Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1938

Vol. 73 No. 1

Holidays (Employees) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The main purpose for which this Bill was introduced was to make provision for holidays with pay similar to that contained in the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, and the Shops Act of this year for those workers not covered by these two earlier Acts. In connection with the drafting of the Bill, however, it became clear that it was desirable to repeal the holidays provisions of the 1936 Act and to re-enact them here in somewhat amended form, firstly, for the sake of clarity and, secondly, for the purpose of effecting some amendment in the provisions of the 1936 Act. Consequently, the Bill before the House is one designed to insure that all workers, with certain exceptions named, will be entitled to annual holidays with pay other than those provided for under the Shops Act of this year. It was found that it was not desirable to include the shop workers in this Bill also for various reasons, the principal reason being that we had not yet sufficient experience of the operation of that Act to know to what extent amendment was desirable.

The Bill, therefore, is a comprehensive measure. It is introduced to implement the Government's programme of improving the conditions of employment of workers. The first Act of the kind was that introduced in 1936 and it was followed by the Shops (Condi tions of Employment) Act of this year which related to shop workers. In considering this programme, it will, I think, be agreed that it is desirable to have as far as possible uniform and equitable treatment for all classes of workers. I think it will be readily appreciated by the House that it was a very difficult task to insure the realisation of that ideal because of the wide variety of occupations dealt with and the different circumstances under which workers have to work. However, the main idea was to give to every worker a statutory right to one week's holiday with pay in each year. If it were possible to arrange it, all workers would also get the right to holidays with pay on six public holidays, but everybody will agree that unless some classes of workers are employed on a public holiday, a free holiday for the others is not of very great benefit to them. In fact, in the nature of things, a holiday for many people means increased work for many other people.

There is also the case of domestic servants of whom it is estimated about 90,000 will benefit by the provisions of this Act. It was necessary to consider, and to consider very carefully, what was the best course to adopt for them. Many of them reside where they work and have no other homes. If the employers of these workers were obliged to send them away for a couple of weeks' holiday, the workers might have no place to go during that period. These cases are mentioned merely for the purpose of indicating the points which had to be examined, but as far as possible all circumstancees have been looked into, and the Bill, it is hoped, will be regarded as a fair solution of the problems inherent in carrying out a scheme of the kind. I submit the Bill as the Government's solution of these problems and I can say now that I am quite willing, and, in fact, anxious, to have the assistance of Deputies of other Parties in examining the measure and in effecting changes which, in the opinion of the majority of the House, may be necessary in order to make it more effective, or to eliminate the possibility of evasion or abuse.

As for the Bill itself, the workers coming within its scope are divided into two main classes, namely, non-domestic workers and domestic workers. We have defined the domestic worker in the Bill as a worker who is either entitled under his contract of service to free lodging either in his employer's house or elsewhere, and does work of a personal or domestic character in or about the dwellinghouse of his employer. All other workers are described for the purposes of the Bill as non-domestic workers. The non-domestic worker will be entitled to seven consecutive days' leave, including a Sunday, if he fulfils the same conditions as those laid down for industrial workers in the 1936 Act, namely, that he has been continuously employed for not less than 1,800 hours in his employment year. As in the 1936 Act, also, where a worker's employment ceases before the end of his employment year, a day's pay will be given in respect of each two months' employment during which he has worked 300 hours.

Mr. Corish

When the Minister speaks of domestic workers, he uses the phrase "his employer." Does this not apply to women?

Mr. Lemass

It does. I will use the term "his or her" if the Deputy prefers, but it is shorter to use the word "his." A day's pay will be granted to a person who has been employed for not less than a month and has worked not less than 150 hours in that month; but over a longer period it works out as a day's pay for two months' work. The qualifying period to which I have referred may be altered by regulation. As the Bill stands, young persons under 18 years of age can qualify for leave by working shorter periods, but I propose to amend the Bill in Committee by confining that to industrial workers. The Act of 1936 dealt with the hours of employment of industrial workers and, consequently it is necessary to make special provision, in relation to the holiday part of that Act, to deal with the case of juvenile workers whose hours were limited by another part of the Bill to 40 hours per week as against the 48 hours per week permitted in the case of other workers. In the case of the non-industrial workers who are covered by this Bill there is no limitation in this Bill of their hours of work and, consequently, we will have the same provisions relating to the qualifications for holiday pay or holidays in the case of juvenile workers as in the case of adult workers.

