I move to recommit the Bill for the purpose of the amendments.
Agreed.
Shops (Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1937—Second Recommittal.
I move amendment No. 1: —
In page 4, Section 2 (1), to delete lines 35 to 44 (inclusive) and substitute the following: —
the word "shop" includes—
(a) any premises in which any retail trade or business is carried on, excluding so much (if any) of such premises as is not used for the purpose of such retail trade or business;
(b) any premises in which goods are received direct from customers for the purpose of having the same dyed, cleaned, repaired, altered or laundered, excluding so much (if any) of such premises as is not used for such reception of such goods;
(c) any wholesale shop;
(d) any warehouse occupied—
(i) for the purposes of a retail trade or business, by the person carrying on such retail trade or business, or
(ii) by a wholesale dealer or merchant for the purposes of the business carried on by him in a wholesale shop;
(e) a hotel.
This amendment is for the purpose of redefining the word "shop." Various objections to the definition contained in the Bill were advanced by different Deputies during the discussions in the two Committee Stages we had. There was an objection by Deputy Benson that the definition might be held to cover premises used for industrial work, and an objection by Labour Deputies to the definition regarding wholesale warehouses. The new definition, I think, is more satisfactory from every point of view. It covers all the objections raised in Committee. It makes clear that premises used for industrial work are not included. The definition also covers warehouses occupied for the purposes of a retail trade or business by the person carrying on such retail trade or business, or by a wholesale dealer or merchant for the purposes of the business carried on by him in a wholesale shop. It is considered that the definition is more satisfactory than that which the Bill originally contained.
I have nothing to say to the amendment, except that I do not see why a hotel should be brought within the definition when you do not also include a refreshment house or licensed premises.
There is no definition of "hotel."
There is a definition of a hotel in the Bill. It is necessary to include a hotel as a shop for the purposes of the Bill, even though you have to define what a hotel is subsequently.
I only thought that if you brought in a hotel you should also bring in a refreshment house. Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 1a and 5a make way for amendment No. 18. They deal with the same point.
I move amendment No. 1a: —
In page 5, line 58, Section 2 (1), to insert before the word "means" the words "when used in relation to the District Court means prescribed by regulations made under this Act by the Minister for Justice and in every other case."
I think that the object of the amendment is obvious.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2: —
In page 6, line 9, Section 3, to delete the words "save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act".
The amendment is necessary because of a drafting error. The words are unnecessary and it is proposed to delete them.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3: —
In page 6, Section 3, line 10, to insert after the word "where" the words "or any vehicle from which" and in lines 11 and 12 to insert after the word "place" the words "or vehicle" and in line 13 to delete the word "there".
Some doubt was raised during previous discussions as to the applicability of the Bill to vehicles and I felt that, although the term "place" was wide enough to cover all possible interpretations of it, it would be better to put the matter beyond any doubt whatever. The amendment is proposed for the purpose of making it clear that the Bill will apply to sales from vehicles. A recent decision in Great Britain has, perhaps, strengthened the doubt and made it more necessary that the amendment should be effected.
Amendment put and agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy O'Brien, I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 6, before Section 5, to insert the following new section:—
Without prejudice to the generality of the powers of enforcement either expressly or otherwise conferred by this Act, it shall be competent for a trade union in its registered name to prosecute offences under any section of this Act.
The purpose of this amendment is fairly clear from the amendment itself. It is to give trade unions the right to prosecute under the Act. During the discussion on the previous stage of the Bill it was said by, I think, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney that there would be certain difficulties arising out of trades unions having the right to institute proceedings, mainly, I think, because it was held that a trade union, in the event of a vexatious prosecution, could not be sued. But that is not the case. There have actually been cases where trades unions have been sued in such circumstances.
Not in the event of a vexatious prosecution?
The case for having trades unions' officials as against trades unions, appearing in the Bill, would as a matter of fact be weaker from the point of view of the Deputy who urged that, because "a trade union official" might include any person who was any kind of official. It might be a part-time branch secretary of a trade union, for instance. It would be much better if the trade union itself were in a position to institute proceedings. The trade union would be a large responsible body, and it would be much less likely that vexatious proceedings would be instituted by a union than by an individual, and perhaps irresponsible, official of the union. The Minister I notice has gone some distance to meet the point by permitting an official to sue, but the Labour Party would prefer — and I think the Minister, if he gives the matter full consideration, would agree that it would be more satisfactory — that the union as a corporate body should proceed than that an individual trade union official should proceed.
