portion of this section of the Bill purports to regulate hours and, in regulating hours, it is impossible to go into the question of what every individual employer is paying in wages at present. But I suggest to Deputy Dillon that the bad employer and the good employer will be relatively in the same position as before so far as the hour-fixing section of the Bill is concerned.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose the bad employer is paying an assistant £2 a week for an eight-hour day and his good neighbour is paying £3 a week for an eight-hour day. One is a sweater and the other is a fair employer. The sweater's man works an hour's overtime and he gets time-and-a-quarter at the rate of 40/- a week. The good man's employee works an hour's overtime and he gets time-and-a-quarter at the rate of 60/- a week.

Mr. McGowan

There is provision for a wages board.

Mr. Dillon

I do not think that is sufficient to protect him.

Mr. Heron

Is not the sweating employer to-day getting the advantage?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It is widening the breach between them.

Mr. Heron

What is the alternative? Deputy Dillon, when asked for an alternative, suggested that wage-fixing machinery should accompany any hour-fixing machinery — that there should be a legal minimum wage. I, personally, am glad, and I am sure every member of the Labour Party is glad to hear Deputy Dillon say that. We believe that there ought to be a national minimum wage for all workers, including shop workers. But Deputy Dillon overlooked the fact that in the Bill there is provision for adjusting wages and the elimination of the bad employer. There is a section in the Bill which provides for the establishment of a wages board which will be given authority to fix wages. Surely that meets the objection made by Deputy Dillon. If it is the view of the Minister that, in a particular district, there are sweating employers taking the kind of advantage of this legislation which Deputy Dillon refers to, then a wages board can be established. The good employers and the shop assistants in a particular area can make representations to the Minister to have a wages board established to deal with the sweating employers.

Mr. Dillon

Let us take an arbitrary figure, not binding ourselves to saying whether it is the right figure or not. Suppose the wages board meets and says that the minimum wage shall be 50/- in this area. Supposing the good employer says: "I have been able to afford £3." Why should he be required to pay overtime on the basis of £3 per week if the wages board fixes the wages at 50/-? He should not be. The Bill does not provide that, if you fix a minimum wage by the wages board, all the employers in the area will be entitled to pay overtime on the basis of that wage. They must go on paying on the basis of the wage they were paying when the Bill came into operation. That is what I say is wrong. I know many cases of agricultural employers who had not to change the wages at all, because the wages we were paying not only paid the agricultural labourer's wages, but we had a substantial sum in addition towards overtime if he worked 12 hours.

Mr. Heron

And the trade union got after you.

Mr. Dillon

That is gratuitous. I know cases in which, even if the agricultural labourer worked 12 hours per day, he would not have earned enough overtime on the minimum wage to increase the wage he was entitled to.

Mr. O'Brien

Is not the whole thing fixed by minimum standards?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, if this House will fix minimum wages and let everybody pay on the same basis. If you are going to have this system of regulation, that is the best way, but you have no right to penalise a man who is trying to do his best as compared with the man who got away with it in the past.

Mr. O'Brien

They would not be minimum standards. They would be maximum standards, then.

Mr. Dillon

I say that you should fix minimum standards if you are going to have a provision for overtime rates, and unless you do, you are going to penalise people who tried to pay a fair rate before there was any attempt to enforce it by law.

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy is only amusing himself.

Mr. Dillon

That is silly insolence.

Mr. Lemass

If I understand the Deputy's argument correctly, it is that unless there is a uniform wage fixed by law, there should be no payment for overtime.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense. Look at Section 22.

Mr. Lemass

That was Deputy Dillon's argument.

Mr. Dillon

Look at Section 22.

Mr. Lemass

I shall pass from that. Does Deputy Dillon seriously believe that a 48-hour week for juveniles without overtime is going to lead to the abolition of the apprenticeship system? Does any other Deputy believe that? I do not think so. As regards the Christmas week, there is a provision in the Bill for the exemption of special trades from the hours provisions in any special period. In the ordinary course remember Christmas does not fall on Monday. It only falls on Monday in one year in seven. Where it falls on a day in the middle of the week no difficulty will arise——

Mr. Dillon

Agreed.

Mr. Lemass

— because there will be adequate scope for overtime within the existing hours, subject to the overriding maximum of eleven hours per day which the Bill lays down. It may be necessary to make some additional provision in relation to that matter when Christmas day falls on a Monday.

Mr. Dillon

Or Friday or Saturday.

Mr. Lemass

If it falls on Friday or Saturday, there are five days during that week during which the overriding maximum of eleven hours per day can be worked. The maximum hours which can be worked are 55 in that week, and an assistant can work up to the limit provided by the Bill, on every day, without any alteration in the overtime provision. The only circumstances in which some alteration in the overtime provision might be necessary would be when Christmas Day falls on a Monday, and then only in relation to specific types of trades that might be affected, or perhaps only in special areas. I know that in Dublin it used to be the custom to remain open until one or two o'clock on the morning of Christmas day. That custom has now disappeared, except in relation to certain provision shops. I think most business establishments are closed down at 10 o'clock or 10.30. There may be special circumstances in rural areas, and power to deal with these special circumstances are taken in the Bill. When an Order is made under sub-section (7) or (8), which deals with the general exemption from the powers of the Bill, provision is made for consultation, but an Order can be made at any time to deal with a special problem arising in a special trade or in a special area. That can be used to deal with any special circumstances that may arise. It was mainly designed to meet with such special circumstances as might arise on some occasion such as the Eucharistic Congress when crowds might flock into one particular area and an unusual leniency in regard to hours might be called for.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister began by being rude, and he then went on to show that the representations which I had made had some substance.

Mr. Lemass

One of them only. The rest was all nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

However, the reason that I suggest that you should suspend the provision for overtime in the Christmas week is this: It is no use in saying that during Christmas week you can work 11 hours per day. I do not want to work 11 hours on every day before Christmas. I only want to work eight hours on the day on which there is no particular reason to work more. Supposing I work a normal day on Monday, that my customers come in in crowds on Tuesday, and that the shelves are cleared. I then have got to fill the shelves for Wednesday's trade. How am I going to do it under the conditions laid down here? There is no use in telling me that if I had foresight to do it on Monday I would not be required to work late on Tuesday. I could not pile the stuff up on the floor. I would simply have got to wait until the shelves were cleared. Supposing you had a big reserve stock of sugar, and that after your shelves were cleared on Tuesday, you found that what the people had bought was currants, and you had plenty of sugar but no currants, what were you going to do?

Mr. Heron

Could the Deputy suggest what he would do? How long would he want them to work?

Mr. Dillon

As long as it was necessary to work.

Mr. Heron

How long would that be?

Mr. Dillon

I could not tell you. Let me say this as an employer. I can assure Deputy Heron of this, if I have to pay time and a quarter for overtime the assistants will not be allowed to work one second longer than is absolutely vitally necessary to get my shop ready for the following day's trade. There is no inducement to me at any time to detain them or keep them there.

Mr. Heron

There is.

Mr. Dillon

What is it?

Mr. Heron

Overtime men are cheaper than extra hands.

Mr. Dillon

I was waiting for that. I have been trying to get one of you to say that for the last ten minutes. Of course, in a place like Dublin you can get extra hands, but where am I to get extra hands in a country town?

Mr. McGowan

Are there no unemployed in Ballaghaderreen?

Mr. Dillon

Here is a Deputy who comes tumbling down from Skerries to talk about what is happening in County Mayo! If a shop assistant becomes unemployed in Ballaghaderreen, he does not go out and march up and down the street waiting for someone to call him in to a job. He goes home to his mother, and his mother may live away at Tourlestrane, or out on the side of a country road, perhaps 30 or 35 miles away. He, perhaps, tells some of his companions: "If you hear of a job will you send for me." During Christmas week, when I am called upon to deal with a sudden rush of customers, I cannot send a message to tell Paddy MacNulty, 30 miles away, that there is a job waiting for him, and even if I did succeed in sending him that message, it would cost him more to come in a car than he would get for that day's work. That is what I am trying to emphasise. The conditions in rural Ireland are quite different from those in Dublin and other large centres of population. In Dublin, in London and in other big centres in which I have worked myself there is a floating population of temporary labour always on tap, and they turn up every morning at the employment exchange. If you want ten, or even 50, or 100 hands, there are means of getting in touch with them overnight. That does not apply in rural Ireland. I agree with Deputy Heron that if we had recourse to a pool of that description all my case would fall to the ground. If it were possible to get extra help immediately I do not think I could argue for getting exemption for rural areas, but that difficulty is there, and we cannot surmount the difficulty by any other means. That is why I want the overtime provision to be waived for Christmas week. If the Minister evolves some plan, or can explain how a country shopkeeper could get a staff on the lines suggested by Deputy Heron, then the bulk of my objection falls to the ground. Of course, it is not possible to get such a staff. For that reason, I think the proper course here would be to waive the overtime provisions for Christmas week. If the representatives of the Labour Party or decent employers come to the conclusion that that gives rise to abuse, Parliament will still be sitting, and we can always come back to it and remedy that situation. The Labour Party have no reason to think that in this matter they are struggling against a hard-shelled, conservative and reactionary opposition. They are not. Every side of this House, the Government, the Opposition and all others, are anxious to provide a decent standard of living for the workingman in this country, and they have given ample evidence of that in the last two or three years. Let us not adopt tactics as if we were pushing against a conservative, reactionary majority, from whom we had to wring every concession. Everyone is anxious to lend a hand, and we should approach those problems in the knowledge that that is so.