The principle of the employment year—a device which was adopted during the passage of the 1936 Act through Committee here—has proved very satisfactory in practice and, consequently, is adopted in this Bill. The employment year is a period of 365 days, commencing on the day upon which the worker last entered his employment or any anniversary of that date. Six public holidays are fixed in the Bill, namely, Christmas Day, St. Stephen's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and the first Monday in August. Certain Church holidays may be substituted for any of these days other than Christmas Day and St. Patrick's Day. Industrial workers who are prohibited by the 1936 Act from working on a public holiday retain their rights under that Act in regard to payment for those days. Other non-domestic workers who do not work on a public holiday must get a day's pay therefor. Such workers who work on a public holiday and do not get at least 25 per cent. above the normal rate of pay must get a day in lieu thereof within a month or an additional day added to their annual leave. The qualification for holiday pay is that the worker has worked not less than 150 hours during the five weeks immediately preceding the public holiday. A worker will get payment for a public holiday, even if he is dismissed before that day, provided that he has worked the number of hours mentioned, in the five weeks immediately preceding.

I have mentioned that we are repealing the corresponding provisions of the 1936 Act and re-enacting them here. There are certain reasons for that which I have mentioned briefly, and which, perhaps, I should refer to in greater detail. Certain classes of industrial workers did not get the benefits given by that Act to other workers, and which it was intended they should get, because of defects in some of its provisions. For instance, industrial workers who are prohibited from being employed on a public holiday got no compensation in respect of that day. Again, a worker may be working on that holiday and get no compensation. It has also come under notice that some employers have taken advantage of some of the provisions of the 1936 Act in order to deprive workers of benefits to which they are entitled. Sub-section 5 of Section 49 of that Act provides, among other things, that a worker must be in the employment of the employer on the working day next before the public holiday concerned, and must have worked in such employment not less than 20 hours during the six working days next preceding that day. By simply dismissing workers a day or two before a public holiday, some employers were depriving their workers of public holiday pay although the workers concerned had fulfilled the main conditions of payment. At Christmas time, when two public holidays occurred, that method was adopted in some cases. I should like to say, however, that that has not been the general practice with employers, or that employers, as a class, have tried to evade their obligations. On the contrary, employers as a class have entered into the spirit of the legislation and have co-operated with the Department in making that legislation effective An effort, however, is made in the Bill to remedy an abuse, if it may be so termed, of the character to which I have referred.

It was considered desirable, also, to clarify the position of workers who normally work a five-day week, a form of employment which is found in many industries. Taking all these factors into consideration, it was decided to bring industrial workers into this Bill and to repeal the provisions of the 1936 Act.

Mr. Corish

Would the Minister elaborate a little more as to what Section 7 is proposing to do with regard to the five-day week? Is not that the section which deals with the five day week?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. It means that the non-working day cannot be a public holiday or a substituted public holiday. A separate section had to be introduced with regard to the public holidays for industrial workers, as set out in Section 7 of the 1936 Act, where the ordinary six-day-a-week workers get a week's pay when a public holiday occurs.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister means a day's pay.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, pardon me—a day's pay. That is to say, if this section were not inserted, a five-day-week worker would get a week's pay, plus a day's pay, if the non-working day were to be a public holiday.

Mr. Corish

Supposing that a man worked five days to a Friday night and that St. Patrick's Day was on the Saturday, would he get paid for St. Patrick's Day?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Corish

That would mean hardship on the workers.

Mr. Lemass

Well, I do not know. I have got to get that clear.

Mr. Corish

Up to now he would not. However, I am only asking for clarification.

