Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 1938

Vol. 70 No. 5

Shops (Hours of Trading) (No. 2) Bill, 1937—Recommittal.

Mr. Lemass

I move to recommit the Bill in respect of the amendments, although I do not think it is of very great importance. I have circulated what appears to be a formidable list of amendments, but they effect no change in the Bill, other than in the form of it. On reconsideration, it was considered that the insertion of Schedules would make the Bill more intelligible and easier to understand and operate. These amendments are designed to effect changes of that kind in the Bill without in any sense altering its effect, or its principles.

Agreed that the Bill be recommitted.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, Section 2, to insert between lines 22 and 23 the following:—

the expression "excepted business" means any business specified in the Second Schedule to this Act;

The Bill as it stood provided for the cases of certain businesses which were described as "excepted businesses," and in the various parts of the Bill these businesses were enumerated. We are taking these excepted businesses out of the various parts of the Bill where they appear, and putting them into a schedule. It is purely a drafting change.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 24, Section 2, to delete the words "the business of a dyer or cleaner."

This is also a drafting amendment. The intention was to include a depôt used in connection with a laundry or a cleaning business. Amendment No. 4 will, I think, make it intelligent.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, Section 2, to delete lines 28 and 29 and substitute the words "of programmes or catalogues at theatres or other places of amusement."

This is consequential on a similar amendment adopted on the Conditions of Employment Bill. We are anxious to keep the definitions in each Bill in conformity, and we are effecting here the same change as was effected in the other Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, Section 2, to delete lines 33 to 39 (both 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,

but does not include a railway refreshment-car;

This introduces the definition of a shop which has been inserted in the Conditions of Employment Bill.

Mr. Heron

I think a hotel is not defined in this Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There is another matter about which there will be some difficulty. The Minister has power to make closing orders. I am not sure of the section, but he is empowered to define times and to make closing orders, but he cannot deal with licensed premises at all. They are excepted so far as the hours at which they must be closed are concerned. A temperance hotel, however, might come under the ban to a great extent. There are some large temperance hotels and they might suddenly discover that while the non-temperance hotel, the licensed hotel, is open, they could not be open. There is one large temperance hotel in Dublin and another large one in Athlone, and there are some fairly substantial temperance hotels through the country. Properly speaking, I think it could be met if some words like "This shall not apply to licensed premises or an hotel" were inserted in a subsequent section.

Mr. Lemass

I think that paragraph (e) should not be there at all, because in fact the Bill does not apply. Places where meals are sold for consumption on the premises are permanently excluded from the scope of the Bill, and in those circumstances a hotel could not possibly be covered by the Bill. With the consent of the Dáil, I propose to alter the amendment by the deletion of paragraph (e).

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 3, Section 2, to delete lines 42 to 45 (both inclusive).

As the definition of chemist has been inserted at another stage, we are deleting it here. Amendment No. 55 removed the necessity for having it here.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Why?

Mr. Lemass

It appears subsequently in amendment No. 55. In the Second Schedule it is amongst the businesses permanently exempted from the Bill, and the definition contained here is carried to the Second Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 3, Section 2, to delete lines 46 and 47.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are to delete the word "weekday" as it is not necessary here. It appears in the Interpretation Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 3, section 2, to delete line 48.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 3, at the end of section 2, to add the following new sub-section:—

(2) Where any premises (being a shop) includes a part (in this sub-section referred to as the said part) in which there is carried on any business not carried on elsewhere in such premises, and the said part is, in the opinion of the Minister so constructed as to be capable of being effectively shut off from the rest of such premises, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) the Minister, on the application +of the person carrying on such business, may, if he thinks fit, issue a certificate certifying that the said part is so constructed, and in that case the said part shall, so long as such certificate is in force, be deemed to be a separate shop for the purposes of this Act and so much of the remainder of such premises as does not include any other part in respect of which another certificate under this sub-section has been issued and is in force shall also be deemed to be a separate shop for the said purposes;

(b) if the Minister is at any time satisfied that the said part is no longer in his opinion capable of being so effectively shut off, he may revoke such certificate.

This amendment was suggested by Deputy Dockrell on the last Stage. It deals with the question of mixed trading. Deputy Dockrell mentioned cases where premises were so constructed, or could be so constructed, as to be divided into water-tight compartments for different purposes. It it suggested now that each department should be regarded as a separate shop. I thought the Deputy's representation had force and I undertook to deal with it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McGowan

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:—

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this section it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to keep such shop open for the serving of customers on a day which is a public holiday.

(2) This section shall not apply to any shop in which either the only business carried on therein is an exempted business or all the businesses carried on therein are exempted businesses.

(3) Each of the following businesses shall be an exempted business for the purpose of this section, that is to say, subject to the operation of an order made by the Minister under sub-section (4) of this section, any business specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

(4) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section declare that any business specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall cease to be an exempted business for the purpose of this section and upon the coming into force of such order such business as is specified therein shall cease to be an exempted business for the said purposes.

(5) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order (in this section referred to as an area exemption order) declare that—

(a) any particular area specified or delimited in such order shall be an exempted area for the purposes of such order, and

(b) this section shall not apply in respect of any shop situate in such area.

(6) Whenever an area exemption order is in force, this section shall not apply in respect of any shop situate in such area.

(7) Where any of the following businesses, that is to say:—

(a) post office business;

(b) the business of selling medicines or medical or surgical appliances when carried on by a chemist;

(c) the business of selling by retail intoxicating liquors;

(d) the business of selling meals for consumption on the premises;

(e) an exempted business;

is carried on in such shop nothing contained in this section shall render it unlawful for the proprietor of such shop to keep such shop open on a public holiday for the serving of customers if such shop is so kept open for the purpose of any transaction connected with one or all of the businesses mentioned in this sub-section and for no other purpose.

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

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

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all shops shall close on public holidays subject to certain reservations which are set out. In the majority of small towns all the big shops close on public holidays, for instance, on bank holidays, and it is only a few of the smaller ones that remain open. This amendment is really giving legislative sanction to what has been common practice. Public houses are compelled to close on certain public holidays, St. Patrick's Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday, and I suggest there is no case for having small shops open on Sundays. The amendment provides for certain exemptions.