From such examination as I have been able to give the matter I am satisfied that it would be unwise at this juncture to provide that a union, as such, should have the right to prosecute. It was mentioned here during an earlier discussion that it could be held that the funds of a union would be immune from penalties for malicious prosecution. In any event, I think if you were to confer this right upon a registered union as such it would be necessary to have a certain amount of research into the position of the union in respect of such matters, and to make consequential provisions which might or might not be acceptable to the union, but which would certainly be necessitated by considerations of elementary justice. In the circumstances, it is wiser to get the desired result with the least possible trouble, and therefore I have put forward an amendment which confers, not merely upon the Minister and aggrieved persons but also upon officials of registered trades unions, the right to prosecute. That is as far as it is safe to go under present circumstances.
Would not the Minister agree that vexatious proceedings would be much less likely in the case of a responsible trade union than in the case of an individual, and possibly an irresponsible, official? Also would he not agree that a union would give due consideration to the matter; that, if the union were suing, it would sue after the matter had been fully discussed by the executive committee of the union, whereas an individual official might possibly institute proceedings on his own?
Would he not be sacked for doing so?
That is another matter. It would not be necessary if the union could proceed.
You might get union officials who would do that, but as it would involve the union in substantial legal costs they would not do it twice.
If he prosecutes in his own capacity as secretary he cannot involve the union in costs?
Oh, no.
There is perhaps something to be said for the Minister's view that if an amendment of this nature were accepted it might necessitate some consequential amendments. I quite see that point, but still, in regard to vexatious litigation——
I gave the matter such consideration as was possible in the time at my disposal, and, while I admit that the research which I mentioned was not fully carried out, I satisfied myself that this was the safer course to take. I am as anxious as Deputies opposite to bring the unions into the picture as potential prosecutors, because, of course, their cooperation would be effective in securing enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. Aggrieved assistants may, for various reasons, be deterred from doing it. They may be satisfied that it is not in their own interests to do it, even if they have been offended against by some employer; but the trades unions, who would be more concerned with the interests of their members as a whole than with the interests of a particular individual, would no doubt take proceedings when the circumstances justified it. On that point of view I will admit that to give the power to the union as such appears to be better than giving it to the officials of the union, but, from such examination as I could make, it was fairly clear that you could not take the responsibility of doing that without prolonged examination of the consequential amendments which would have to be put in. That would involve considerable delay. It is a matter, therefore, of passing the Bill with the amendment which I propose, giving the right to officials of the union, or allowing it to stand over altogether.
Of course officials of the union have the power even where it is not stated?
Yes; but we take that stigma away from them, and give them a specific right, and in a sense an obligation, to do it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, before Section 7, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Any offence under any section of this Act (except Part VI) may be prosecuted by the Minister.
(2) Any offence under any section of this Act (except Part VI) committed by the proprietor of a shop in relation to a member of the staff of that shop may be prosecuted by such member or by any official of a registered trade union of which such member is a member.
Amendment agreed.
I move amendment No. 5a:—
In page 8, at the end of Section 11 to add the words "and which is not authorised by this Act to be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister for Justice".
This is consequential to No. 18.
Amendment agreed.
On behalf of Deputy Keyes, I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 10, at the end of section 17, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(11) This Part of this Act shall apply and have effect in respect of railway refreshment-car attendants and railway refreshment cars.
Part II of this Bill contains certain restrictions on the employment of juveniles, and the idea of this amendment is to ensure that juvenile attendants on railway refreshment cars shall be subject to those conditions.
I do not think there is any need for the amendment. I am anxious to get this Bill to-day. Although I have no objection to the amendment, because I think it is of no importance whether it goes in or not, the form of it may give rise to some question. I should, therefore, prefer to leave it out. I think the circumstances are such that the possibility of the railway companies adopting in regard to their refreshment cars a relationship between juveniles and adults other than the Bill might contemplate is very unlikely.
I travel a good deal by train and I never saw a juvenile attendant in a refreshment car. I do not think the railway employs them.
Oh, yes. Boys are so employed.
Not on the line between Dublin and Athlone. I have never seen them; they must be hidden away.
They are on the Northern line.
It would be difficult to work this Bill on the Northern line.
If a case should arise where there was need for enacting legislation in regard to refreshment cars, I would bring in a Bill for that purpose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On behalf of Deputy Keyes I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 11, Section 18, before sub-section (4), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(4) This section shall apply and have effect in respect of railway refreshment-car attendants.