Mr. Lemass

At any rate, it became clear from our administration of the 1936 Act that some provision must be made to deal with workers who normally work a five-day week and get a week's pay for a five-day week. Their position was dubious and some section must be put in to deal with them. However, I think that we can deal more fully on the Committee Stage with the type of section that would be required.

Mr. Corish

It would be hard to determine whether a man gets a week's pay for five days, or five days' pay for five days.

Mr. Lemass

Well, there are industries where the normal week is five days. In fact, there are industries where, by Government regulation, a five-day week is the maximum of work, and consequently special provision must be made for workers employed in such industries.

Mr. Corish

One can visualise a situation whereby an employer—I am not suggesting that all employers would do it—might take advantage of this section to work his men only five days. On Saturday a man usually works three or four hours, and an employer might evade his obligation by putting a man on five days and cutting out his half day. Some of them might do it.

Mr. Lemass

Quite. I am not dealing with the case of the short week. I am dealing with an industry where a 40-hour or 42-hour week has either been imposed by legislation or is generally worked by agreement. In cases of certain industries that 40 hours' work may be secured by a five-day week, and in other cases by a shorter working day. In the case of the five-day worker some special provision will have to go in here.

Mr. Corish

Something will have to be done to define that clearly.

Mr. Keyes

A considerable number of workers are working a five-day week owing to depression in the industry, as in the case of the railways for instance. They are going to be penalised by this as against the advantage they had under the 1936 Act.

Mr. Corish

That is the point I want considered.

Mr. Keyes

They cannot work a full week. They can only work five days, and they are going to suffer another penalty under this. They do not get a week's pay. They only get five days' pay.

Mr. Lemass

I was dealing, I think, with the position of workers who qualified for public holiday pay, and did not get it because of defective provisions of the 1936 Act. The change being made in this Bill will, I think, cover this by making it sufficient for a worker to have worked 150 hours at any time during the five weeks immediately preceding the public holiday, in lieu of the provisions of the 1936 Act to which I have referred, namely that the worker should have worked on the day immediately preceding the public holiday, and for 20 hours in the preceding week. There is, of course, in this Bill no prohibition against working on a public holiday, except in the case of industrial workers already prohibited under the relevant section of the 1936 Act. That prohibition will still stand, and the workers prohibited from being employed will get paid for the public holiday.

As Deputies who have read the Bill will have noted, a different system for granting leave is fixed for domestic workers as compared with non-domestic workers. It is not proposed that those workers will get holidays with pay on public holidays. Instead, they will get seven consecutive days' leave, which is called semi-annual leave in the Bill, for each half-year's employment during which the worker was employed for 150 days continuously. It is open to the employer to give the domestic worker the full 14 days together, and satisfy the requirements of a whole year. It is necessary, I think, to stress that the seven days are in respect of a half year. I notice that a prominent leader of women workers, Miss Bennett, during the past week published in the Press a protest against granting only seven days' annual leave for domestic workers, and she made a case for the granting of fourteen days. In fact, Miss Bennett misread the Bill. The Bill provides for 14 days' annual leave for domestic workers. So as to meet the case of domestic workers whose conditions of service include board and lodging, the Bill provides that in addition to the ordinary pay such workers will get certain additional allowances set out in the Bill. Furthermore, if the worker does not wish to go on leave he or she, with the consent of the employer, may remain at work, subject to the provision of the payment of double pay. The usual provisions are made in the Bill for enforcement by inspectors of the Department, and by the worker himself, or by his trade union. A special provision has been inserted, however, so that an inspector cannot enter a private dwellinghouse for the purpose of enforcing the Act unless he has a special certificate.

In the main, as Deputies will have noted, the Bill is similar to the two earlier measures which the House has already discussed and passed. The changes are changes arising out of the different character of the employment which the persons covered by this Bill experience, as against those to whom the earlier Bills were confined. We have excluded certain persons from this holiday legislation altogether. I do not know that everybody will agree with our exclusions, but I think there is none of them in respect of which a good case cannot be made. We have confined the Bill to workers of a certain class by fixing a maximum rate of remuneration and excluding from the Bill persons whose remuneration exceeds that maximum—£350 a year. We have, of course, excluded from this Bill persons who are covered under the Shops Act, and also agricultural workers.