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy has not given due attention to the difference in the practice prevailing in relation to public holidays in cities, towns and rural areas. It is quite true that in the larger cities and towns it is the practice for most shops, other than shops that are exempt, to close on public holidays. But that is by no means the practice in the greater part of the country where public holidays are not observed to any great extent, and where the obligation to close would mean the introduction of a new practice which would be of no advantage to people residing in these areas. It is also necessary to take into account the circumstances of holiday resorts and other places to which workers in towns go on public holidays, and the necessity of providing for their convenience. I gave consideration to that because it arose in the preparation of the Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that, so long as we are providing for the possibility of shop assistants getting public holidays or, if not, compensation by way of another holiday later, we were going as far as it is necessary to go. If we were to attempt to go the distance which the amendment suggests, by providing for the compulsory closing of shops on public holidays, we would be introducing unnecessary complications which would, perhaps, arouse considerable opposition to the measure, and, in any event, make its enforcement in certain respects a matter of difficulty. I do not think there is a public need to require the closing of all shops on public holidays. It may he the usual practice to do so in some areas, and it may be necessary for some employers to do so in consequence of the Conditions of Employment Act, but, even taking all that into account, it is difficult to understand how the public interest calls for it. In any part of the country where it is not the practice, and where it is not desired to become the practice, if assistants are called upon to work on public holidays, the other Act makes ample compensation for the giving of alternative holidays. That is as far as I think it necessary to go in the public interest.

Mr. Heron

Our people feel that it is necessary to test this amendment. I endeavoured to have an amendment inserted in the other Act providing that shop assistants, except in certain circumstances, would be entitled to the public holidays. That amendment was resisted, and unless this amendment is carried there will be no provision to compel shops to close on any particular day, or to secure that shop assistants are to get holidays on any particular day in lieu of public holidays. The value of the one day's holiday is lost to a certain extent, so far as shop assistants and other workers are concerned, if they are not all on holiday at the same time. As the Bill stands, provision is made for shopkeepers in an area to make a choice as to whether public holidays will be bank holidays or religious holidays. Accordingly, having that choice, a good deal of the opposition to the amendment falls to the ground. It has been urged that on Catholic holidays it is the custom in some parts for country people to go to the towns to do their shopping. In such areas, as far as the shops are concerned, bank holidays can be substituted for Catholic holidays and vice versa. As shopkeepers have the choice as regards bank holidays, religious holidays or public holidays, that meets whatever objection there might be to the amendment. There is no reason why in every town and village there should not be a certain number of days in the year when shops are closed, so that shop assistants, shopkeepers and others could enjoy a day's holiday, like people in the larger centres. Failing the acceptance of this amendment, there is no provision in the Bill to compel shops to close on these days, and for that reason I urge the Minister to accept it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Deputy seems to forget that there are parts of the country where the fact that Easter Monday, Whit Monday, or the First Monday in August are bank holidays, is completely unknown. If you go to any rural part every agricultural labourer and every farmer is working on bank holidays the same as on the ordinary day. These holidays mean nothing to them. Why should not country shops be open in just exactly the same way? I cannot see that it is any hardship on a country shopkeeper who wishes to keep open on a particular day, or on the shop assistants who have their holidays provided for in the other Bill, that the shop should keep open in the ordinary way for people who are not observing these bank holidays. They should not be made a special class, so that people coming in the ordinary way to their doors will suddenly discover the doors shut and be informed that it is Whit Monday or the first Monday in August and then ask: "What is the first Monday in August?"

Mr. McGowan

I think the Minister's discussion of this amendment in relation to the Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) Bill has a boomerang effect. If you compare it with that Bill, I think you will then get the kernel of the whole trouble. There are two shops in a small town, one employing assistants and the other not employing assistants. The man who employs assistants is compelled by the previous Bill, which has now gone through the House, if he opens on a Sunday and works his assistants, to give them a compensatory holiday. But the Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) Bill does not apply to the man next door who has no assistants. Therefore, the gentleman next door, who does not employ labour, can open when he likes and is definitely in a better position than the employer of labour next door. If you discuss the two Bills in relation to one another, I think you will agree that that is the one fundamental reason for this amendment, in order to bring the shopkeeper who can run his shop with his family into line with the shopkeeper who has to employ assistants.

Mr. Lemass

As I understand the Deputy, the purpose of the amendment is to compel certain shop proprietors, who do not employ assistants, to take a holiday on public holidays. That is the purpose of the amendment. I do not think that the public interest demands that, nor is it true that that type of shop proprietor is being given an advantage over the other type who employs assistants. If there is trade to be done on a public holiday, the other shop proprietor can keep his establishment open and work his assistants, but he is obliged to give them a day in lieu. If there is no trade to be done, if the circumstances are such that the majority of shops are shut, or that the people are on holiday, or for some other reason no business is likely to be forthcoming, he can close his establishment. It is up to the shop proprietor to decide for himself which is the best course to take, whether he will keep open and take whatever trade is available, or whether he will shut and give his employees a holiday. The type of establishment where employees are to be found is ordinarily a larger and more prosperous kind of institution than the one in which the proprietor works himself or works with the assistance of his family.

Mr. Heron

Does the Minister not recognise that a great deal of the value of the holiday is lost if all the assistants have not the holiday on the same day?

Mr. Lemass

From the point of view of the shop assistant it is obviously desirable that he should get his holiday upon the day on which everyone else is on holiday. But everyone cannot get a holiday on the same day. Someone must work if the holiday is to be a holiday at all for those who have the privilege of enjoying it. In the ordinary course, over the great range of shops in respect to which trade is not done on a bank holiday, the practice will be to close. I do not think it is necessary for us to undertake the obligation of enforcing by law, through the medium of the Guards, such a closing of these shops when we have in fact provided adequately, in my opinion, for the rights of the assistants. In relation to those types of shops which are not of the exempted class, shops which are not tobacconists or confectionery shops or places of that kind, it can be stated, I think with truth, that the amount of business available to be done on a public holiday will be small, and that in the ordinary course the shop proprietor in the city or town will find it more suitable to close than to remain open.

Mr. McGowan

Are you not penalising the man who employs labour?

Mr. Lemass

The woman with a husband who works her farm is obviously in a better position than a widow who has to employ labourers. You cannot level up the circumstances of all the classes of people engaged in this trading. The proprietor of a shop who has two sons or daughters to help him is obviously better circumstanced than the man who has no sons or daughters and who must employ assistants at wages for that purpose.