Mr. T. Kelly

What time do they start work in your town?

Mr. Dillon

Half-past nine.

Mr. Kelly

I thought it was half-past twelve.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know whether the Deputy is being idiotic, or asking for information.

Mr. Brasier

I am interested in the case of business men who run hotels, refreshment houses and places of amusement in seaside and pleasure resorts, and I would ask the Minister what concession he can make with regard to employment in those areas — places which the workers themselves visit when they have ceased work. This employment is of a very seasonal character, and in all probability the workers would have to go elsewhere if they did not get this particular form of employment. It is a very serious matter for those people. Their profits are not very large, and I think this is a case where the Minister could perhaps see his way to make some concession.

Mr. Lemass

What concession does the Deputy suggest?

Mr. Brasier

A certain amount of exemption.

Mr. Lemass

Exemption from what?

Mr. Brasier

Exemption in the matter of hours. The Minister might see his way to settle that particular difficulty. It has been represented to me that it is a very big one, and that those people cannot afford to pay for extra hours, or for a double staff which is probably what it would mean as the employment is very seasonal. This is a matter of some seriousness to those people, and I should like the Minister to try and find some method of dealing with this situation. I think, having regard to the fact that the workers themselves come down and visit those resorts after their work is done, something will have to be done to meet the situation, unless they are to be charged a very much higher figure for their entertainment. I am simply bringing this matter to the Minister's notice to see if he can do anything to remedy it.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know if I can explain this matter any further. The Bill provides for a normal working week of 48 hours. It also permits of an employee being employed, subject to the payment of overtime, for 11 hours a day, up to 60 hours. It further makes provision for an order being made to deal with certain circumstances by regulations. I do not think it is possible to go further than the section proposes to go.

Amendment No. 34 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 35 to 40 inclusive not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 41: —

In page 11, line 29, Section 19 (1), to insert after the word "shop" the words "(other than a refreshment house)."

It was urged that this section which deals with employment in spells would not be applicable to the case of refreshment houses, and therefore this amendment proposes to remove refreshment houses from the scope of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 42: —

In page 11, before Section 19 (2), to insert the following two sub-sections: —

(2) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section amend in respect of shops (other than refreshment houses) of a specified class (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) in a specified area the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section relating to the number of spells into which the hours of employment of a member of the staff of a shop may be divided on any day, and the provisions of the said sub-section relating to the duration of the period between spells or both such provisions, and in that case so long as such order remains in force the said sub-section shall have effect in respect of such shops subject to such amendment.

(3) The Minister may by order under this sub-section amend or revoke any order made under this section (including this sub-section). Apart from the alteration of the section by the exclusion of refreshment houses, it is, I think, necessary to have a further safety valve, and this amendment is designed to make it possible for the Minister to make an order amending the sub-section in respect of any type of employment where it may be urged that such an amendment is required. From various representations made to me both by employers and labour organisations, there is a possibility that circumstances will arise in which strict application of the section would be undesirable, and consequently this power of amendment by order is, I think, a necessary provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 43 not moved.

Mr. Dockrell

I move amendment No. 44: —

In page 11, at the end of Section 19, to add a new sub-section as follows: —

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the business carried on at a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform.

I think the Minister is admitting the principle of this amendment.

Mr. Lemass

The provisions of Section 42 would make it possible to deal with the special circumstances of bookstalls by order if it were considered necessary to do so. There is something to be said for this amendment. I am not quite sure how much, and perhaps it might be more desirable to deal with the matter after inquiry than in the way suggested. It is believed that the hours of work in a railway bookstall, that is a bookstall on or adjacent to a railway platform, must depend fairly largely on the hours of arrival and departure of trains. Although in the case of some railways, the bookstalls remain open in the ordinary way of shops, in others they do not. I think on the whole — I do not know what the view of other Deputies would be — it might be as well to insert the amendment. I do not think it makes a lot of difference one way or another, but perhaps it would be safer to have it in.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It is obvious that is would be quite impossible to have a four-hour break, because the attendant will go away for an hour and then come back when a train comes in. We all know that railway bookstalls are shut up to a very few minutes before a train is due to arrive.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy will leave the amendment over I should like the Parliamentary draftsman to have a look at the wording of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 45: —

In page 11, line 35, Section 20 (1), to delete the words "subject to the provisions of this section."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 47: —

In page 11, to delete Section 21 (1) and substitute the following two new sub-sections:—

(1) The proprietor of a shop who employs any persons as members of the staff of that shop shall specify in a notice (in this Part of this Act referred to as an hours of work notice), which shall be in the prescribed form and be constantly kept posted in a prominent place in such shop where it may be conveniently read by such persons, the daily hours to be worked for the time being by such persons and the intervals for rest and meals to be allowed for the time being to such persons.

(2) The proprietor of a shop may from time to time substitute a new hours of work notice for an existing hours of work notice, but shall not do so unless, not less than forty-eight hours before such new hours of work notice comes into operation, he has informed each of the members of the staff of that shop, whose hours of work will be changed by such new hours of work notice, of his intention to so substitute a new hours of work notice and of the terms of such new hours of work notice.

This amendment deals with the notices of working hours. There was considerable criticism of the provisions of the section, and I admitted that the criticisms were justified. This amendment empowers the proprietor of a shop to substitute a new hours of work notice on 48 hours' notice. Some such provision is necessary, and I think that is the most reasonable provision.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Before we pass away from this amendment, Sir, there is a point which I should like to raise.

An Ceann Comhairle

Very well.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Let us suppose that, in amendment No. 49, provision is made for a certain emergency; might not a sudden emergency arise also in connection with amendment No. 47? Suppose somebody gets sick, it might be necessary to change that matter of the 48 hours' notice in connection with the conditions of another employee.

Mr. Lemass

But that is what amendment No. 49 is designed to deal with.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not think it does deal with it. Amendment No. 47 deals with the putting up of the notice. The person's hours must be put up and those hours cannot be changed without 48 hours' notice.

Mr. Lemass

Quite so.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

As far as I can see, there is no provision dealing with a certain emergency in amendment No. 47. Amendment No. 49 deals with the hours during which the person concerned actually works, but it does not deal with the putting up of the notice.

Mr. Lemass

I see.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I think it would be necessary for the Minister to put in some words such as "certain emergency" to qualify that 48 hours' notice, so that if something happens suddenly, the hours can be changed without 48 hours' notice.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think the Deputy is right. In amendment No. 49 it is provided that, where a proprietor of a shop is charged with an offence in connection with amendment No. 47, which will now be a section of the Bill, it shall be a good defence for him to prove that the alleged contravention was rendered necessary by reason of illness amongst the members of the staff or other unforeseen causes.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

May I point out to the Minister that, where the proprietor is charged with an offence under this section there is a safeguard, but that that is a new section. I am quite sure it is the Minister's intention to provide a safeguard, and I am only pointing out what I think is an oversight.

Mr. Lemass

Is it the Deputy's point that, if the proprietor is charged with failure to exhibit the notice, there is no safeguard?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

No. It is the matter of substitution. I am referring to sub-section 2, in connection with amendment No. 47, where it says that the proprietor of a shop may from time to time substitute a new hours of work notice for an existing hours of work notice, but shall not do so unless, not less than 48 hours before such new hours of work notice comes into operation, he has informed each of the members of the staff, and so on, of his intention to so substitute a new hours of work notice. Let us suppose that there is this case of sudden illness, or some such cause, and the employer has got to get workman "A" to do the work which workman "B" would do ordinarily. He cannot do that because he has workman "A" working during times which are different from the times of his notice, and he cannot change that without 48 hours' notice. I suggest that, in the case of a sudden emergency, the employer should be allowed to change the notice immediately and the employee could work his new hours during that particular day and then return to the other conditions under which he is covered.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think the change of notice is of very great importance if, in fact, the man is allowed to work in other times than those specified in the notice.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

But I do not think he is allowed to do so.

Mr. Lemass

Amendment No. 48 deals with the contravention of the requirements, and amendment No. 49 deals with the obligation on proprietors of shops to observe the hours of work specified in the notice. Amendment No. 49 also says that where the proprietor of a shop is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a good defence for him to urge that the doing so was rendered necessary by reason of illness among the members of the staff or other unforeseen cause; so that, in fact, in the case of illness or other unforeseen cause, it is possible for him, without being subject to penalty, to work assistants at hours without the notice specified.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister may be correct, but I understood that amendment No. 48 dealt with the commission of an offence.

Mr. Lemass

It is an offence.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I meant amendment No. 47.

Mr. Lemass

The only offence that would arise under amendment No. 47 is that of failing to exhibit the notice.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

But surely a false notice would be an offence, and it becomes a false notice if you have a man working at a time in which he should not be working?

Mr. Lemass

No. I do not think so.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am not pressing the point, but I want to draw the Minister's attention to what appears to be an oversight, and I am sure the Minister will try to deal with the point.

Mr. Lemass

It does not appear to me to be so.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I think it is an offence to show a false notice. That is dealt with under an earlier section — one that the Minister amended yesterday.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is covered by (3) of amendment No. 49.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Oh, no. I think it would be under amendment No. 23, which deals with the exhibiting of a false notice. The exhibiting of a false notice, I think, would be an offence, and it becomes a false notice if the man concerned is working at a wrong time.