I think most Deputies will agree that it would be impossible to apply the provisions of this Bill to agricultural workers, or to those others who are mentioned here—sailors employed upon a sea-going vessel, a person employed in a lighthouse or lightship, members of religious orders, and, of course, also relatives of employers. The question of the relationship between workers and employers, and the extent to which it should be used to justify exemption from measures of this kind, was discussed before. Deputies will have noted that the provision here is the same as in the Shops Act, or in the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. I do not know if any objection will be offered to the principle of the Bill. I do not expect that there will be. The Act of 1936 and the Shops Act, 1938, were accepted in principle by all Parties in the House, although we had considerable discussion on the details. Those who accepted those Acts in principle will, I am sure, agree that their benefits should not be confined to the classes of workers to whom they related, and that similar benefits, at any rate in respect of annual leave and public holiday pay, should be conferred upon all other classes of workers. That is what this Bill proposes to do.

I recognise that there may be considerable difference of opinion as to the details of this measure. I expect that there will be. It was, in fact, a most difficult measure to prepare, and many of the provisions of the Bill were only inserted after fairly great hesitation. In other words, so many alternative courses of action offered themselves, all of which had something to recommend them, that it was very hard to make a clear decision as to which was best. I am quite certain that the doubts which I had and other members of the Government had in the discussions which took place between myself and the officers of the Department concerning those details will be reproduced here, because the number of minds that will be brought to bear upon those details will probably indicate the number of different opinions which will exist as to how best those problems can be solved. On those matters of detail I am prepared to accept the judgment of the House. In fact, I will welcome the suggestions and criticisms of members, because I know only too well how elaborate measures of this kind can be made ineffective by defects in their phraseology or in the scheme of administration. We have found those defects already in the 1936 Act, and, to the extent to which we have found them, we are remedying them, but the course of years will probably prove that we have not yet found them all, and that this Bill, no matter how carefully we attend to it, or how long it may take us to deal with the various sections of it, will also, in the course of time, prove to be defective in some regard. I, therefore, would ask the House to regard it in a sense as a non-controversial measure so that we can get the same type of very useful discussion upon it as we had on the 1936 Act and the 1938 Shops Act, both of which were very substantially improved by the amendments effected during their passage through the Dáil. I recommend the Bill to the Dáil in principle, and urge that it should be read a Second Time, so that we can get down to its consideration in Committee.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am perfectly prepared to accept the Minister's invitation. I accept this Bill as a non-controversial measure. I am conscious of the fact that it is a particularly difficult type of Bill dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases, each one possibly very dissimilar from the other. The principle enshrined in this Bill, as in some others, is the principle of, as far as possible, giving a reasonable holiday with pay every year to every worker. The fairness of the principle and the justness of the theory will be accepted by everyone of us. There is, however, room for a caution. We have got to be satisfied, when applying even a just theory or endeavouring to get fair play for individuals, that we are not creating a greater injustice or a greater hardship in other directions.

I speak with particular reference to the classes of domestic servants. If this Bill was applied to households that keep two or more domestic servants, in that type of household I could not possibly see that there was any hardship to anyone. Such people are comparatively well-to-do and reasonably able to pay holiday wages and allowances for two weeks a year to a maid. But when we come to the smaller type of household, the one-maid household —take the thousands of small landladies in the City of Dublin—it may be that hardship is being done there. Many of these people could not afford a week-end holiday for themselves in 30 years. Now they are asked to provide two weeks' holidays per annum with wages and 1/- per day allowance for their maid. I am merely raising, so that it can be looked into, the advisability of starting off by dealing with the type of household that has two maids or more and leaving the smaller household for a future Bill. I certainly agree with the principle of holidays, but it is hard to expect people who cannot afford a holiday themselves to finance holidays for another. That is one point that struck me about the Bill and I mention it for consideration.