Mr. McGowan

Would not the solution of that be not to let them open at all on Sunday?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Make everybody take a compulsory holiday.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 50.

Tá.

• Anthony, Richard S.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Corish, Richard.
• Everett, James.
• Heron, Archie.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Lawlor, Thomas.
• McGowan, Gerrard L.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Pattison, James P.

Níl.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Carty, Frank.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Fuller, Stephen.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Keating, John.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Everett and Heron; Níl: Deputies Brady and Killilea.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 4, at the end of section 3, to add 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 amendment is similar to a section inserted in the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Bill. It is desirable to have it inserted here so as to ensure that what might be legal under that Bill will not be illegal under this Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 4 to delete section 4 (3) and substitute the following new sub-section:—

(3) This section applies to—

(a) every hours of trading order made under Part III of this Act;

(b) every Sunday-trading (exempted area) order made under Part IV of this Act;

(c) every hours of Sunday-trading (exempted businesses) order made under Part IV of this Act;

(d) any order amending or revoking any such order as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this sub-section

This provides that the section will apply equally to any amending or revoking orders.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. McGowan

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 5, before Section 6, to insert the following new section:—

(1) Whenever and so often as an application is made to the Minister by a representative number of the proprietors of shops of a particular class in a particular area and a representative number of persons employed to do shop work in connection with shops of that class in that area requesting him to make an order under any Part of this Act, the Minister shall, unless he considers the application frivolous, make such order in such form and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to prescribe.

(2) Every order made under this section shall be an hours of trading order and the provisions in Part III of this Act relating to the making of an hours of trading order shall have effect and apply to every such order as if these provisions were reenacted in this section, save only that whenever such order relates to a day which is the weekly half-holiday, the specified hour of closing may be earlier than six o'clock in the afternoon.

Under part of this Bill, the Minister has power to make a closing order in respect of certain days in the week, for instance, for fixing the half-holiday, but there is no machinery included in the Bill to secure that closing orders will be made. In short, the effect of this amendment will be that there shall be a uniform half-holiday in the different towns. Under the Bill, certain shops must close for a half-day each week and you might have the position down the country where one shopkeeper would close and take his half-day on Wednesday while another shopkeeper in the same trade would take his half-day on Thursday, with the result that the whole thing would become chaotic.

There would be nothing but retaliation on both sides, with the result that the entire Act might be nullified to the detriment of the trade, and, furthermore, I think to the detriment of shop assistants. As I think I already pointed out in arguing this amendment on the previous stage, in the case of shop assistants living in a town their activities, both social and otherwise, are generally joint, and it is rather a hardship on them to have half their number in the same trade getting a half-day on Wednesday while the remainder have a half-day on Thursday. The Minister has already pointed out that he is endeavouring to make the provisions of this Act uniform, and I think that if this amendment were passed it would go a long way towards making one of the principal provisions uniform. The Minister has power under this amendment, after consulting the different trade interests in a certain town or certain area, to fix that, say, the drapery trade in that area shall have a half-day on Wednesday. I think it is a reasonable amendment.

Mr. Heron

There is one other aspect of the amendment on which I think Deputy McGowan did not touch, and it is this: As the Bill stands at present the Minister is not in any circumstances required to make an order, and one of the purposes of this amendment—in fact, I think its chief purpose—is to ensure that, if there is a representative request from an area for a closing order, such closing order will be made by the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

With regard to that aspect of the matter, I think that the amendment which it is proposed to insert would serve no purpose at all. I think it has to be taken for granted that, if there is a really representative request from any area for the making of a closing order affecting the class of shop in which the persons making the request are interested, that order would be made, but if you impose upon the Minister the obligation of making an order you must provide that he will have discretion in determining what constitutes a representative request. If you do that, you get into precisely the same position in which the Bill leaves you at the moment. The question as to what constitutes a representative body or a representative section of any class of traders is a very difficult one to determine. Do you count heads only, or do you count the number of persons employed, or do you judge them in relation to the annual turn-over of their business, or how do you weight the representative capacity of one individual as against another? I think, therefore, that if you propose to proceed on those lines you must give somebody the right and the discretion to determine whether or not the particular request comes from a representative section of the traders. If you do that, then I think the need for the whole thing falls to the ground, because it is reasonable to assume that when a proposal comes from people who are properly representative, who do in fact speak for the people engaged in the trade, their representations will be acted on, unless as is provided for here they are of such a character as to be worthy of the description of "frivolous." That is unlikely.

I think, therefore, that this amendment is unnecessary, and it might in fact operate to limit the freedom of action of the Minister in so far as the practice might develop that no action would be taken without such representations being made. I think it is much better to leave the matter as it stands, to enable the Minister to consider all relevant considerations, and make his own decision in the light of the circumstances and of the information at his disposal. He is, of course, empowered and authorised to hold a local inquiry if such local inquiry appears to be necessary in order to get the necessary information. There is nothing in this Bill which debars anybody—whether he is representative or not—from making representations, and it has to be assumed that the ordinary practice will be that representations will be made. If they are obviously made by persons who can speak for the bulk of the parties concerned, those representations will be acted on. If that is not obvious, then they will be followed probably by a local inquiry, unless the nature of the representations is such as to preclude the possibility of action being taken upon them irrespective of the outcome of the local inquiry.

With regard to the second part of the proposal I discussed this matter here before. There are grounds which make it desirable to have a uniform closing day for all establishments in particular towns, but it is impossible to fit that within the framework of this Bill. That was the procedure under the existing law, but the existing law required that the initiative in fixing a half-day or fixing closing hours for shops on ordinary days should come from the traders themselves. The law provided that two-thirds of the traders in a particular area must agree, and set up elaborate machinery for inquiries and so forth before action could be taken. If we are to get away from all that, and give power to take direct action where action is required, then I think we have to operate on the basis contemplated in this Bill, which leaves it discretionary to the proprietor of a shop as to what day he shall choose for a half-holiday. I am strongly of opinion that proprietors of shops in large towns will find it to their advantage to choose one uniform half-day in each week. In such towns, where the half-holiday has been in operation for some time past, the fact becomes known not merely amongst the citizens of the town itself but amongst all the people of the surrounding district who trade in that town, and they do not bother to come in to do shopping on that afternoon because they know that certain establishments will be closed. It would be in the interests of employers as well of the public that that practice should continue. I think it will continue on that account, and that it is not necessary to establish any procedure for local inquiries such as would be necessary if we were to undertake the responsibility for fixing by order the day on which a town must observe a half-holiday. I think in practice it will work out that way. I think that local traders will agree amongst themselves as to the day most suitable to have as a half-holiday, and that it will not be in any trader's interest to depart from what is the general practice.