Mr. McGowan

No, that deals with records.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Well, is not that a record? I take it that a record is anything that is written down. However, it certainly appears to me that there should be some proviso here to meet the case I have in mind.

Mr. Lemass

I think I know what the Deputy means, and I shall look into it.

Amendment No. 47 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 48:—

In page 11, lines 53 and 54, Section 21 (2), to delete the words "fails to comply with the requirements" and substitute the words "acts in contravention (whether by commission or omission)".

This is really consequential. The point about the other amendment is that a proprietor can commit an offence by way of omission as well as by way of commission in the manner in which the section is now framed.

Amendment No. 48 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 49: —

In page 12, before Section 22, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) It shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to require any member of the staff of that shop to do shop work for him during any hours on any day other than the hours of work specified for that day in respect of such member in the hours of work notice for the time being in force relating to that shop.

(2) If the proprietor of a shop acts in contravention of this section, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

(3) Where the proprietor of a shop is charged with an offence under this section it shall be a good defence to such charge for such proprietor to prove to the satisfaction of the court before which such offence is tried that the alleged contravention of this section was rendered necessary by reason of illness amongst the members of the staff of that shop or other unforeseen cause.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I think the Minister will have to agree that there is a difficulty with regard to that word "require". That means practically the same thing as "compel", and it might be said by a proprietor as a defence, "I did not require the man to work, but he came to me and offered to work." I think that is a matter for examination.

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I shall look into that point.

Mr. Benson

There is one point to which I should like to refer—I am not sure whether it arises on amendment No. 49 or amendment No. 47 — and that is the question of overtime. Is it held that, in amendment No. 47 the daily hours to be worked are the ordinary hours, exclusive of overtime?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Benson

Well, is there any-anything that says so, or is it just the opinion of the Minister? It appears to me that, if the daily hours are the ordinary hours, exclusive of overtime, there would be an offence under amendment No. 49 during that overtime. I do not think it is specified anywhere in the Bill that the daily hours of work are those exclusive of overtime.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think there is any possibility of that misunderstanding arising. However, I shall have the point examined. I think the fact that the requirement specified that the daily hours should be worked indicates the normal hours to be worked, outside of overtime. However, I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Benson

This is not quite so easy as in the Conditions of Employment Act, where the daily time is not laid down because there they can put down any hours at all really, provided they do not tot up to more than 48.

Mr. Lemass

Quite so.

Mr. Benson

And then there is the balance of 12 hours. However, I do not know that it is going to be of much help to the Minister, having those records, because the matter is so variable, and there are powers to vary it.

Mr. McGowan

They were in Section 18, which has now gone — dealing with the number of hours per day.

Mr. Lemass

That is so. I think that the term "hours of work" will be regarded as relating only to the hours exclusive of the hours worked at overtime. That is what the Deputy has in mind. I will look into the section on that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 50: —

In page 12, line 9, Section 22 (1), to insert after the word "reward" the words "(excluding overtime pay and any payments made for commencing work earlier or finishing work later than other members of the staff of such shop employed in similar work)".

The section is designed to preserve, as far as possible, the existing wages despite any reduction effected by the Bill. The Bill is intended to ensure that any abnormal wages such as for overtime will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of this section. The amendment is intended to make it clear that we are preserving only the normal earnings apart from any additional payment for the time referred to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 51:—

In page 12, line 24, Section 22 (1), to insert after the word "earnings" the words "(excluding overtime pay and any payments made for commencing work earlier or finishing work later than other members of the staff of such shop employed in similar work)".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 52:—

In page 12, line 50, Section 22 (1), to delete the word "is".

This is only a drafting amendment.

Mr. Benson

I think a further improvement could be made in that. I think the words "after such commencement" should come after the word "amount" in line 51. At the moment I think it is an involved sentence and that that change would improve it considerably.

Mr. Lemass

I will look into the point. It does not alter the sense of it.

Mr. Benson

It does not and it makes the meaning rather less obscure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 53: —

In page 13, Section 23, after paragraph (c) and before line 16, to insert a new paragraph as follows: —

(d) a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform.— (Deputy Dockrell).

Mr. Lemass

I think the same consideration does not arise in respect of a railway bookstall in relation to Part IV of the Bill as in relation to Part III.

Mr. Dockrell

I am in the Minister's hands.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think it can be regarded as a special trading establishment. They get different kinds of holidays and different protection in respect of the half-holiday and the rest of it. The simplest arrangement would be to regard those railway bookstalls in the same way as refreshment houses. I will consider the point.

Amendment not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 54:—

In page 13, line 55, Section 25, to delete the words "any form of" and substitute the word "doing."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 55: —

In page 14, at the end of Section 27, to insert two new sub-sections as follows: —

(3) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section amend in respect of any specified area, sub-section (1) of this section in any one or more of the following ways, that is to say:—

(a) by substituting, for the day which is a public holiday by virtue of paragraph (b) of the said sub-section (1), the 1st day of January, or the 6th day of January.

(b) by substituting for Easter Monday, Ascension Thursday,

(c) by substituting for Whit Monday, the Feast of Corpus Christi or the 29th day of June,

(d) by substituting for the first Monday in August, the 15th day of August,

and whenever any such order is made in respect of any specified area, then, so long as such order remains in force, sub-section (1) of this section shall have effect in relation to any shops in such area subject to such amendment.

(4) The Minister may by order under this sub-section amend or revoke any order made by him under this section (including this sub-section).

This is a question of the substitution of public holidays by Church holidays. I would be strongly opposed to making it optional on the employer to substitute Church holidays for public holidays. It is a fact that in certain parts of the country the ordinary practice is to observe Church holidays and not public holidays; all shops and businesses close down on Church holidays and keep open on public holidays. This amendment is taking power by order to alter the practice in such areas. If we are to have an alternative day to the public holiday it will be an alternative day for everybody. It seems to me that if there is to be enforcement at all, and also in order to secure reasonable opportunity of having an enjoyable holiday, that we must have a uniform practice in every part of the country and not allow any individual discretion in the matter. In some parts of the country the Church holiday is probably the best business day of the year and it would be a considerable hardship upon employers if their shops were to be closed. In the diocese of Ferns the very reverse to what happens elsewhere is the case. Even if we were to compel the shops to close on public holidays in that area the people would still close on Church holidays and no business would be done on these days. This amendment gives us power to bring the law into conformity with the practice in an area like that.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

In the West of Ireland the country people all flock into the towns on Church holidays and the ordinary country churches are empty while the churches in the town are full. That happens all over the West of Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Heron

I move amendment No. 56: —

In page 14, at the end of Section 27, to add the following new sub-section: —

(3) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to permit any member of the staff of that shop to do shop work on any day which is a public holiday for the purpose of this section.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that it is unlawful to work on a public holiday. I do not think that it is clearly stated in any part of the Bill that it is unlawful to work on a public holiday. The amendment safeguards the exceptions.

Mr. Lemass

The Bill is not designed to make it illegal to work on public holidays. What the Bill does is to provide that those who are employed during a public holiday must get another day in substitution for the public holiday. It does not propose to prohibit employment on public holidays. We must protect the interests of the individual and provide that if he works on a public holiday he must get another holiday instead. No uniform regulation is possible that would apply equitably in all parts of the country.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It would be very unpleasant for the employee if he were to go on a holiday himself and find himself in a town where, because of some provision in the Bill, he would be allowed to have no food. I am not aware that refreshment houses are excluded.

Mr. McGowan

There is another amendment down to deal with that matter.

Mr. Lemass

All shops do not close on public holidays, and we are not compelling them to do it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 57:—

In page 14, at the end of Section 28, to insert the following new sub-section:—

(3) In this section the expression "salary or wages" shall in relation to the member of the staff of a shop be construed as excluding overtime pay and any payment made for commencing work earlier or finishing work later than other members of the staff of such shop employed in similar work.

This amendment provides that in calculating the payment for such holidays, previous earnings should not be taken into account, that is earnings for, say, overtime or anything of an abnormal kind. It is the ordinary normal week's pay that must be taken as the basis.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I move amendment No. 58:—

In page 14, at the end of Section 28, to add the following new sub-section: —

(3) For the purpose of this section the expression "salary or wages" shall include in the case of a member of the staff of a shop to whom annual leave is allowed who, immediately before the commencement of such annual leave was entitled to receive as part of his remuneration either board or lodgings or both board and lodgings such allowance in respect thereof as is determined by the Shop Wages Board in respect to the district in which the shop is situated to be the cash value of such board or lodgings or board and lodgings as the case may be.

This amendment is designed to ensure that board and lodgings shall be taken into consideration when paying for holidays. The Minister is aware that in trade agreements this has been done. It is necessary that board and lodgings should be taken into account in calculating salary or wages.

Mr. Lemass

The proposal in the amendment seems equitable but I do not see how we are going to enforce it. I do not think it would be possible for the Shop Wages Board to deal with that question, district by district, having regard to the circumstances prevailing in different districts. If we could take a purely arbitrary figure and say that that shall be regarded as an allowance in respect of board and lodging, it would be the nearest we could get to it.

Mr. W. O'Brien

That is the position in Dublin City.

Mr. Heron

There might be a case made for different figures in different districts.