This is much the same as the previous amendment. It is in regard to a restriction on night employment.
The same difficulty arises here. We had refreshment cars included in the Bill, but when we went into the matter of the existing practice, and how that existing practice might be modified to conform with the provisions of the Bill, we came to the conclusion that it is much better in everybody's interest to leave those refreshment cars outside the scope of the Bill, except in so far as holidays are concerned. To bring those refreshment cars within the scope of the Bill might be most unwelcome. It would not leave discretion to the employer. If we put them in the Bill, they must get these half-days, and it could easily happen that a railway-car attendant, starting off from Dublin in the morning, would have to get his half-day when he was down the country somewhere, and could not get back to Dublin unless he paid his own fare. I do not think that the circumstances of railway cars can be related to the circumstances of ordinary shops, except so far as the ordinary holidays are concerned.
Amendment No. 7, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8, standing in the name of Deputy Norton:—
In page 11, Section 19 (3), line 25, to delete the word "sixteen" and substitute the word "eighteen".
This amendment has relation to overtime. Section 19 (3) says:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the immediate preceding sub-section, the proprietor of a shop may permit any member of the staff of such shop, whose age is sixteen years or more, to do in any week shop work for him for a period in excess of, in case such shop is a hotel, fifty-six hours or, in any other case, forty-eight hours...
The idea of this amendment is to raise the age there from 16 to 18.
I am not prepared to agree to that. As the Bill was originally introduced, of course, there was no restriction upon the employment of any juvenile in overtime. There was an amendment on the Committee Stage the effect of which was to prohibit the employment of juveniles on overtime; or at any rate that suggestion was made. During the course of the discussion it was suggested that we might go as far as the British have gone in their Act, and that is to prohibit such employment of juveniles under 16. I indicated that I was prepared to accept that, and I have amended the section in order to deal with that point, but I do not think it would be advisable to go any further than we have gone.
Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 11, Section 19 (3), to delete paragraph (a).
The purpose of this amendment is to bring hotels into line with other businesses in relation to the total hours worked. Paragraph (a) says:—
"in case such shop is a hotel—
(i) sixty-six hours in any week, or
(ii) two hundred and forty-four hours in any period of four consecutive weeks, or
(iii) two thousand nine hundred hours in any year."
While there may be a case for the arrangement of the duties being worked at different hours of the day or night, we do not see any reason why hotel employees should not be subject to the same total hours in the week as are people in other occupations.
We decided, in the first instance, that in the case of hotels we could permit of a normal working week of 56 hours, and hence the normal week of 48 hours in shops. I explained the circumstances which led to that decision, and I think that the decision involved different overtime provisions in the case of hotels as compared with the provisions in the Bill governing overtime arrangements in ordinary shops. The hotel business, probably more than any other business with which this Bill deals, is liable to be called upon to deal with sudden rushes of business as exceptional circumstances arise. And I do not think it would be possible in any hotel to contemplate any such sudden access of business being dealt with satisfactorily if only four hours' overtime in the week or less were to be permitted. Apart from that, however, I am sure that the Deputy, on consideration, will see that it is necessary to have this special provision dealing with hotels if there is to be a fixed 56-hour week at all, because if the amendment were carried, it would not be possible to work 56 hours a week all the year round without infringing on the maximum hours that could be worked in the year. While I recognise that this section does permit of fairly long hours being worked in certain weeks on overtime, I think that it is unavoidable and that a provision of that kind must be made. It would be completely impossible, I think, to restrict the working of overtime in hotels to the limits indicated in paragraph (b) of sub-section (3). If we are to have the 56 hours and to have due regard to the circumstances that may arise in some hotels — not all of them, perhaps, but certainly in some of them — at certain times of the year, the provisions in paragraph (a) must be retained.
Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10a:—
In page 11, between lines 57 and 58, Section 19 (4), to insert the following:—
...In this sub-section the expression "non-special-trade shop" has the same meaning as in Part IV of this Act.
The special-trade shop and the non-special-trade shop are defined in Section 25 in Part IV of the Bill. The phrase "non-special-trade shop" is used in this section, which is in Part III of the Bill, and consequently some reference to it must appear here. That is why this amendment is necessary. It is really a drafting amendment.
As a pure matter of drafting, would it not be better to add it to the sub-section in question?
I think not. It really makes no difference.