Mr. Dillon

I find myself in the extraordinary position of agreeing in entirety with the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Lemass

Then the Deputy can be certain he is right.

Mr. Dillon

It is much better to leave the matter to the traders, and in fact it will invariably result in all the shops closing on the same day, for the reasons set out by the Minister. The people would not come into the town, and the traders would not find it worth while opening their shops.

Mr. McGowan

There are certain towns in Ireland where there is really no established half-day. I think it is the Minister's desire that there should be an established half-day.

Mr. Lemass

That can only be in the case of towns where there is no legal half-day at present.

Mr. McGowan

It is a matter of custom; the shopkeepers agree amongst themselves without any meetings or anything else. But you may find one or two people in some towns who will not agree to anything. They will open for seven days in the week, with the result that decent shopkeepers are prevented from coming to an arrangement to have a regular half-day in the town.

Mr. Lemass

The answer to that is that they are not permitted to open on seven days. Those traders must shut for a half-day at some time during the week.

Mr. McGowan

The idea, however, is to have it uniform. For instance, there may be one delinquent, and perhaps he will not close on certain days.

Mr. Lemass

He will have to close on another day.

Mr. Dillon

This difficulty arises, as the Minister pointed out. How are you going to weight the day? Suppose you have two large shops, each employing 20 assistants, and 30 shops, each employing one assistant — how are you going to prevent these shops, employing one assistant each, from controlling the others in regard to the matter of closing, as they could easily do, and therefore injure those two large shops which were really giving employment to the town? How would you weight it so as to avoid that? If you have a system which is working satisfactorily, surely it is better to continue that system. If abuses arise in a particular town, let the Minister's attention be directed to that with a view to taking action, by legislation if needs be.

Mr. Lemass

I think this will work out all right. If events should prove that my view is wrong and if we have different traders in a town closing upon different days of the week, so that nobody knows what is the half-day, then I think we might have to go back to the old system; but I do not think that will happen, and therefore I think it is easier to deal with it in this manner. It avoids the necessity for all that machinery of local inquiry and local consultation which was necessary under the existing law.

Mr. McGowan

Could not the Minister reserve to himself the power to make an order?

Mr. Lemass

You could not do that without inquiry and consultation. If something should arise in, say, Castlebar, or some other place, I would have to consult the people in the place concerned on some statutory basis, and it is that statutory consultation that I am anxious to avoid, because of the difficulties I have mentioned.

Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows: —

An offence under any section of this Act may be prosecuted by the Minister or a member of the Gárda Síochána.

It is necessary to make it clear that an offence under this section can be prosecuted by the Minister or a member of the Gárda Síochána. Power is being taken here by the Minister to prosecute offences also.

Amendment No. 14 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 6, line 2, Section 10, to delete all words after the words "shall be laid" to the end of line 7 and substitute the words—

"before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such order is laid before it, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order."

This amendment is also moved on the assumption that there will be a Second House of the Oireachtas, and that we can proceed, therefore, upon the basis of providing that orders must be presented to each House.

Amendment No. 15 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 6, line 9, Section 11, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall".

This is a drafting amendment only.

Amendment No. 16 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 6, line 36, Section 15 (1), to delete the word "Second" and substitute the word "Third".

This is also a drafting amendment.

Mr. O'Neill

Would I be in order, Sir, in referring to Section 14 before we deal with that amendment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, sections, as such, are not recommitted.

Mr. O'Neill

It is rather an important point that I want to deal with.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, every Deputy will have his idea of what is an important point on a section.

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps the Deputy could raise it on the next stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, perhaps he could refer to it on the next stage.

Mr. O'Neill

Section 14 refers to exemptions. I have in mind the question of funerals and wakes in the country, and I think that some provision should be made for shopkeepers to be allowed to provide people with their requirements in cases of emergency of that kind. There is no provision under the Act for those exceptional cases.

Mr. Lemass

Oh, I think there is. I do not see what fears the Deputy need have in that regard. A country funeral or wake would be held at certain hours of the day, and hardly at unusual hours such as are contemplated under Section 14. Section 14 provides for the sale of stores for army or naval authorities, or for ships. Ships have to wait on the tide, and they have to go out on the tide even if the tide were at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Dillon

The same frequently applies in the country to a death. People come into a town to get funeral requisites in order to bring home the means to entertain visiting mourners in their house.

Mr. Lemass

There is nothing in the Bill, as it stands, which prohibits the sale of these materials at any hour.

Mr. Dillon

May I take it that the Minister will bear that particular rural problem in mind, if it arises?

Mr. Lemass

If it should arise.

Mr. Dillon

In any case, it will be incorporated in the order?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 6, lines 42 and 43, Section 15 (2), to delete the brackets and all words contained therein.

We are deleting this reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors, because it is now being dealt with by the new arrangement of the Schedules.

Amendment No. 18 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 19:—

In page 6, line 44, Section 15 (2), to delete the word "Second" and substitute the word "Third".

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 20:—

In page 7, before Section 16, to insert a new section as follows:—

Each of the following businesses shall be a scheduled business for the purposes of this Part of this Act, that is to say:—

(a) any excepted business;

(b) any business which is for the time being an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

This, also, is a purely drafting amendment, again arising out of the new arrangement of the schedules.

Amendment No. 20 agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 22:—

In page 7, Section 16 (2), line 14, to insert before the word "oftener" the words "in case such shop is situate in a county borough".