Mr. Lemass

If we were to try to insert a figure in the Bill it would have to be a figure which would be equitable in all cases, even though it might be less than what would be the practice in certain trades in some areas.

Mr. Heron

The Minister recognises that, as the Bill stands, a shop assistant, part of whose remuneration consists of board and lodging, would actually lose that and it would not go into his holiday pay.

Mr. Lemass

But the Bill does not compel him to lose it.

Mr. Heron

Will the Minister meet the point by putting down an amendment himself at a later stage?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

This appears to be an equitable amendment and I will support it. I quite see that in every case the value of the support of a man could hardly come before the Shop Wages Board. There is a difficulty in that, but it seems to me that in most cases you would probably get an agreed figure between the employer and employee. I think if the principle were embodied in the Bill it could be worked out. What I suggest now is rather tentative, but what occurs to me is that we might indicate such a figure as the employer and employee would agree upon as the value of his support and, in default of agreement, I would suggest, not the Shop Wages Board, but the ordinary district court.

Mr. Lemass

There are difficulties in determining what constitutes board and lodging and in making provision for a person who has board or part board, or board and lodging or part board and lodging. I think the best way to deal with it would be upon some percentage basis of the cash earnings, so that there will be no room for disagreement. The possibility of a large number of cases going to the district court or to the Shop Wages Board does not appeal to me. I would prefer to have an arbitrary arrangement so that where he has board and lodging he will get his cash earnings plus a percentage.

Mr. W. O'Brien

What of the man with 5/- a week?

Mr. Lemass

You are up against a difficulty there.

Mr. Heron

Something on those lines was done in the case of the fixing of agricultural wages.

Mr. Lemass

They put a cash value.

Mr. Heron

Yes, on board and lodgings and perquisites. The same thing could be done here, whether by the Minister or the wages board would be a matter for future consideration. We are mainly concerned to ensure that there will be some value given to board and lodgings and that the employee on holiday will get compensation in his wages for the loss of that.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy agrees to leave the matter over, I will see what I can produce on the next stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 14, before Section 29, to insert the following new section: —

So much of this Part of this Act as relates to annual leave of members of staffs of shops and pay in respect of annual leave shall apply in respect of railway refreshment-car attendants, and for the purposes of such application —

(a) a railway refreshment-car attendant shall be deemed to be a member of the staff of a special — trade shop, and

(b) the railway company by which a railway refreshment-car attendant is employed shall be deemed to be the proprietor of a special-trade shop.

This amendment is designed to secure that railway refreshment-car attendants will be entitled to an annual holiday under this part of the Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

All the railway refreshment-car attendants get is an annual holiday; there is no provision for a half-holiday?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

As a matter of fact, I believe they get it and there will probably be no trouble, but there is no actual provision for a half-holiday.

Mr. Lemass

We are bringing them into the Bill to this extent, that we are giving them 14 days' annual leave.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister may be left hungry the next time he travels by train.

Mr. Lemass

I went into the matter carefully and I am sure the Deputy will appreciate some of the difficulties. We may have to deal with them separately. I ascertained that if we were to give them a half-holiday, we might be doing the attendants a considerable injustice, because they could not get the half-holiday except at the other end of the line. For instance, a man starting out in the morning for Cork would have to have his half-holiday in Cork, and possibly he might have to stay in Cork overnight.

Mr. Heron

Unless he could get back on another train?

Mr. Lemass

Quite so, but that would be a very poor kind of half-holiday. Their conditions of work are such that they cannot be brought into the Shops Bill, whatever other Bill they may be brought into.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 60:—

In page 15, before Section 29 (3), to insert the following four new sub-sections: —

(3) Where the period of annual leave allowed to a member of the staff of a non-special-trade shop falls wholly within one week neither sub-section (1) nor sub-section (2) of this section shall apply in respect of that week.

(4) Where the period of annual leave allowed to a member of the staff of a Sunday-trading shop falls wholly within two weeks, neither sub-section (1) nor sub-section (2) of this section shall apply in respect of those weeks.

(5) Where the period of annual leave allowed to a member of the staff of a non-special-trade shop falls within two weeks, sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply only in respect of such one of those weeks as the proprietor of such shop may select, and the day specified in a notice under the said sub-section (2) in the week so selected shall not be a day which falls within such period of annual leave.

(6) Where the period of annual leave allowed to a member of the staff of a Sunday-trading shop falls within three weeks, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say: —

(a) neither sub-section (1) nor sub-section (2) of this section shall apply in respect of the second of those weeks,

(b) sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply only in respect of such one of the first or third of those weeks as the proprietor of such shop may select and the day specified in a notice under the said sub-section (2) in the week so selected shall not be a day falling within such period of annual leave.

Section 29 provides for a half-holiday each week to the staffs of a non-special-trade shop or a Sunday-trading shop. This amendment seeks to ensure that a worker will not be entitled to an extra half-day in respect of any week during which he had leave and, if such leave covers part of two consecutive weeks, the employer may not appoint one half-holiday in such a way that it falls on a day during which the assistant is on leave. A similar provision is made in cases where the workers are entitled to 14 days' consecutive leave and the leave might be spread over three weeks. It is a fairly cumbersome amendment, but that is the effect of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 61:—

In page 15, at the end of Section 29, to insert the following new sub-section: —

In this Part of this Act the expression "statutory half-holiday" means a day on which a half-holiday is allowed in pursuance of this section.

The definition is supposed to be inserted here for the purpose of amendment No. 63.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 62: —

In page 16, Section 31 (1), to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph: —

(b) in case such member does shop work for more than two hours but not more than four hours, a half-holiday.

The Bill as it stands provides that where an assistant works four hours on Sunday he is entitled to a half-day, and if he works more than four hours he is entitled to a whole day. Deputies will recollect the case made on behalf of the chemists. I have been considering the representations made by them, and I think it is not unreasonable to provide that where a member of the staff works for not more than two hours on Sunday the obligation to provide a holiday or half-holiday in lieu should not apply. That is the effect of the amendment. Where the assistant works not more than two hours, no consequences arise. Where he works more than two hours and not more than four hours he becomes entitled to a half-day in lieu of the Sunday work. If he works more than four hours he becomes entitled to a whole day. That meets the representations made on behalf of the chemists, and I think it is not an unreasonable provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 63: —

In page 16, before Section 31 (2), to insert the following new sub-section: —

(2) Where —

(a) a member of the staff of a shop is entitled in any week to a half-holiday under this section. and

(b) the proprietor of such shop allows such member a whole holiday on the day in such week which is in respect of such member a statutory half-holiday,

such proprietor shall be deemed to have allowed such member a half-holiday under this section on that day.

Shop assistants generally are entitled to a half-day a week, and in certain cases they will be entitled to another half-day as compensation for Sunday work. The amendment provides that the granting of one whole day in the relevant week will discharge the responsibility for giving two half-days. The amendment provides that this shall be given on the statutory half-holiday. That is why the statutory half-holiday was defined in amendment No. 61.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I thought that was in the Bill already. I thought you could have two half-holidays on the same day.

Mr. Lemass

You could.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

You could have given a half-holiday in the morning.

Mr. Lemass

That could not have been done because the half-holiday defined in the Bill was for the second part of the day.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Heron

I move amendment No. 64, on behalf of Deputy Norton:—

In page 16, line 50, Section 33 (1), to delete the word "six" and substitute the word "twelve".

The purpose of the amendment is to provide a minimum of 12 days' holidays instead of six, as the Bill provides. It has been a well-established practice in shops in the cities and in the larger towns, at any rate, as long as I remember, to allow shop assistants a fortnight's holidays or 12 working days' holidays in the year, apart from bank holidays. I think that the Minister will recognise that that is the practice at present in Dublin City and most of the larger towns. I happen to know that, even in the smaller centres, there are existing agreements in a great many cases between shop assistants' organisations and local shopkeepers or shopkeepers' organisations providing, amongst other things, for a continuous holiday of 12 days during the summer leave period. As the purpose of this Bill is to protect the unorganised shop workers, I think that what is a well-established practice should be accepted as the standard for minimum conditions in this Bill. I, therefore, appeal to the Minister to accept 12 days instead of six days as the leave period.

Mr. Lemass

I intimated on Committee Stage that this was one of the provisions of the Bill upon which the Government had made up its mind and by which it must stand. We are only providing for a statutory minimum. In so far as trade unions have secured agreements providing for longer holidays, these agreements will stand. There is nothing in this Bill to invalidate or upset these agreements in any way. We merely fixed the statutory period as one week. When we shall have that one week generally recognised and accepted as a normal feature of employment, then we can consider moving forward. At that time, I think we should try to move forward in a uniform way in respect of all employments. So long as there is a minimum statutory period provided in the case of industrial employment, the same minimum should apply here and in all employments and the possibility of increasing that period can be considered later. For many employers, this is a not inconsiderable expense and a new expense. They have not become accustomed to it and it will be some time before people will come to regard this annual holiday arrangement as a normal and natural provision. When that occurs, we can consider lengthening the period but, at the moment, we have done as much as we should do in fixing a statutory period of one week.