Amendment No. 10a agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 12, line 58, Section 20 (1), to insert after the word "house" and within the brackets the words "or a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform" and in page 13, line 1, Section 20 (2), to insert after the word "houses" and within the brackets the words "or railway bookstalls on or adjoining railway platforms."
The object of this amendment is to ensure that the provisions as regards employment in spells will not apply to a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform. It is believed that the application of the provisions to such premises would be impracticable. I think Deputy Dockrell suggested this amendment on the last stage.
Amendment No. 12 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 13, at the end of Section 21, to insert the following new sub-section:
(3) This section shall not apply in respect of a member of the staff of a shop which is a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform.
This provides that the provision as regards intervals for meals shall not apply to attendance at railway book-stalls.
Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 13, line 48, Section 23 (1), to delete the word "require" and substitute the word "allow."
I think Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney suggested this amendment. It is desirable to effect the change suggested.
Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 15, line 15, Section 25, to insert after the word "shop" the following:
. . . . . or
(d) a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform;
The object of this amendment is to bring a railway bookstall into the category of a special-trade shop. The effect of that will be to give railway bookstall employees a continuous holiday of 14 days, irrespective of any public holidays on which they may be allowed to absent themselves. If, however, they work on a public holiday in the same way as non-special-trade shop employees, the circumstances in which they are carried on are similar to those of other shops in the special-trade category. I think therefore, that they should be subject to the same provisions as these other shops in matters of holidays and so forth.
Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 may not be moved. I understand that Deputies have been written to.
On that point, this amendment was down formally as amendment No. 56, and on the Committee Stage it was down as amendment No. 86. When the amendment was withdrawn on the last stage, I understood that it would be possible to move it again. It is an amendment to which we attach a great deal of importance, because there is no provision in any part of the Bill compelling any kind of shopkeepers to close on public holidays.
The Deputy may not discuss the merits of an amendment on a point of order. The Ceann Comhairle ruled that this amendment may not be moved. There was an amendment to Section 27, on somewhat similar lines, but not in the form in which it is now offered. The amendment referred to was No. 86 on the First Recommittal Stage, which was not moved, and No. 56, on the Second Recommittal Stage, which was withdrawn. The reply of the Minister on the latter occasion was that the Bill was not designed to make it illegal to work on a public holiday, and the amendment was not pressed. The Ceann Comhairle is still of the view that it is now too late to raise the point in No. 16, particularly as there is a Labour amendment to the Shops (Hours of Trading) Bill—No. 9, which is allowed—to close shops on public holidays and, furthermore, for the reason that if No. 16 were carried, there would be other amendments to be made consequentially to the Bill which have not been tabled and for which a further stage would be necessary. A further stage is not now possible seeing that the Conditions of Employment Bill is on its final amendment stage.
Of course, if you rule that the amendment cannot be moved, that ends the matter. The point mentioned by the Ceann Comhairle on the amendment on the other Bill does not really meet the same point at all. Closing the shop does not necessarily mean that the assistants cannot work and in any case there will be exemptions to that.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
I take it that Amendment No. 18 meets what it was proposed to do in Amendment No. 17.
I move Amendment No. 18:—
In page 17, at the end of Section 30, to add the following two new subsections:—
(4) 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 and who, immediately before the commencement of such annual leave, was entitled to receive as part of his remuneration either board or lodgings or both, such sum in respect thereof as, in default of agreement, may be fixed by a Justice of the District Court, having jurisdiction in the area in which such shop is situate, upon the application (which shall be in the prescribed form and of which a copy shall, not less than ten days before the application is heard, be served personally or by registered letter on the proprietor of such shop or his representative and on the District Court clerk) of such member, and the decision of such Justice on such application shall be final and conclusive.
(5) The Minister for Justice may make regulations prescribing the form referred to in the immediately preceding sub-section as prescribed.
This matter was raised by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and, though I am moving the amendment, I am not enamoured of it at all.
I am not terribly enamoured of it myself, but this does seem to me to be the only possible tribunal. When it comes to be worked out there will be found one or two cases and the decision in these cases will lead everybody to know what is in the mind of the district justice. I do not think that any large volume of business will be transacted in the District Court under this amendment.
I agree with that.
I want to know from the Minister on what basis this sub-section will operate in giving the assistant board wages while he is on holidays? That is an entirely new principle in respect of living-in. Board wages while on holidays is a well-established principle in regard to domestic servants. It is a well-established principle that when the domestic servant goes on holidays she gets board wages. The arrangement between the shopkeeper and the assistant, where the assistant is living in, is that when the assistant goes on holidays he will get his salary. What is going to be the effect of this amendment? Is it to raise the salary of the shop assistant by allowing the cost of his board and lodging? What was the Minister's view on the matter? I want to point out to him there is no analogy between a domestic servant and a shop assistant in this matter of board wages.