Another is around the same question. This Bill provides a fortnight's holidays with pay and 1/- per day allowance for every domestic servant. You have thousands of juveniles from the country in domestic service in Dublin —young girls of 17, 18 and 19 years of age. The mistresses in most cases are responsible in the eyes of the parents for seeing that the girls keep good hours and attend to their religious duties, etc. Are those young girls now to be liberated on the City of Dublin, we will say, for a fortnight every year, to walk out of the house for a fortnight with a fortnight's pay and 1/- per day allowance? Is there any provision to ensure that that type of juvenile servant returns home? I suggest in the case of the juveniles that, together with the two weeks' allowance, the previous month's pay should be given and that the Minister or the mistress should insist on their return home.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not wish to make any more than a few remarks on this Bill, as, frankly, I have not given the study that I hope at a later date to give to this measure. The first thing I should like to ask the Minister is for as long a time as possible between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, because, with all due respect to the Minister and other members of the House, there are a whole lot of outside bodies who can bring their expert minds to bear on certain sections of it. It is really only now that the Bill is before the public, and I, therefore, ask the Minister to give as long as possible before the Committee Stage.

I rather agree with what the Minister said as to the provisions about the people who are dismissed before a holiday. Undoubtedly there were some people who did that, so that I think the Minister is right in his remarks, but whether what he has done is the correct way is another matter. For instance, Deputy Corish asked him a question about the five-day worker where a bank holiday fell on the other day. I did not catch the Minister's reply to that. It seems to me that there were at least two classes of five-day workers referred to in the discussion. For instance, Deputy Keyes referred to the six-day worker who has been reduced to five days. Then there is another class of worker. There is the case of a worker who is working, say, 44 hours per week, or there may be even cases where he is working 48 hours. He spends a considerable time in travelling each day, and it suits the worker and suits his employer for him to put in the 44 or 48 hours in five days in the week. That only serves to illustrate the differences which there are between even two five-day workers. I do not propose to offer any criticism of the Bill at the moment. As I said, I think I can agree with the Minister in saying that the principle is accepted, and, if he will give us as long a time as possible to examine it minutely, I think it will probably make for the subsequent speedy enactment of the Bill.

Mr. Benson

I wish to make only one remark, and it has reference to this five-day week question. This is the first occasion, so far as I know, on which legal recognition has been given to the five-day week, and, as I understand the section, it means that if the holiday falls on a non-working day it will not be regarded as a holiday and, therefore, another day will have to be given in lieu of it. If the Minister is going to do that, he should give a quid pro quo and alter the permissible hours under the Conditions of Employment Act so that those factories working a five-day week may work longer hours than factories working a six-day week. That principle has been given effect in the recent Factory Act passed in Great Britain. Under that Act, a five-day factory may work longer hours than a six-day factory. I put that suggestion to the Minister to be considered as a return for the five-day week.

Mr. Corish

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the Bill. It is easy to see that difficulties attended the drafting of such a Bill, and the Minister and his Department are to be congratulated on its production. As regards the five-day week, there is, as Deputy Dockrell pointed out, a difference. A man might work 44 hours or 40 hours as an agreed week over a period of five days and be paid a full week's wages. On the other hand, a man might work five days and be paid only at a certain rate for those five days. We want to avoid the victimisation of a man in that way. So far as I can see, by the proposal in this Bill to amend Section 7 of the 1936 Act, there is the possibility that an employer might abuse his position. I ask the Minister to try to get a form of words between now and the Committee Stage which will ensure that the worker will not be victimised in consequence of this amendment. We appreciate very much the number of extra workers who are being brought in by this Bill. Transport workers especially have been agitating for a considerable time for legislation of this kind. It was an anomaly, since the passing of the 1936 Act, that you had certain industrial workers in large firms getting holidays while carters in the same firms were not entitled to holidays. The same thing applies to clerical workers. This Bill regularises the position, and I hope that other workers who may not be covered by the Bill will be catered for in the near future. Again, I ask the Minister to try to simplify the position and make clear the intention in regard to the five-day week. As the Bill reads at present, it would appear that certain people who are entitled to a holiday under the provisions of the 1936 Act would have that right taken from them by this Bill when it becomes law.