I think that it would be best to discuss amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together. Deputy Dillon raised a difficulty during discussion on the last stage in connection with the fixing of the day of the weekly half-holiday. I have given the matter some consideration without being able to discover a really satisfactory way out of it. The method proposed in these amendments is, I think, the best that can be devised in the circumstances. The Deputy's point was that certain fairs are held on movable feasts. They occur on particular dates which may be on different days of the week, one year with another, and his point was that some provision should be made to enable the half-holiday to be adjusted to meet the situation that would arise if one of these fairs happened to fall on the day fixed for the half-holiday in a particular town. In considering how to deal with that situation, which requires to be dealt with, I gave consideration to this general provision relating to half-holidays. The provision, as Deputies will remember, prescribes that the half-holiday can be altered by the proprietor of the shop, but not oftener than once in three months, and subject only to giving notice to the sergeant in charge of the nearest Gárda Síochána station of the intention to make such change. I came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to maintain that provision outside the cities or county boroughs, and that in fact the same circumstances, to which I have referred already, and which would operate to ensure the maintenance of a uniform half-holiday in all the smaller towns of the country, would continue to operate to prevent any numerous changes in the day chosen by a proprietor to be his half-day. The proprietor, in all probability, will find it best to conform with the general practice, and undesirable, from the point of view of his trade, to change his half-day frequently, because his customers would become confused and he would lose trade if he did so. Therefore, the amendments seek to provide that, outside the county boroughs, the half-day may be changed oftener than once in a period of three months and subject only to giving the requisite notice to the sergeant of the Guards at the nearest station. That, of course, will enable the difficulty, which Deputy Dillon mentions, to be got over, and I am not at all sure that it is not a desirable change in any event, even if that difficulty did not exist.

Mr. Dillon

I take it now that in the event of a fair day falling on a half-holiday, on due notice being given to the Gárda it can be changed to another day?

Mr. Lemass

Exactly.

Mr. Dillon

That meets my views. I am grateful to the Minister for looking into it.

Amendment No. 22 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 7, Section 16 (2), line 15, to insert before the word "unless" the words "in any case."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 7, Section 16 (2), line 17, to delete the words "one week" and insert the words "seven days."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 7, line 27, Section 16 (5), to delete the words "an exempted" and substitute the words "a scheduled," and in line 28 to delete the word "exempted" and substitute the word "scheduled."

This is another drafting change consequent on the new arrangement of the schedules.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 7, line 53, Section 17 (4), to delete the words "an exempted" and substitute the words "a scheduled" and in line 54 to delete the word "exempted" and substitute the word "scheduled."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 8, lines 3 and 4, Section 17 (5), to delete the words "an excepted business or an exempted" and substitute the words "a scheduled."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 8, Section 17 (5), to delete all words from the words "such shop is" in line 8 to the word "purpose" in line 10, and substitute the words "while such shop is so kept open no transaction (other than a transaction connected with such excepted business) is carried out therein."

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 8, Section 17, to delete lines 11 to 19 (both inclusive).

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 8, Section 18 (1), line 42, to insert after the word "where" the words "or vehicle from which", and in line 43 to insert after the word "place" where it occurs the words "or vehicle."

This is similar to an amendment that was moved earlier, but it makes the context clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 9, line 5, Section 20 (1), to insert before the words "the Third" the words "Part I of."

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 9, lines 11 and 12, Section 20 (2), to delete the brackets and the words contained therein.

This deals with the sale of intoxicating liquor.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 33:—

In page 9, line 13, Section 20 (2), to insert before the words "the Third" the words "Part I of."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 34:—

In page 9, before Section 21, to insert a new section as follows:—

Each of the following businesses shall be a scheduled business for the purposes of this Part of this Act, that is to say:—

(a) any excepted business;

(b) any business which is for the time being an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 35:—

In page 9, Section 21 (1), line 25, to delete the words "an exempted" and substitute the words "a scheduled," and in line 26, to delete the word "exempted" and substitute the word "scheduled."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 36:—

In page 9, lines 30 and 31, Section 21 (2), to delete the words "an excepted business or an exempted" and substitute the words "a scheduled."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 37:—

In page 9, line 32, Section 21 (2), after the word "Act" to insert the words "or in an hours of trading order or an existing closing order."

This amendment is intended to tighten and improve the section. It is really a drafting amendment but it improves the form of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 38:—

In page 9, Section 21 (2), to delete all words from the word "such" in line 34 to the word "purpose" in line 36, and substitute the words "while such shop is so kept open no transaction (other than a transaction connected with such excepted business) is carried out therein."

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 39:—

In page 9, Section 21 (2), to delete lines 37 to 44 (both inclusive).

Mr. McGowan

The words in paragraph (b) (2) "for the purposes of any transaction connected with such excepted business..." are not very clear. It is hard to know what that phrase means.

Mr. Lemass

The amendment makes it clearer than it was in the existing Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 40:—

In page 9, line 49, Section 22 (1), to delete the words "or delimited in" and substitute the words "in or delimited by."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 41:—

In pages 9 and 10, Section 22 (1), to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:—

(b) either—

(i) declare that it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of any shop situate in such trading area to open or keep open such shop for the serving of customers on any weekday before a specified hour or after a specified hour (not being earlier than the hour of 6 p.m.), or

(ii) declare that it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of any shop of a specified class (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) situate in such trading area to open or keep open such shop for the serving of customers on any weekday before a specified hour or after a specified hour (not being earlier than the hour of 6 p.m.);

and such order may contain different provisions in relation to different days and in relation to different periods of the year.

The object of this provision is to enable hours of trading orders to be made to apply to all shops in a named area. It also gives power to close a specified class of shops. This amendment was suggested by an amendment moved on the Committee Stage by Deputy McGowan. It enables one of two lines of procedure to be followed— either the order to apply to all shops in a particular area or to apply to a specified class of shops if that is considered the best way of proceeding.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 42:—

In page 11, Section 27 (1), line 48, to insert before the word "within" the words "or from any vehicle"; and in line 49, to insert after the word "place" the words "or vehicle".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 43:—

In page 12, line 13, Section 28 (1), to delete the words "the Fourth" and substitute the words "Part I or Part II of the Third".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 44:—

In page 12, lines 19 and 20, Section 28 (2), to delete the brackets and the words contained therein.

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 45:—

In page 12, line 21, Section 28 (2), to delete the words "the Fourth" and substitute the words "Part I or Part II of the Third".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 46:—

In page 12, before Section 29, to insert a new section as follows: —

(1) Neither this Part of this Act nor any Sunday trading (exempted area) order nor any hours of Sunday-trading (exempted businesses) order shall apply to any shop in which either the only business carried on therein is an excepted business or all the businesses carried on therein are excepted businesses.