The assumption on which I went is that the shop assistant who gets board and lodging is in fact being paid part of his wages in kind, and that when he was on his annual holidays he had to get in cash and not in kind that portion of his wages represented by the value of his board and lodgings. It is obvious that some provision of this kind is necessary. You might find an apprentice who got 3/-, 4/- or 5/- a week in cash and got his board and lodging in addition. Such an assistant would find his holidays a loss. The cash payment given him would not enable him to find his board and lodgings. On the assumption that board and lodgings represents payment in kind, some provision of this kind is required.
I am not arguing against it. I think there is a good deal of force and reason in what the Minister says, but are we passing this amendment with full advertence to its implications? Take the case of an apprentice. The apprentice does not pay full insurance because he is not a salaried person. We are now dealing with that case as a salaried person. It seems to me that automatically on the passing of this amendment the apprentice will become and must become an insured person under the Insurance Act. The Minister is probably aware that there are two systems of apprenticeship in the country, (1) whereunder the parent or guardian of the apprentice pays a fee and the apprentice serves a term of years. In the last year the apprentice gets a wage which operates pretty closely to give back to the parent or the boy the amount paid for his indenture. The alternative system is that the parent or guardian pays no fee; the apprentice serves three years instead of four years and never gets paid at all, but he is provided with free board, lodging and laundry. That is the only point with regard to wages, and so these boys have never been liable for national health contributions. If you are going to declare by statute that these things — board and lodging— are wages and that they are going to be evaluated by the district justice, then from that will flow that these boys are liable to both systems of insurance.
I do not know where Deputy Dillon got the impression that these apprentices would not be liable to pay insurance. As they are, each of them is liable to pay insurance even though they are not paid in cash.
They are employed persons.
An indentured person after 16 years of age is obliged to pay unemployment insurance! I think that if the Minister puts that to the competent authorities he will find that he is mistaken. An indentured apprentice is not liable to pay insurance.
The fact that wages are not paid in cash has nothing to do with it.
That is the sole point. The theory heretofore was that they got no wages and, therefore, they were not obliged to pay insurance.
If these persons are paid no remuneration, then they are not entitled to payment during holidays. That is the point the Deputy is raising.
That is very interesting. It was the Minister who started that hare. It was the argument made by the Minister that brought this matter up. Does the Minister say that an apprentice is getting no pay?
What we are here doing is finding out the value of the board, lodging and laundry.
It is clear that the apprentice under that system is not liable for insurance.
It is time that that system should end.
I discussed that with members of the Labour movement on the broad question as to whether the system should be done away with altogether.
The no-wages apprentice system should be done away with altogether.
It is clear that that type of apprentice is not covered. The other proposal is an entirely new principle. I am not attacking it.
It is embodied already in a number of wages agreements.
I think the Labour Party will confirm me in saying that it is not the custom, in the case of shop assistants, to provide board wages, as it is in the case of domestic servants. The assistants' salaries have been fixed on the assumption that there is a spread-over in the 12 months of the service which ought to help the assistants to pay their lodgings, board and so on, during their holiday period.
I approve of the principle involved in the Minister's amendment. I take it that Deputy Dillon argues that board and lodging in the case of a shop assistant is not part of his wages.
No, I did not argue that.
If a shopkeeper employs two assistants in a town, one living in and the other living out, both on the same grade, both doing the same kind of work, I take it the assistant living out would be paid more in cash than the assistant living in. Otherwise Deputy Dillon would have to argue that there is no value placed by an employer on board and lodging at all. I suggest, if they are paid at different rates because of the fact that one is living in, that the shopkeeper does place a value on board and lodging. If the assistant going on holiday (the living out assistant) is paid his full wages, and the living in assistant is paid his cash wages without getting any allowance for board and lodging— if that is the custom, it is an illogical one. If board and lodging is to be worth anything, surely the living in assistant on holiday should get some allowance if the living out assistant gets his full wages?