Mr. McGowan

If this amendment provided for a 12-day period for all employees, I might not be in entire agreement with it, but when we are dealing with shop assistants specifically, we are dealing with people who are a race apart. They generally live away from home, either in "digs" or on their employers' premises. They have to work on Saturday night until the shop closes. Their six-day holiday would, therefore, start on Sunday morning or late on Saturday night. As travelling facilities are not as good on Sundays as on week-days, the assistant has to stay in his place of employment or in the town on Sunday, with the result that his holidays are reduced to four or five days out of the six. In order to resume work on the following Monday morning, he has to travel on Saturday, owing to lack of facilities on Sunday, so that he has really only Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday as a holiday.

When I moved this amendment on Committee Stage, I intimated that it was only giving legislative sanction to what was already the general practice. I think the Minister was inclined to disagree with that and say that he had not heard of it. Since then, I have made a great many inquiries and I have ascertained that this practice is nearly universal in the country and, particularly, in the larger towns. Numerous agreements have been made providing for 12 days' holidays. The City of Dublin is chock full of these agreements and, even in Mullingar and elsewhere throughout Southern Ireland, it is the practice. In view of the fact that the shop assistant generally lives away from home, there is a strong case to be made for special treatment in his case.

Mr. Lemass

We could argue this problem for a month, but it is a matter on which argument is not much use.

Mr. Heron

Does not the Minister recognise that it is the established custom of the trade to give a fortnight's holidays and that that was so before there was much trade union organisation or legislation?

Mr. Lemass

Outside certain trades in certain areas, I do not think it is an established custom. In so far as it is the custom, we are not interfering with it.

Mr. Dillon

So far as I am aware, it is the established custom in all shops, even in rural Ireland, to provide 14 days' holidays for assistants where more than one assistant is employed.

Mr. Lemass

I am anxious to get the statutory provisions relating to all classes of workers on a uniform basis. Otherwise, there will be a certain amount of uneasiness and unrest which will make it more difficult to secure uniform development.

Mr. Heron

Surely the Minister will agree that the minimum should be the prevailing practice.

Mr. McGowan

When you fix a minimum, there is an incentive to treat it as the maximum.

Mr. Lemass

Up to the present, the law provided for no holidays and yet you had the universal practice, as we are told, of giving 14 days' leave. On that basis we should go to three weeks.

Question:—"That the word proposed to be deleted stand"— put and declared carried.

Mr. Dockrell

I move amendment No. 65: —

In page 16, before Section 33 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where in any employment year the proprietor of a special-trade shop has allowed or purposes to allow any member of the staff of such shop a whole holiday on one or more of the public holidays enumerated in Section 27 of this Act such proprietor may deduct a corresponding number of whole holidays from the 14 consecutive whole holidays specified in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of this section and such proprietor shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of this section in such employment year when he allows such member of the staff of such shop the reduced number of consecutive whole holidays.

While there are plenty of special-trade shops which keep busy on bank holidays, there is a smaller class of special-trade shops which cater for the business community to which that does not apply. The Minister is probably aware that a certain number of shops in Dublin serve meals for a number of the business community. When a bank holiday comes along, these shops shut up. If they kept open, none of their customers would put in an appearance. I am sure that there are similar places in other centres. My amendment proposes that on days on which these shops would do no business, they can close up, allow their assistants a holiday, same as the business community, and deduct these holidays so given from the 14 days leave.

Mr. Lemass

I admit the force of the Deputy's argument but, having examined the matter, I am satisfied that the amendment would introduce such a complication of the Bill as not to be worth while. It is probably true of all shops that there are days in the year when they could shut up because there is no business to be done. If we were to allow these shopkeepers to spread the annual leave of their assistants over these individual days, we would destroy the whole principle of annual leave. These shops are permitted to keep open on public holidays and to employ their assistants. Because there is no business to be done, they do not avail of that permission. I suppose there is hardly a shop in the country which would not find itself precisely in that position on some one day in the year. This proposal is all very well from the point of view of the proprietors but, from the point of view of the assistants, it is obviously undesirable that the proprietor should have the right to give the assistant his annual leave not in a consecutive number of days but in individual days throughout the year. I do not think I could agree to the amendment, even though, when argued from the Deputy's point of view, there appears to be something to be said for it.

Mr. Dockrell

Possibly the Minister has overlooked the point. I am suggesting this only in respect of bank holidays.

Mr. Lemass

I know.

Mr. Dockrell

I thought the Minister was arguing in respect of ordinary days, and with that I should entirely agree. There are certain days when the proprietor would find himself doing no business, and it would be obviously unfair that he should be allowed to say: "We will shut up to-day and take one day off your leave." Why should the Minister arbitrarily put these people into a class to which they do not belong? That is the point I am making. They take their business from the business community and they serve the business community. On a public holiday the majority of the refreshment houses are serving holiday-makers and that is what makes them busy and that is why you want them to keep open. It would be obviously absurd to insist on a refreshment house keeping open on a public holiday when it can do no business. I can understand the Minister's point of view. He does not want a special-trade shop to be allowed to dodge from one class to the other, but I think that with certain safeguards which the Minister could very easily draw up they might be allowed to do that.

I think the Minister will realise that in the working of Acts such as this there should be a certain amount of flexibility. I do not want that flexibility to be used for the purpose of evasion, but I submit that it is merely bringing the Act into ridicule to ask a person to keep open on a day on which he can do no business at all. It is not a question of his getting up in the morning and discovering that he cannot do business on that particular day, which was what I rather thought the Minister was suggesting. I should like the Minister to look into this matter and to see whether, with proper safeguards, this question could not be further dealt with. The Minister will appreciate my point when I say that there are special-trade shops which come into a different category. Although they are special-trade shops, they come into the category of ordinary business houses. They open and close with them. That is the point I wanted to make.

Mr. Lemass

In admitting the force of that argument, I have, nevertheless, to plead the extraordinary complication which it would introduce into the Bill if we were to attempt to distinguish between shops, not merely by reference to the nature of the trade they do, but to the character of their clients. That, I think, is what Deputy Dockrell is suggesting. We take these restaurants and refreshment houses, and put them in a special category, and recognising what the ordinary circumstances under which they carry on their business are, we give them certain special provisions different from those applying to ordinary shops. The Deputy wants us to go further. He asks us to divide these restaurants and refreshment houses into two classes according to the general character of their clients. I do not think we could do that without introducing very great complications into the Bill and creating the risk of weakening its enforcement and permitting the evasion to which the Deputy has referred. The inspector, or whoever might be charged with its enforcement, cannot easily distinguish between one type of refreshment house and another. The net result of the position in which these shops find themselves because of the provisions of the Bill is that they are obliged to give 14 days' consecutive leave instead of seven. I think we have to leave it at that as the easiest way of adapting the Bill to the circumstances of the trade.

Mr. Dockrell

We seem to be at cross purposes. The amendment says: —

Where in any employment year the proprietor of a special-trade shop has allowed or purposes to allow any member of the staff of such shop a whole holiday on one or more of the public holidays enumerated in Section 27 of this Act such proprietor may deduct a corresponding number of whole holidays from the 14 consecutive whole holidays....

I am not asking that their assistants should be allowed less than 14 days, because I quite agree with the Minister that they are refreshment houses, and that is the law for them. What I am suggesting is that the Minister, with all due respect to him, is doing something really absurd in asking people to keep open on a day when they do no business, or to shut up and pay their assistants on a day on which they earn no money. I do not want to put them in any better or worse position than other refreshment houses. I merely want a certain amount of flexibility and I suggest that, with proper safeguards, it could be worked. I do not know whether a notice in the shop or the special advising of somebody would satisfy the Minister. I am not seeking to assist evasion, but the Minister will see that there is undoubted hardship in relation to this limited class which does a special trade and which is tied up with the business community.

Mr. Lemass

I am sure it is the experience of every shop proprietor that there are days when he has to open his shop and pay his assistants while he does no business. I do not think it is possible to deal with these cases in the manner the Deputy suggests. I think it would be impossible to keep cheek on them. We can distinguish between shops according to the class of business they do—a restaurant from a drapery shop and a drapery shop from a railway bookstall —but to distinguish between shops and to make different provisions because of the general character of their clients would be an impossible task, and that is what the Deputy is suggesting. The net result of the position is that the proprietors of these shops are entitled to keep their shops open on bank holidays. If they do not do so because they are not likely to do any business, that is their concern, but it does not exempt them from the obligation of giving annual leave to an employee.

Mr. Dockrell

Will the Minister keep an open mind in case an amendment that would satisfy him is suggested between this and the Report Stage?

Mr. Lemass

I would like to see the amendment. I have always an open mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 66: —

In page 18, to delete Section 33 (7).

This has to be taken in connection with amendment No. 67. Section 33 (7) made it illegal for a shop assistant on leave to work in another shop, and amendment No. 67 provides that a shop assistant may not assist in or do any industrial work on any day on which he is allowed a whole holiday or on any half-day he is allowed a half-holiday. Amendment No. 67 also provides that any shop assistant acting in contravention of the section will be guilty of an offence. That amendment was suggested during the course of the Committee Stage discussions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 67: —

In page 20, before Section 36, but in part IV, to insert the following new section: —

(1) It shall not be lawful for a member of the staff of a shop to do for any other person for reward any shop work or industrial work—

(a) at any time on any day on which he is allowed under this Act a whole holiday, or

(b) on any day on which he is allowed under this Act a half-holiday, after the time at which such half-holiday commences.