(2) Where—

(a) any excepted business is carried on in a shop, and

(b) any other business (not being an excepted business) is carried on in such shop—

nothing contained in this Part of this Act or in any Sunday-trading (exempted area) order or any hours of Sunday trading (exempted businesses) order shall render it unlawful for the proprietor of such shop to keep such shop open for the serving of customers at any time on Sunday, if while such shop is so kept open no transaction (other than a transaction connected with such excepted business) is carried out therein.

Sections 29 and 30 have been recast and fresh sections have to be inserted. The object of the change is to enable the Minister in cases in which he exempts a business or in which he exempts in respect to Sunday trading to fix the hours for such business on Sundays. The Bill, as it stood, gave no power to regulate the hours of trading on Sunday in that class of shops that are exempted or that might be exempted by an order of the Minister under the Bill. It is obviously desirable that that power should be there. That is why this amendment is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 47:—

In page 12, Section 29 (1), line 31 to delete all words after the words "thinks fit" to the end of line 43, Section 29 (3) and substitute the following words:—

by order (in this Part of this Act referred to as an area exemption order) declare that any particular area specified in or delimited by such order shall be an exempted area for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and whenever any such order is made and is in force the area specified in or delimited by such order shall be an exempted area for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

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

This is a consequential change. It is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Heron

Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 are not moved, as they are met by amendment No. 51 down in the name of the Minister.

Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 51:—

In page 12, before Section 30, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Whenever a particular area (in this section referred to as the exempted area) is for the time being an exempted area, the Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order (in this Part of this Act referred to as a Sunday-trading (exempted area) order) do the following things, that is to say:—

(a) declare that a particular area (which may, at the option of the Minister, be the whole of the exempted area or any particular part or parts thereof) specified in or delimited by such order shall be a trading area for the purposes of such order; and

(b) either—

(i) declare that it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of any shop situate in such trading area to open or keep open such shop for the serving of customers on any Sunday before a specified hour or after a specified hour; or

(ii) declare that it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of any shop of a specified class (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) situate in such trading area to open or keep open such shop for the serving of customers on any Sunday before a specified hour or after a specified hour;

and such order may contain different provisions in relation to different periods of the year.

(2) The following provisions shall apply in respect of every Sunday-trading (exempted area) order made in relation to a particular trading area, that is to say:—

(a) such order may relate to more than one class of shops and in that case may contain different provisions in relation to each class of shops to which it applies;

(b) such order may contain provisions authorising the serving of customers outside the hours specified therein in cases of emergency and such other cases as may be specified in such order.

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

(4) Whenever an area exemption order ceases to be in force then any Sunday trading (exempted area) order which relates to the whole or any part of the exempted area specified in such area exemption order shall also cease to be in force.

(5) Where —

(a) a Sunday trading (exempted area) order relates to two or more classes of shops, and

(b) a particular shop to which such order applies falls within more than one of the said classes,

the provisions of such order relating to one of the said classes within which such shop falls shall not be construed as affecting in any way the application to such shop of the provisions of such order relating to any other of the said classes within which such shop falls.

(6) Where two or more Sunday trading (exempted area) orders are applicable to the same shop nothing contained in any one of such orders shall be construed as affecting in any way the application to such shop of the other or others of such orders.

(7) If whenever a Sunday trading (exempted area) order is in force the proprietor of any shop to which such order applies acts in contravention of any of the provisions of such order which are applicable to such shop, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

The object of this amendment is to empower the Minister in cases in which he makes an order exempting shops in regard to Sunday trading to specify the hours. It may apply to the whole of an exempted area or to part of an exempted area. The order may make it unlawful for any particular shop or class of shop to keep open after a particular hour. There may be different provisions for different periods of the year. The Sunday trading orders may pertain to more than one class of shop to enable them to serve customers in case of emergency. It is provided that where an early closing order is in force, Sunday trading automatically lapses. Special provision is made for the case of the multiple shop. A shop selling exempted articles may not open until the latest named hour for the sale of any of the commodities sold.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Can the Minister make an exemption order for one particular Sunday?

Mr. Lemass

He can make an order revoking it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 52:—

In page 12, before Section 30, to insert the following new section: —

(1) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order (in this Part of this Act referred to as an hours of Sunday-trading (exempted businesses) order), do the following things, that is to say: —

(a) declare that a particular area specified in or delimited by such order shall be a trading area for the purposes of such order; and

(b) either —

(i) declare that it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of any shop (being a shop in which there is carried on any business which is for the time being an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act) situate in such trading area to open or keep open such shop for the serving of customers on any Sunday before a specified hour or after a specified hour, or

(ii) declare that it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of any shop (being a shop in which there is carried on any business which is for the time being an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act) of a specified class (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) situate in such trading area to open or keep open such shop for the serving of customers on any Sunday before a specified hour or after a specified hour:

and such order may contain different provisions in relation to different periods of the year.

(2) The following provisions shall apply in respect of every hours of Sunday-trading (exempted businesses) order made in relation to a particular trading area, that is to say: —

(a) such order may relate to more than one class of shops and in that case may contain different provisions in relation to each class of shops to which it applies;

(b) such order may contain provisions authorising the serving of customers outside the hours specified therein in cases of emergency and such other cases as may be specified in such order.

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

(4) Where—

(a) an hours of Sunday-trading (exempted businesses) order relates to two or more classes of shops, and

(b) a particular shop to which such order applies falls within more than one of the said classes, the provisions of such order relating to one of the said classes within which such shop falls shall not be construed as affecting in any way the application to such shop of the provisions of such order relating to any other of the said classes within which such shop falls.

(5) Where two or more hours of Sunday-trading (exempted businesses) orders are applicable to the same shop nothing contained in any one of such orders shall be construed as affecting in any way the application to such shop of the other or others of such orders.