Personally, I have no interest in this matter. I abolished the living in system in the business with which I am connected. It is not a good system and it ought to be abolished. I merely direct the attention of the House to the fact that it is doing something new. That does not necessarily mean that it is something bad. There is powerful logic behind the case made for this proposal. I am not arguing against this at all, but the point is that the House is introducing into this trade a new principle entirely unfounded on the custom of the trade, and it is doing that in the knowledge that Section 22 is in the Bill, which prohibits the employer from altering the rates of wages obtaining on the date the Bill passes.
There is a qualification.
There is a strong case, but I think it is right that the House should know clearly what it is doing.
Amendment No. 18 agreed to.
I think amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 have to be considered together. I move: —
In page 17, Section 32 (1), to delete line 34 and substitute the words "included in a public-holiday fortnight) and in each public holiday."
In page 17, Section 32 (2), to delete lines 38 to 50, both inclusive, and substitute the words:
"week (other than a week included in a public-holiday fortnight) and of each public-holiday fortnight, give not later than the Saturday preceding that week or that public-holiday fortnight (as the case may be) to each member of the staff of such shop who is in his employment on that Saturday, notice in the prescribed form and manner specifying the weekday in that week or in that public-holiday fortnight (as the case may be) on which he proposes to allow such member a half-holiday in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section, and if default is made in compliance with this sub-section or if a half-holiday is allowed in that week or in that public-holiday fortnight on any weekday other than the weekday specified in such notice, and half-holiday allowed to such member in that week or in that public-holiday fortnight shall be deemed, for".
In page 18, to delete Section 32 (8), and substitute the following sub-section:—
(8) In this section the expression "public-holiday fortnight" means in relation to any shop the week in which a day which is for that shop a public holiday falls, and the immediately preceding week.
Under the provisions of the Bill the shop assistants are entitled to a half-day in each week. The object of amendment No. 19 is to secure that the original intention, namely, that only one half-day should be lost to the assistant in respect of the period which includes a public holiday, shall be carried out. Under the sub-section as amended the assistant would be entitled to one half-holiday in any fortnight including any one of the six public holidays. That is the purpose of amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 20, which is consequential, provides that each fortnight including a public holiday is being treated in the same way as the original Christmas fortnight was. Amendment No. 21 is consequential upon that. It is a somewhat elaborate procedure, but it is designed to effect the purpose I have indicated, to make it clear that the shop assistant is entitled to one half-holiday in the fortnight which includes a public holiday.
The only thing I would like to say about these amendments is that the Minister or his Department will have to send out this notice, which is to be hung up in the shops. It will have to be very clear and very concise, because it will be difficult to follow a great number of these sections. I dare say the Minister and his Department will manage to make it clear, to have a placard setting out the position clearly, but they will have a very tough job indeed in explaining some of this in simple language.
That is so, but some effort will be made to do that. This Bill, taken in conjunction with the Hours of Trading Bill in relation to this matter, becomes much more easy to understand.
May I suggest that in the British House of Commons a frequent preliminary procedure, where there is a complicated Bill, is to publish a White Paper setting out in simple terms the main outlines of the Bill. These two Bills, when they become Acts, are going to affect the daily lives of thousands of people. Will the Minister consider drafting White Papers to give the application of these two Bills to the daily operations of a shop in as simple language as possible and circulate them?
The Deputy will see the danger of that. The Department is not responsible for the interpretation of the Acts. The interpretation is a matter for the courts. If a Government Department took the responsibility of publishing a document setting out what purported to be an interpretation of an Act, it might lead to all sorts of difficulties later if the courts have to put an interpretation on it. However, I think some persons always come forth, for a purely personal or other reason, and publish explanatory pamphlets relating to legislation of this kind, upon their own initiative, and in so far as they are private persons, they take no responsibility except to give their own opinions. I am sure that will be done in relation to these Bills. It is much better that it should be done by private persons than by a Government Department.
Such a thing would be very necessary.
I would like to draw attention to the note in the Bill before Section 31. That should be after Section 31 instead of before it. It is in italics.
What the note is doing there at all, I do not know.
It is applicable to a half-holiday.
These things will be dealt with by the parliamentary draftsman; all that will be properly arranged.
Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 19, Section 35 (1), to delete paragraph (b) and substitute therefor two new paragraphs as follows:—
or,
(b) by agreement between such proprietor and such member, such proprietor shall increase by one the number of consecutive whole holidays in the annual leave of such member;
(c) if such member ceases to be in the employment of such proprietor before such member has been allowed such whole holiday, such proprietor shall pay to him one day's pay calculated at the rate which would be applicable if such public holiday were a day of annual leave.