(2) If a member of the staff of a shop acts in contravention of this section, such member shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 68:—

In page 22, at the end of Section 41, to insert the following new sub-section: —

(2) Where an agreement has been signed (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by or on behalf of a body or bodies substantially representative, in the opinion of the Minister, of proprietors of shops of a particular class in a particular area and by or on behalf of a body or bodies substantially representative, in the opinion of the Minister, of a particular class of members of the staffs of such shops whereby rates of salary, wages or other reward payable to such members are regulated or restricted, and such agreement is sent to the Minister by one or more of the parties thereto, with a request that it may be referred to the board under this sub-section, the Minister may, in his discretion, either refer or refuse to refer such agreement to the beard, and, if the Minister so refers such agreement to the board, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say —

(a) the board shall hold an investigation into the subject matter of such agreement, but shall before commencing such investigation publish in some newspaper circulating in such area, a notice specifying their intention to hold such investigation and inviting interested parties to submit evidence, and shall consider any evidence so submitted;

(b) on the conclusion of such investigation, the board shall do one of the following things, that is to say: —

(i) make, subject to the provisions of this Act, rules fixing minimum rates of wages (which shall be the same as the rates of wages specified in such agreement) for such class, as the board thinks proper and specifies in such rules, of members of staffs of shops of such class, as the board thinks proper and specifies in such rules, situate in such area as the board thinks proper and specifies or delimits in or by such rules, or

(ii) report to the Minister that in their opinion it is not expedient to make such rules.

The question of existing wages agreements was raised for discussion on the Committee Stage and I intimated my intention of making some provision in relation to them in this part of the Bill. We are setting up a shop wages board for the purpose of fixing minimum wages, subject to confirmation by the Minister. This amendment provides that where an agreement, whether made before or after the passing of the Act, has been made between representative bodies, and such agreement is sent to the Minister by one or other of the parties, the Minister may refer that agreement to the board, and the board may make rules fixing the minimum rates of wages for the classes of shops in the area specified by the board, or may report to the Minister that in their opinion it is not expedient to make such rules. The amendment is put in that way, as generally speaking it may be inadvisable to apply it to all shops in an area selling a certain class of goods the terms of such agreement. Furthermore, as Deputies are aware, the Agreement Wages Register adopted under the Conditions of Employment Act of 1936 has not proved operative. It is not easy to discover why it has not operated, the only explanation being that there are reasons which are not apparent on the surface while, on the other hand, minor changes in the agreement cannot be made to make registration possible. As some Deputies are aware, some agreements were presented for registration but could not be accepted because of minor defects, such as the defect of having no definite provision for its duration. The Act provided that agreements must be expressed to operate for not less than one year. Some of the agreements sent for registration could not be registered merely because they had not that provision, and yet no change was made in the terms of the agreement to make registration possible. Some agreements had to be rejected as they covered matters other than rates of wages. I am having that section of the Conditions of Employment Act considered in consultation with parties likely to be interested in the amendment. If possible I prefer to work along that line, that is, to secure uniformity of wages in various occupations by means of registered agreements, rather than by rules made by the board but enforceable by law. Because of the fact that we had run into such difficulties along that line, I thought it desirable to experiment along another line. I think the special circumstances that prevail in the retail trade necessitate another line. What we propose here is that the agreement may be presented. Effect will not be given to the wages rates prescribed in the agreement by any firm on registration but, instead, the Wages Board will examine the agreement and make rules prescribing the wages, but this determines what shall be the limit of their operations. In other words, we get over all the difficulties that occurred on the question of the registration of an agreement by giving the board power to say how long it shall operate, to what class of shops it will apply, and over what area. This way will be found more effective, even if from another point of view, it is less attractive than the other one.

Mr. Dillon

Between whom will these agreements be made originally?

Mr. Lemass

Bodies that, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of the workers and the employees concerned.

Mr. Dillon

Not between a body representative of the workers and one employer.

Mr. Lemass

No. That was one of the difficulties we encountered about the other Act. In some particular trades there was a limited number of employers, and although every employer signed the agreement, we could not register them because they signed individually and not as a body.

Mr. Heron

I think the Minister will find that that is more the practice in shops than in factories; where employers have no representative body and the agreement has to be made individually.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think we can get over that. The difficulty in the case of the individual is insurmountable. I have been examining legislation of this kind enacted in Czechoslovakia and Austria, and in every case they found it necessary to prescribe that an agreement made with an individual or an individual employer could not be accepted for registration. Agreements have to be made by some body that is representative. The abnormal situation where every employer signs, but did not sign as-a body, can be got over by arrangement between themselves.

Mr. Lawlor

The question of registering agreements has not been often raised.

Mr. Lemass

It has not, and we want a different method. We get over the immediate difficulty in this particular way. We take the agreement but we do not try to register it, as it may have been drawn up in vague words which may relate to a lot of other things besides wages, and it may contain other features which make registration difficult. We take the agreement and extract from it the rates of wages, embodying these in an order to the board, authorising the board to define the area, the type of shop or other circumstance which will determine the operation of the rates. That will get over the essential difficulty of wages agreement rates, which is this, that agreements are not phrased in legal language at all but are phrased in language for the purpose of making them understood, which, of course, is totally unsuitable for a document made a legal document, in effect, by the process of registration. This system will prove better, although I would prefer the other if it could be made to work.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister gave one account of registration. I was wondering if foolish workers or foolish employers prevented registration from coming about. I think the Minister would want to go a little further in this matter. He told us about things that should not be in the agreements. I am afraid he will have to get on or get off with regard to agreements that he wants to have registered. I suggested when discussing the Conditions of Employment Act that he should draw up a skeleton agreement. Enterprising bodies think they could send in an agreement and ask the Minister to use the blue pencil on it, so as to make it perfect. The Minister surely will see that if there is to be a registered agreement he must start himself by providing some sort of a skeleton on which to work. I suggest to him that in this Bill he should have a skeleton schedule which could be filled in when agreements are come to. That would do away with the difficulty facing bodies of employers and employees who want to draw up an agreement for registration and find that it is impossible to do so. That, I suggest, is absurd. After all, if an agreement is going to be enforced the provisions that ought to prevail are those agreed to between employers and workers. Under this scheme are we going to have a board which will say to the workers, "Well, you should not have put down so and so," and to the employers, "you should have put down so and so." If the Minister provided the skeleton schedule that I have spoken of — one that would simply need to be filled in — it would, I suggest, go a long way towards making agreement possible, because there is no doubt that there were bodies of employers and workers who were ready to draw up agreements for registration and found that it was not possible to do so.

Mr. Lemass

I would not say that they found it was impossible, but what I do say is that we found employers and organisations very reluctant to accept the excellent advice offered to them by officers of my Department. The fact is that, although we have had some 50 documents presented to us, we have not got one agreement that we could have registered, and that is why we are providing a different way here.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Last week there were no difficulties, but this week there are.

Mr. Lemass

There are difficulties, but I think they are all avoidable.

Mr. Dockrell

What has the Minister to say about the skeleton schedule that I suggested?

Mr. Lemass

Under this Bill it does not matter what the form of the agreement is, provided it clearly sets out the rates of wages. The board will extract these and put them into its own document, which presumably it will take care to see will be in the proper form.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Benson

May I raise a question on the section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The sections are not open for discussion on this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Surely they are on the Recommittal Stage of the Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

For the amendments only.

Mr. McGowan

I move amendment No. 69:—

In page 25, Section 50, to delete sub-sections (6) and (7).

Section 50 is the section which makes provision for sanitary and other arrangements in shops. It sets out the conditions and requirements to be fulfilled, particularly with reference to sanitary conditions, means of lighting, ventilation and washing facilities for shop assistants and other employees, and lays down that certain standards must be maintained. Sub-sections (6) and (7), which I am proposing to delete, give the power of exemption to provide suitable sanitary convenience and to maintain suitable washing facilities. The power of exemption is to be exercised by the local sanitary authority. This Bill and relevant legislation is, I suggest, doing one good thing for this country, and that is: it is taking away from local bodies, from local jugglers, certain power that they have hitherto exercised.

Mr. Dillon

What has Deputy Corish to say to that very disrespectful observation in regard to local bodies?

Mr. McGowan

I submit to the House that if these two sub-sections are allowed to remain in the Bill, vesting in the local sanitary authority the power of exemption, that the whole scheme is going to fail absolutely. We all know that more political juggling goes on at these local boards than in Barnum's circus.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Name them.

Mr. McGowan

I repeat that and emphasise it. If the local boards are largely composed, as in many cases they are, of the proprietors of shops, then, naturally, they will grant the exemptions.

Mr. Dillon

Why should they?

Mr. L.J. Walsh

The Deputy is paying no compliment to the Labour representatives on local boards.

Mr. McGowan

Why should this power of exemption be left with local boards? The idea behind the amendment is that the obligation shall be placed on the proprietors of shops to provide suitable sanitary conveniences and maintain washing facilities. In Section 49 "the expression ‘suitable and sufficient' means, in relation to any shop or part of a shop, suitable and sufficient having regard to the circumstances and conditions affecting that shop or part." I suggest that gives adequate protection to shop proprietors, and therefore I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and to take away the power he proposes to give to those local sanitary authorities.