(6) If whenever an hours of Sunday-trading (exempted businesses) order is in force the proprietor of any shop to which such order applies acts in contravention of any of the provisions of such order which are applicable to such shop, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

The object of the amendment is to empower the Minister to fix the hours of trading on Sunday for businesses which are exempted as regards Sunday trading. The other provisions are the same as in amendment No. 51. In line 5 of the amendment the words "exempted businesses order" should be bracketed. As it stands there is a misprint in that line.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 53: —

In page 12, line 42, Section 30 (1), to delete all words after the words "this Act" to the end of line 12, page 13, Section 30 (4), and substitute the following: —

"it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of any shop (other than a shop situate in an exempted area or a shop in which the only business carried on therein is a scheduled business or all the businesses carried on therein are scheduled businesses) to keep such shop open at any time on Sunday for the serving of customers.

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

(3) In this section the expression ‘scheduled business' means any business which either is an excepted business or is for the time being an exempted business for the purposes of this Part of this Act."

The whole of this section is being deleted. This amendment prohibits the opening of shops unless the shop is situated in an exempted area or is a shop in which the business carried on is a scheduled business. The term "scheduled business" is defined.

Section agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 54: —

In page 13, Section 31 (1), line 14, to insert after the word "where" the words "or vehicle from which", and in line 15 to insert after the word "place" where it occurs the words "or vehicle".

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

One thing struck me in regard to the question of the vehicle. It would be very difficult, I think, to have this notice posted on some travelling vehicles, especially if it is a hand-barrow being brought around a town. It would be very difficult to have the necessary notice relating to hours of employment and all that sort of thing posted on it. I think in such circumstances that an apple-cart, for instance, would be simply festooned with official notices.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will realise that it would be impossible to draw the line between the hawker you want to exempt and the shopkeeper you do not want to exempt, and you simply have to leave them all liable.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Take the case of a hawker carrying a basket. A hawker would not then be shoving a barrow.

Mr. Lemass

A lot will depend on the nature of the commodities offered for sale. Most of the persons engaged in street trading and hawking will be selling exempted commodities, with one or two exceptions.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I thought this was confined to "consumption on the premises." Suppose I buy an apple off a cart, I am not going to climb the cart to eat it; in that case I will have to consume it off the premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 55:—

In page 13, before the Second Schedule, to insert the following:—

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Businesses Permanently Excepted from Parts II, III and IV of this Act.

1. The business of selling by retail intoxicating liquors.

2. The business of selling meals for consumption on the premises, and, in the case of meals sold on railway premises, for consumption on trains.

3. The business of selling medicines or medical or surgical appliances when carried on by a person entitled to keep open shop for the sale of poisons under the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, as amended by the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment Act, 1890.

4. Post Office business.

This is the new schedule. It sets out the businesses permanently exempted from Parts II, III and IV of the Act. Formerly they were specified in each Part, but this is a simpler arrangement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 56:—

In pages 13 and 14, to delete the Second, Third and Fourth Schedules and substitute the following new schedule:—

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Exempted Businesses.

Part I.

Businesses for the time being exempted from Parts II, III and IV of this Act.

1. The business of selling refreshments (other than meals) for consumption on the premises and, in the case of refreshments sold on railway premises, for consumption on trains.

2. The business carried on at a railway refreshment room.

3. The business of selling newspapers, periodicals, books, magazines, or stationery.

4. The business of selling tobacco or smokers' requisites.

5. The business carried on at a railway bookstall on or adjoining a railway platform.

6. The business of selling motor, cycle or aircraft supplies or accessories for immediate use.

Part II.

Additional businesses for the time being exempted from Parts II and IV of this Act.

7. The business of selling meat, fish, milk, cream, or other articles of a perishable nature, or bread, flour confectionery, chocolates, sugar confectionery, table waters, ice cream, fruit, vegetables or flowers, or any toy or novelty in which chocolate or sugar confectionery is contained and which is sold with such chocolate or sugar confectionery as a single article.

Part III.

Additional business for the time being exempted from Part II of this Act.

8. Retail trade carried on at an exhibition or show if such retail trade is subsidiary or ancillary to the main purpose of the exhibition or show.

In this amendment we set out the businesses for the time being exempted from Parts II, III and IV of the Act. I wish to draw attention to a typing error in Part II of the proposed schedule. In paragraph 7 the words "flour, confectionery" are used. The comma should not be there, because the term is "flour confectionery."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Heron

Amendment No. 57 has been met.

Amendment No. 57, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McGowan

I move amendment No. 58:—

In page 13, Second Schedule, line 40, to delete the words "meat, fish."

This is to secure that the business of selling meat and fish should not be exempt; that the persons engaged in the business shall not be exempted from the liability to close on a half-holiday. I do not think there is any special case for meat or fish.

Mr. Lemass

The only point is that they are perishable commodities and there may be circumstances in which it would be unfair to require persons trading in these goods to close for a weekly half-holiday. We are arranging that any assistants employed would get the half-holiday. I gave this matter consideration and I came to the conclusion that it is wiser to leave the Bill in this form for the time being. There is power in the Bill to take these articles out of the Schedule if it were agreed that that was the wiser course, in which case a closing order in relation to shops selling these articles can be made. But, as a general indication of the line we propose to proceed on, I would prefer that we leave them there for the time being. I would not take them out of the Schedule without consultation with all the parties concerned and full consideration of the circumstances that might apply in different parts of the country, and which arise as the practice of the trade varies. My feeling is that it is wise to leave them there, so that before any decision can be made in relation to them, an order which will give full notice to everybody of the intention to effect a change in their position must be made, and adequate opportunities made available for consultation.

Amendment No. 58, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 59 not moved.

Question —"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"— agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Dillon

There are two matters that I think ought to be mentioned, now that this Bill is passing into law. One is that I should like to press very strongly on the Minister that both these Bills relating to shops should be enforced with the broadest possible latitude until the people concerned come really to understand their meaning. They are extremely complex measures and many perfectly bona fide persons will unconsciously break the law. What I want to impress principally on the Minister is this, that it is an extremely painful experience to an old and well-established firm to come into conflict with the law at all. It may appear to persons at headquarters that they do not mean to cast aspersions on a man's good faith by starting a prosecution. They may think it convenient to test out something by prosecuting a firm, never dreaming that it is any more offensive than an ordinary prosecution under the Acts which protect industrial workers — that it is some ordinary every-day affair. That is not true of a business establishment in a country town. A prosecution means to them very material embarrassment and may destroy a long record of honourable trading to which they attach very great importance, in that they have never been known consciously to come in conflict with the law.