I think the Minister suggested that he was prepared to consider an amendment which would be made in relation to a shop where they found that they had no reason to keep open and were prepared to close on a public holiday. I do not know what the Minister thinks of this or the succeeding amendment, but in my opinion it would be a great hardship to ask an establishment to keep open on a day when there was no business or to give their employees holiday in excess of the 14. I would like to suggest to the Minister that I tried to draft an amendment which would not make evasion possible. I am not any more anxious than the Minister to have evasion. I do not think that, in offering a distinct class of persons a separate procedure, the Minister can do any harm. I ask him for his opinion.
I am not so sure that it is desirable we should permit agreements of this kind to be made. The public holidays occur at varying periods of the year, and I think it is desirable that these workers should get their day's leave in or about the periods of the public holidays rather than that they should be able to collect the holidays, as it were, and take them consecutively at whatever period the annual holiday is allowed. Some workers might desire to do that and some employers might find it convenient to agree that they should do it. At the same time, I am not at all sure that it is wise to permit it.
Apart from that consideration, the adoption of this amendment would add considerable complication to the Bill and greatly increase the difficulty of enforcing this particular provision, because it would be very difficult to check up on the statement of an employer, who had failed to give the day in lieu of the public holiday for which the Bill provides, that he made an agreement to give a day in lieu. The employee might find it awkward to contradict the statement of the employer, because such contradiction might lead to a permanent holiday without pay for that assistant. Consequently, the difficulty of enforcement, as the Deputy will see, would be very much increased. On that account I am not prepared to accept the amendment, but, apart from that difficulty, which is a practical difficulty so far as the enforcement of the Bill is concerned, there is the further consideration which I bring to the Deputy's attention—whether it is wise in every-body's interest to allow it. If we decide to allow it in this way, might we not allow the shop assistant to accumulate his annual leave so that he could take a month every four years instead of a week every year?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 can, I think, be discussed together.
I move amendments Nos. 23 and 24:—
23. In page 20, line 1, Section 36 (1), before paragraph (b), to insert a new paragraph as follows: —
(b) if such shop is a special-trade shop, and the proprietor of that shop allows each member of the staff of that shop a whole holiday on each public holiday, seven consecutive whole holidays (in this Act referred to as annual leave), or.
24. In page 20, line 1, Section 36 (1), before paragraph (b), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) if such shop is a special-trade shop, and the proprietor of that shop makes a declaration in the prescribed form on or before the 1st day of January in each year that he will during that year allow each member of the staff of that shop a whole holiday on each public holiday, seven consecutive whole holidays (in this Act referred to as annual leave), or.
I discussed these amendments with the Deputy on the last day and, while I have a certain sympathy with his point of view. I am afraid their acceptance would produce considerable complication in the provisions of the Bill. It is not possible to provide for every possible case of this kind. We have, I think, gone to our limit in distinguishing between various classes of shops. To attempt to distinguish between individual shops would be a hopeless task and would make the uniform enforcement of the Bill very difficult.
If the Minister has made up his mind on the matter, I shall not press the amendment. At the same time, I think the Minister is unduly anxious for uniformity. I think that there should be a certain amount of flexibility so that different conditions would apply to different trades and different circumstances. After all, the real test in a measure such as this will be whether everybody recognises that it is perfectly fair. The Minister himself has admitted that he is placing a certain amount of hardship on certain limited classes. I do not think that that is either desirable or necessary.
Amendment No. 23, by leave, withdrawn.
The same objection applies to amendment No. 24. These were, I think, alternative methods for achieving the same end. Amendment No. 23 was, I think, even better than amendment No. 24.
If the Minister has made up his mind on these lines, I do not suppose that anything further can be done. Some people have, however, made the comment that the provisions regarding the whole of these holidays are unnecessarily complicated, that everybody should get the seven days, not including half-holidays; that the special-trade shops should be provided for and that an assistant should get the public holidays either within 14 days or added on to his annual leave, according to agreement. Apparently it is too late to make that suggestion now. I think that the Minister is unduly anxious for uniformity in order to make supervision easier. I suggest to him that the easiest supervision is secured where everybody feels that the Act should be observed and is prepared to give information and press for notice to be taken of evasions. The question ultimately comes down to how far the public recognise the justice of the Act and desire its enforcement.
Amendment No. 24, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25, which is a drafting amendment:—
In page 23, line 10, Section 39 (1), to delete the word "other".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 29, line 33, Section 54 (8), to insert before the word "cancel" the words "which shall specify the grounds upon which it is made,".