Mr. Lemass

The Bill provides that in every shop there shall be provided suitable and sufficient sanitary accommodation and suitable and sufficient washing accommodation. I think it will be accepted as reasonable that where there are special circumstances which make it impossible to provide suitable or sufficient conveniences, and where such suitable and sufficient accommodation is otherwise conveniently available, that there should be this power of exemption. We come to the point, then, which is the most suitable body to determine whether that exemption should be given. I cannot for the life of me see any more suitable body than the sanitary authority of the district concerned. That, in my opinion, is the appropriate authority to exercise the very limited discretion permitted in sub-sections (6) and (7). As Deputies know, Part VI of this Bill is only in here for reasons of convenience. Ordinarily, these provisions would appear in a Public Health Bill promoted by the Department of Local Government and Public Health because they deal with public health matters. If that part of the Bill appeared under the auspices of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I do not think that anyone would question the selection of the sanitary authority as the most suitable authority to exercise the power of discretion conferred in these two sub-sections. I certainly could not suggest any more suitable authority than the local sanitary authority for that purpose. The discretion should be there where there are special circumstances and where adequate and suitable accommodation is otherwise available, and if it should be there, it can be carried out by the sanitary authority and not by anybody else.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

What is the Minister's opinion as to what is suitable and sufficient sanitary accommodation in a village where there is no sewerage scheme and no water supply?

Mr. Lemass

I would require notice of that.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There are plenty of them.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy McGowan had not these in mind.

Mr. McGowan

The Minister evidently had them in mind when he put into it the provision regarding the conditions and circumstances.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister found himself in such a village, the consequences would be perfectly disastrous to his health.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Benson

I move amendment No. 70:—

In page 25, before Section 50 (8), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where the sanitary authority refuse to make all exemption order under either or both of the preceding sub-sections the proprietor may appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health against such refusal.

The Minister, I think, has admitted to a certain extent the necessity for this, seeing that in sub-section (9) (b) he provides for an appeal against the desire of the sanitary authority to cancel an exemption order. It seems to me only equitable that if you may appeal against the desire to cancel an order, you should also be able to appeal against the refusal to make the order originally. It is possible that the circumstances might all fulfil the requirements of the Bill and yet, for some purely local reason, the sanitary authority might refuse to grant an exemption, and I think the proprietor should have the right to appeal against that.

Mr. Lemass

I have been asked by the Department of Local Government to resist the amendment vigorously and, therefore, I must do it. It is their view that an amendment of this kind would be an invitation to lodge an appeal in all cases in which exemption orders were refused. Furthermore, they hold that such an amendment would be contrary to the spirit of all the public health Acts which puts the final power in the hands of the local sanitary authority, and they are anxious to preserve that position and not have power to appeal from the sanitary authority to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Corish

It would make the administration of the public health law impossible.

Mr. Lemass

I think it would make it impossible. There would be an appeal in every case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 71 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 72:—

In page 27, at the end of Section 50, to insert the following new sub-section:—

Where a document is required by this section to be served on the proprietor of a shop, such document shall be addressed to such proprietor and shall be served on such proprietor in some one of the following ways, that is to say:—

(a) by delivering it to such proprietor;

(b) by leaving it at the address at which such proprietor ordinarily resides;

(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter addressed to such proprietor at the address at which he ordinarily resides.

For the purposes of this sub-section a company registered under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1924, shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its registered office, and every body corporate and every unincorporated body shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its principal office or place of business within the State.

This provides rules for the service of documents. I do not think any further explanation is required.

Mr. McGowan

"By leaving it at the address at which such proprietor ordinarily resides." What happens in the case of a lock-up shop?

Mr. Lemass

"By delivering it to such proprietor," or "by leaving it at the address at which such proprietor ordinarily resides."

Mr. McGowan

He may not reside in the shop.

Mr. Lemass

It is not the address of the shop.

Mr. McGowan

Would it not be better to have it addressed to the shop? Suppose the proprietor was on holidays, and it was addressed to his residence, it would never reach his shop.

Mr. Benson

Surely the point is, if a single proprietor is an unincorporated body. If he is, then he resides in his shop. If he is not an unincorporated body, he is not dealt with at all.

Mr. Lemass

He is. Anyway, the term covers it.

Mr. Dillon

The answer to that question is that the Minister has not the faintest notion.

Mr. Lemass

The term covers all such companies and every body corporate and every unincorporated body. I refer the Deputy to the relevant part of the Interpretation Act about which he waxed most eloquently when it was going through the House.

Mr. Dillon

If nobody knows what it means, it is agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 73:—

In page 27, at the end of Section 50, to insert the following new sub-section:—

An order made by a sanitary authority under this section shall be under their seal and shall be authenticated by the signature of their chief executive officer or his lawful deputy, and every notice proceeding from a sanitary authority under this section shall be signed by their chief executive officer or his lawful deputy.

This is another amendment which the Department of Local Government propose. It seems desirable to them for their own reasons. It is not of great importance from the point of view of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 27, at the end of Section 50, to insert the following new sub-section:—

Any document made or proceeding from a sanitary authority under this section may be proved by the production of a copy thereof certified to be a true copy by the person purporting to be the chief executive officer of such sanitary authority.

This is another amendment which the Department of Local Government and Public Health suggest. They have since suggested that they want to modify it in a slight respect and I may have to introduce an amendment to this amendment at the next stage to meet the wishes of the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Dillon

You would not like to withdraw it and re-introduce it?

Mr. Lemass

From our point of view it is more convenient to get it enacted now. I will consider that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 27, before Section 51. to insert the following new section:—

It shall be competent for a trade union representative of persons to whom this Act applies in the event of the failure of a sanitary authority to enforce the provisions of this Part of this Act to require such sanitary authority to secure compliance with the provisions aforesaid and for that purpose may, in default of such compliance, apply to a judge of the Circuit Court for the district in which such sanitary authority has its chief office and the court may, upon the hearing of such application, make such order as appears to the court to be just and equitable.

This amendment proposes to give the trade union representative of the employees power to take action in the Circuit Court in a case of failure of the sanitary authority to make an order. Deputy McGowan has given instances where there may be reason for members of the local sanitary authority to fail in their duty in this matter and we think the trade union ought to have the right to take action.

Mr. Lemass

This is an entirely different case from the other section in respect to which we discussed giving certain powers to a trade union. I think it would be very undesirable to give a trade union the right to prosecute a sanitary authority. I think the obvious course for a trade union to take in a case of that kind would be to report the matter to the Minister for Local Government or approach the Minister through the parliamentary representatives. It is the Minister for Local Government who should proceed against the sanitary authority if it is clear that it is not carrying out its duties.

Mr. McGowan

This turns on a recent decision given against the Distributive Workers' Union, which was discussed yesterday at length, which was that to succeed in an action for mandamus the person must be a good relator and have an interest. In other words, a shop assistant would be able to maintain an action for a mandamus against one of these local bodies, but the position would be rather peculiar. What employee is going to institute proceedings against his employer when he knows that in a very short time, for some reason or other, his services will be dispensed with? Is it not much better to give the power to his trade union and let them institute the proceedings and perhaps succeed? I consider that it would prevent vexatious litigation. In the case of, say, a malcontent employee, who has some grievance against his employer who may perhaps contemplate discharging him, what will happen? He may start an action for a mandamus and maintain it, whereas if the trade union were given power to do it and he went to his trade union, they, being sensible men, will not move if they see that they are going to be mulcted in costs, which in fact did occur in this particular case.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I suggest to Deputy McGowan that this is perfectly unworkable and hopeless. I do not know what it means. A Circuit Court judge has no power to give an order for a mandamus.

Mr. McGowan

He can get it in a special Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There is no Bill here. The amendment says that they may —

"apply to a judge of the Circuit Court... and the court may, upon the hearing of such application, make such order as appears to the court to be just and equitable."

I take it that that order must be within its existing jurisdiction. You cannot give jurisdiction in this way to a Circuit Court which it has not got. Therefore it would have no power to give a mandamus against the sanitary authority. Besides, this amendment does not even say that the order is to be made against the sanitary authority. It is so vague that the court may make an order against the individual without hearing him, because there is nothing about the individual being served.

Mr. McGowan

This is making a present of an idea to the Minister. We ask him to accept the principle of the thing and then the rest is another day's work.

Mr. Dillon

It is a very wide principle.

Mr. McGowan

I think that on the last occasion, although the Minister did not say that he would accept the amendment, he said that he would favourably consider giving trade unions power to prosecute. I suggest that this is practically consequential on the previous amendment put down. I cannot see any great difference.

Mr. Lemass

On the last occasion on which we discussed the powers of trade unions it was in relation to prosecutions for offences of an individual employer. Here we are talking about a sanitary authority, and I suggest that the way to deal with a sanitary authority that is neglecting its duty is through the Department of Local Government and Public Health. A trade union is not debarred from moving in the most effective way to compel such a sanitary authority to carry out its duty, namely, directly through the Department of Local Government or through their Parliamentary representatives. That is the way to do it, and that is why I would be disposed to oppose the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McGowan

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 27, before Section 51, to insert the following new section:—

If any person being either the owner or the occupier of a shop, who has incurred or is about to incur any expenses for the purpose of securing that the requirements of this Part of this Act are complied with in respect to such shop, alleges that the whole, or any part of the expense ought to be borne by any other person having an interest in the premises, he may apply to the district court for the district in which the shop is situated, and that court may, upon the hearing of such application, make such order concerning the expenses or their apportionment as appears to the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the terms of any contract between the parties, to be just and equitable, and any order made under this section may direct that any such contract as aforesaid shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with the terms of the order.