The other matter to which I wish to refer briefly is this: All Parties in this House sincerely, I believe, desire to promote the social services and improve the general conditions under which all our citizens live. But we ought to remember always, when we are implementing legislation, that legislation of this kind does cost money; it does increase costs, it does put an added burden on the people who ultimately have to carry all the burden and all the cost. In so far as country shops are concerned, the bulk of the increased cost created by these Bills will fall on the shoulders of the country people. The shopkeepers will simply have to increase their margin of profit to meet the higher rates of wages and the superior conditions which these Bills impose. Some time ago I reviewed that with great alarm, because I felt that the agricultural community would be quite unequal to the strain.

Now, our Government is entering upon discussions which we all hope — and some of us have good reason to believe — will have a happy issue; and, in the light of that, I think we may venture on expenditure which we otherwise would have to weigh well in our minds. But I do want to urge, especially on the Labour Party, the recollection that every bit of this kind of legislation does cost money, and we, in this country, in our desire to combat what appear to us all to be abuses, ought not to make the same mistake that France has made, or the same kind of mistake the United States of America is in great danger of making — that is, of forcing costs up very rapidly without making due provision to finance these increased costs. Unless we keep the income of the people rising so as to meet the increased costs we by our legislation create, we are going to have a catastrophe such as France has encountered and such as America is threatened with at the present time, with this aggravating factor in our case, that the two countries I have mentioned, France and America, are immensely wealthy countries, with immense powers of recuperation. We are not. If we struck a storm, resulting from the imprudent raising of costs, without making adequate provision to finance them, it might so shake the whole economic structure that it would be impossible for any Party or combination of Parties to pull the country round without external help. We have nowhere to look for external help, and it would be a deplorable commentary on our excellent intentions that, in our desire for reform, we rushed ahead too fast without, at every step, making prudent provision not only for initiating the reforms but for maintaining them permanently. I do hope that, as a result of deliberations about to take place we shall be able to get from the national income all that will be necessary to provide for the reforms envisaged thus far. It will be a source of undiluted satisfaction to every side of the House if that is possible, but, at the same time, in view of the fact that the Minister has spoken of the probability of other measures on these lines coming before us, I do urge on the House to consider between now and the time when such measures may present themselves, the question of providing the wherewithal to finance this type of legislation and of remembering that the only people we can get it from ultimately is the agricultural community. Therefore, in addition to exerting ourselves to promote reform, all Parties, whether they represent agricultural interests or not, should earnestly concern themselves to promote the profit-making capacity of agriculture and the land, so that the community will have sufficient wealth to meet this type of call when we make such calls upon it.

Mr. Heron

I am sure the House is deeply obliged to Deputy Dillon for the lecture he has given the Labour Party and the Government. What relation some of it had to this Bill I do not exactly understand. He opened by appealing to the Minister to see that, as far as he could, considerable latitude, as he called it, was given in enforcing the provisions of this Bill. I happen to know that in the case of other legislation of this kind — for instance, the Conditions of Employment Act — employers have in a great many instances taken advantage of loopholes to evade their responsibilities. As regards compulsory holidays, certain employers, even here in the City of Dublin, have gone out of their way to dismiss employees just before the period which would qualify them for holidays had elapsed. I urge upon the Minister the importance of enforcing the provisions of this Bill. When a measure of this kind is passed, surely it is the intention of the House that it should be put into effect. I can see no meaning in Deputy Dillon's appeal that the Act should not be put into effect —

Mr. Dillon

Until the people come to understand it.

Mr. Heron

Does Deputy Dillon suggest that the law of the land generally should be put into effect only when all the people understand it? Deputy Dillon thought fit to deliver a lecture to us on conditions in America and France and to draw a parallel with conditions in this country. He referred to a state of collapse in America.

Mr. Dillon

In France.

Mr. Heron

The Deputy stated that America was threatened with a state of collapse as a result of legislation of this kind.

Mr. Dillon

"Threatened?"

Mr. Heron

Am I to take it that Deputy Dillon means that America has been threatened with economic and financial collapse only since America commenced to take an interest in social legislation — in other words, since the Roosevelt administration came into power? Surely, the reverse is the case. Surely, America was on the point of collapse when Roosevelt came forward to make some sort of effort, by social and other legislation, to pull it together. Again, in regard to France, I suggest that, prior to legislation of this kind being adopted, France was on the verge of revolution. I think that Deputy Dillon is wrong in his facts and still more wrong in his conclusions.

While I regret that the Minister did not see fit to adopt some of the Labour Party's amendments which, I believe, would have considerably improved the Bill, still I welcome the spirit and intention of the Bill, and I hope it is only one of many similar measures. I hope that it will be followed very quickly by a similar Bill to deal with workers in the transport and other industries not yet covered by legislation. So far as the general principles of the Bill are concerned, I welcome them and, unlike Deputy Dillon, I hope the Minister will do everything possible immediately to enforce the provisions of this measure.

Mr. McGowan

On the question of the enforcement of the measure, in all legislation of this kind — the Conditions of Employment Act, the Conditions of Employment (Shop Assistants) Bill and the present Bill — I think the Minister will agree that it does not matter what provisions are included to deal with detection or with the question of prosecution. You may provide all sorts of penalties but the only person who can give the necessary information and see that this measure and similar Acts are properly enforced is the employee. He is the one person who suffers and he is the person who should give the information.

In many cases, I think, he lacks a certain amount of moral courage and does not give the required information. That is due to one or two things. It has come out very strongly under the Conditions of Employment Act — the Minister, I think, referred to it in the course of the debate on these Bills — that an employee who becomes a little busy in detecting breaches of the different Acts and reporting upon them to the authorities is easily got rid of by the employer. He contrives that that employee will not remain very long in his employment. As long as you have that bogey, you might as well not pass these Acts at all. There is definitely one difference between the Hours of Closing Bill and the Conditions of Employment Bill. In the one case, you have shop inspectors enforcing it and, in the other, the Civic Guards. Deputy Dillon need have no fears of the Hours of Closing Bill. I think he is well known to the police, and I do not think the Guards will be unduly harsh with him.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy would have been more tactful if he had said "well and favourably known". There is a distinction.

Question put.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister very prudently makes no observations.

Question agreed to.