This amendment deals with the public health section, and it provides that, where an exemption order is made, the order must set out the grounds on which it is made. I gather that the amendment is likely to be welcomed by the Labour representatives, and I do not think there is any ground upon which employers or proprietors of shops can object to it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 31, Section 54 (16), to insert at the end of the sub-section the words, "or his lawful deputy."
I mentioned on the last Stage that I would move this amendment, which effects a drafting change.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 31, Section 56 (1), to delete all words from the word "A" in line 40 to the word "may" in line 42, and substitute the words, "Subject to the provisions of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926), a sanitary authority shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act appoint such and so many inspectors as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may approve or"
This is another drafting amendment to the public health section, the need of which I mentioned on the last occasion the Bill was before the House.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 31, Section 56 (2), to delete all words from the word "The" in line 46 to the word "of" in line 48, and substitute the words, "A sanitary authority may, if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health approves, in lieu of, or in addition to appointing," and in line 52 to delete the words "he may think proper" and substitute the words "such sanitary authority think proper and the said Minister approves."
The object of this amendment is to provide for appointment of inspectors by the sanitary authority, with the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in lieu of giving the appointment direct to the sanitary authority. I am informed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that this amendment will bring appointments under this Bill into line with other administrative arrangements between the Department of Local Government and local authorities.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 32, Section 59 (1) and 59 (2), to delete in lines 24 and 28 the words "public inquiry" and substitute the words "local inquiry."
This is a drafting change. The phrase should be "local inquiry" and not "public inquiry."
Are these inquiries not to be public?
Yes, but the proper phrase to describe them is "local inquiry," for which provision is made in various enactments.
If the Parliamentary draftsman thinks it an improvement, I am satisfied.
It is as a drafting change it was presented to me.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In page 32, at the end of Section 59 (2) to insert the words: "and for the purposes of the application of the said Article 32 in respect of every local inquiry held under this section the reference in sub-Article (3) of the said Article 32 to councils and other authorities concerned shall be construed as including a reference to any other persons concerned."
This provides that all persons concerned may be asked to bear portion of the costs of the local inquiry.
That includes the employee?
No.
It could.
It could, I suppose.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In page 33, line 38, Second Schedule, Rule 3, to delete the figure "7" and substitute the following: "7.30."
I undertook on the last stage to introduce this amendment. I think it was Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney urged that it should be done. It changes the last hour from 7 o'clock to 7.30.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
With regard to the definition of hotel in the Bill, I should like to ask if the Minister is clear as to what a hotel means. He has made an effort, since the beginning of the Bill, to define "hotel" and reading the definition carefully, one finds that it means a place in which sleeping accommodation is provided. It makes no reference to the sale of food or anything else. Further down, we find that "refreshment house" includes "hotel," so that a refreshment house may possibly include a place where no food is sold at all.
I do not think that holds. I do not say that this is a perfect definition, but it is the best we could get to deal with the circumstances. There is a definition of "hotel" in the licensing laws, but it would not suit the particular purpose of this measure. The definition in this Bill is:
any premises structurally adapted for use and bona-fide used as a hotel and having apartments set apart and exclusively used for the sleeping accommodation of travellers.
It makes no reference to refreshments.
A refreshment house means a hotel and the difference between a hotel and a refreshment house under the Bill is that one has apartments set apart and exclusively used for the sleeping accommodation of travellers and the other has not, but they are both included under the Bill.
A refreshment house is a hotel, according to the definition, but a hotel is not a refreshment house.
Some refreshment houses are hotels, but all refreshment houses are not hotels.
The word "hotel" does not include a refreshment house, but a refreshment house includes a hotel.
Yes. There may be some difficulty of enforcement there particularly as we allow longer hours of work in one case than in the other, but there is no means of avoiding that. A place which takes in guests and provides them with sleeping accommodation is a hotel, and where they are provided with food for consumption on the premises is a restaurant.
I can see what the Minister is aiming at, but I want to point out that there may possibly be confusion hereafter.
I think we have gone as far as possible to avoid that confusion arising.
I venture to think that if confusion comes, it will be as between a boarding house and a hotel. It will probably be very difficult to decide whether a house is merely a boarding house, and, therefore, not under the Bill, or whether it is a hotel.
A boarding house is a hotel.
No; if it provides sleeping accommodation for travellers, it is a hotel, but otherwise it is not.
Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.