Believe it or not, this is an amendment which I think would be of considerable help to a shopkeeper. Under this part of the Bill, a sanitary authority can compel a shopkeeper to carry out certain improvements and if he does not do so, certain penalties are provided. These improvements will involve the shopkeeper in certain expense. In some cases it may involve him in considerable expense. The idea underlying the amendment is that where that particular shopkeeper happens to be a tenant, paying rent to a landlord, he shall have the right to apply to the local district court, in default of agreement, to have the expenses which he has incurred apportioned between himself and the landlord. I think it is a very reasonable provision. There is a provision absolutely similar to it in the 1934 Act passed by the British House of Commons. I think it is only reasonable that a shopkeeper tenant should be compensated in some small way by his landlord for such expense. I think it is a very reasonable amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I am advised that it is not necessary. I am advised that the formidable provisions of sub-section (2), Section 50, meet the position. I cannot say that of my own knowledge because the sub-section has reference to various public health Acts and sub-sections of Acts and what they exactly provide I do not know.

Mr. Dillon

Sub-section (2)?

Mr. Benson

Sub-section (11).

Mr. Lemass

Pardon me, I should have said sub-section (11) of Section 50. No Deputy can understand that from a casual reading of it, but I am told that is the position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 77: —

In page 27, before Section 52, to insert the following new section: —

(1) A sanitary authority shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act appoint such inspectors as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may direct, and every inspector so appointed shall be deemed to be a sanitary officer within the meaning of Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly.

(2) The Minister for Local Government and Public Health may, in lieu of, or in addition to directing the appointment by a sanitary authority of inspectors under the immediately preceding sub-section, assign to any of the sanitary officers of such sanitary authority under Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, such duties in relation to the carrying out of this Part of this Act as he may think proper, and any such officer to whom such duties shall have been so assigned shall perform such duties and shall, if so declared by the said Minister, be deemed to be an inspector appointed by such sanitary authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(3) References in the next following section of this Act to an inspector of a sanitary authority shall be construed as references to a person appointed or deemed to have been appointed under this section an inspector by such sanitary authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

This is another amendment which is suggested by the Department of Local Government and Public Health and deals with procedure. Again, there will be some drafting changes in this amendment to be made on the next stage.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

This amendment means that sanitary authorities will be obliged by this Act to appoint extra inspectors.

Mr. Lemass

If necessary.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

They shall appoint such inspectors as the Minister shall direct. Suppose they have enough inspectors at the present moment who are able to carry out the ordinary sanitary work and do what will not be the very heavy work imposed under this Bill?

Mr. Lemass

If they have enough inspectors, the appointment of additional inspectors will not be required.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It gives the Minister considerable power over sanitary authorities which he had not before.

Mr. Lemass

It is a new power, but I think it is necessary.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister for Local Government is stealing a march on them.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 78: —

In page 27, line 27, Section 52 (1), to delete the words "appointed by" and substitute the word "of."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 79: —

In page 27, before Section 54, to insert the following new section:—

(1) Whenever power is conferred on the Minister for Local Government and Public Health by this Part of this Act to make any order or take any other action, the said Minister may, before exercising such power, hold a public inquiry into the matter which is the subject of the exercise of such power.

(2) Article 32 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall apply in respect of every public inquiry held under this section in like manner as the said Article applies in respect of the local inquiries mentioned therein.

The provisions of this amendment are obvious. I shall move at the next stage to have the term "public inquiry" replaced by "local inquiry," which, I think, would be better.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I should like to ask the Minister a question with reference to Schedules because I rather understood from what the Minister said that he was going to amend paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule, with regard to the tea interval. I suggested to the Minister that that should not apply where work finished at 7 o'clock, and I understood that he was going to bring in an amendment. I therefore did not put down an amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I said I would look into it, and when I looked into it I found that the best thing I could do was to leave it alone. I am opposed strongly to an amendment of the Second Schedule. I think that, if the Deputy examines it further, he will find that whatever alteration might be made is not worth while. From many points of view, it is better to leave it as it stands.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

If a man goes off work at 7 o'clock, it is unnecessary that he should be compelled to go off at 6 to take his tea and come back at 6.30.

Mr. Lemass

That is not what is involved. It says that where the hours of work include the period from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., a half an hour's interval shall be allowed for tea. If we were to change that, we would have to extend it to 7.30——

Mr. Dillon

Or 8?

Mr. Lemass

——before an assistant would be entitled to a half an hour for tea. I do not think that is desirable. If he does work until 7, he should get this break for a tea interval.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister realise what the position is? In a country town the assistants generally live at the other end of the town or of the village. Ordinarily, in the country, as in the United States, the people do not take afternoon tea. The meal in the evening is supper, and they frequently take no other meal before they retire. If you send them home for half an hour, you are going to extend their work by half an hour longer than would be otherwise necessary, and they will not take their tea at that time, because it is not suitable. After their work they ordinarily go home, change their working clothes, and then sit down to what they call tea, but which nobody in Dublin would call tea. In Dublin it would be called supper. They take that at their leisure, then dress, and go out for the evening to pictures or to some other entertainment. This, instead of being a benefit to the country employee, is going to be an intolerable nuisance. You will have them breaking off work for half an hour and lounging round the town, and then they will have to remain in an hour longer than they otherwise would.

Mr. Lemass

If you extend the period, what will happen?

Mr. Dillon

If you extend the period, what is going to happen is that the existing arrangement will continue, whatever it may be. In many cases you will find that merchants in the country close their shops at 7 o'clock and send their assistants home. They cannot do that now, because if they remain open until 7 they are obliged to give the assistants half an hour for tea.

Mr. Lemass

If 7.30 would be better, I would be prepared to amend it. I thought it was not worth making the change.

Mr. Dillon

It is. You will find that an immense number of shops in the country close for the day at 7 o'clock and allow their assistants to go away. If you leave this as it is, it will mean that those shops will have to go through the form of putting their assistants out for half an hour. They will accordingly keep their shops open for an extra half-hour, instead of allowing their assistants to go away at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to make it 7.30.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When will the Report Stage be taken?

Mr. Lemass

I propose that it should be taken on Wednesday next.

Mr. Dillon

There must be some motion at this juncture, and there are a few submissions which I should like to make on that motion. What is the motion before the House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion is: —

That the Report Stage of this Bill be taken on Wednesday next.

Mr. Dillon

With reference to that, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions, and I want to direct the Labour Party's attention to this. What would be left undone if, instead of passing this immense and complicated measure, we passed a simple measure providing that all shops must close after having had their doors open for eight hours, and secondly that every shop must pay their assistants the minimum wage as fixed, or a greater wage? Is there anything in this elaborate and extremely difficult Bill to understand which would be left undone if you had a simple Bill providing those two things? I ask the Labour Party to digest that question.

Mr. McGowan

The Deputy wanted to open for 12 hours on Christmas Day.

Mr. Dillon

Yes. I wanted the overtime provisions suspended for Christmas week only.

Mr. Heron

That is the first exception.

Mr. Dillon

I submit to the Minister that, having in my opinion reasonably and effectively resisted an amendment from the Labour Party designed to prohibit the employment of persons under 15 in shops, on the ground that he would not enact such a provision until the school-leaving age was raised to 15, his general prohibition of overtime for persons under 16 years of age will operate exactly in the same way, making it impossible for any youth between the ages of 14 and 16 to get employment in a shop. I assert most positively that it will do so, because I know the first question always asked is: "Will you be 16 years before Christmas?" If not, the boy would only be a nuisance. He would be creating heart burnings and worry for the remainder of the employees, because when a rush time came it would be a case of: "Now, John, you go home, but everybody else must stay." You do not want a boy like that. This would operate to prevent employment as an apprentice of any youth who will not have attained the age of 16 years on 1st December following his employment. I think that is a great mistake. I think you are doing a very foolish thing. With the general provisions of the Bill, there is no danger of a general abuse arising in the way of slave driving of juveniles in the retail distribution trade. This distinction in respect of juveniles under 16 is simply going to upset the apprenticeship system in a way in which you do not want it upset. It is much better to abolish the whole system altogether, or else accept it with its admitted dangers, and not try half measures of this kind which will create nothing but confusion. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind. If he would only ask some people who know the trade he would discover that this prohibition of juvenile overtime will operate exactly the same as if he had prohibited altogether the admission to employment of juveniles under 16.

Mr. Lemass

I know the Deputy is wrong, and I will give him two reasons. Precisely the same argument was advanced when the previous Conditions of Employment Bill was before the House, and that Bill prescribed a 40-hour week for juveniles under 18. That was the ordinary working week prescribed, and it has not operated to reduce the number of such persons employed in industry. The second argument is that this provision prohibiting overtime for persons under 16 has been the law in Great Britain for some time and has not had that effect

Mr. Dillon

Wait and see.

Mr. Benson

In this Bill there is provision for the taking of an oath. When the Presidential Elections Bill was before this House there was in Section 30 a definite provision for oath and affirmation. As it was necessary there, is it or is it not necessary here?

Mr. Lemass

It is not necessary here. The Interpretation Bill makes it clear that an oath includes an affirmation.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday next.