Mr. Fagan

I notice that in one part of the Bill grooms will have to be given holidays.

Mr. Corish

No.

Mr. Fagan

Servant girls with small farmers will come under the Bill. Take the case of the small farmer who has five or six children. That man's wife is working from Sunday morning to Saturday night, and she has to employ a maid to feed the fowl and do other small jobs. That woman is expected to give her servant holidays. When the Shops Act came into force, it proved to be very unpopular and it had to be withdrawn. This Act will be more unpopular than the Shops Act was because the wives of small farmers who employ these girls have to work from one end of the week to the other and they never get a holiday. They will rise up in rebellion against the giving of holidays to their servant girls. What will happen will be that they will not employ them. This Bill will tend to reduce the employment of servant girls. People are crying out about keeping the girls and boys in the country. This Bill will tend to send a lot of them away because people will not employ girls to whom they have to give holidays when they cannot get holidays themselves. Many of the wives of small farmers have never had a holiday since their honeymoon—if they had one then. If they have to give servant girls holidays with pay, this Bill will be more unpopular than was the Shops Bill.

Mr. Gorey

I support what Deputy Fagan has said. This Bill deals mainly with workshops, offices and business premises, and, to that extent, we have very little to say to it; but when it comes down to the kitchen of every home in the country, quite a different principle is introduced, and a most undesirable principle. This sort of thing can be carried too far, and it is being carried too far in this Bill. Even if nobody else goes into the Lobby against the Bill, I shall do so. There are, we are told, 90,000 domestic servants in the country. That figure gives a fair indication of the number of kitchens which will have to be visited in the country. This goes beyond all reason. The only holiday, as Deputy Fagan says, that the farmer's wife ever has is her honeymoon. These women will be compelled to let their servants off for a fortnight, with pay, and give them subsistence allowance, while they themselves cannot get a holiday. That is carrying the thing too far. As I said, I shall go into the Lobby against the Bill even if no one else does.

Mr. Keyes

I endorse the appeal of the Deputy who asked for as long a time as possible between this stage and the next stage of the Bill. The Bill is one which is suited to Committee discussion. That was exemplified in the case of the Conditions of Employment Bill, which took up a considerable portion of the time of the House, and was much improved, as the Minister said, by the generous participation of all Parties in the attempt to make it as effective as possible. This Bill brings us a further stage towards the objective aimed at in the Conditions of Employment Act. The only thing which strikes one in connection with it is that the title is somewhat different. I thought that the title would follow the same lines as the Conditions of Employment Act, extending the advantages of that measure to some of the classes heretofore excluded. Even a cursory examination of this Bill will show that it affects the 1936 Act in five or six of its sections. Some of these provisions will have to be carefully analysed to see that workers do not lose something which they gained under the 1936 Act. Reference has been made to the five-day week, but this is not the time to enter into detail in connection with that provision.

I give the Bill a general welcome. Whenever any kind of social advance is being made, there are protests. We are told, in connection with every social advance, that it is going to lead to revolution and pauperism—to complete beggary and bankruptcy. The big firms employing large numbers of men who came under the Conditions of Employment Act survived the ordeal. Yet, we are asked to believe that a householder who employs one domestic servant will have to shut up shop completely if the domestic servant gets what every other section of citizens is getting—an annual holiday.

The domestic servants in my opinion are a most deserving class. In the matter of legislation they have few to speak for them and I am sorry to say that the conditions in which many of them work are scandalous. It is a pleasure to see this Bill brought in by the Minister and the Government. I join in the appeal of the Minister to all Deputies and all Parties in the House to regard this Bill in a non-contentious way. I think nobody could with reason get up and oppose the granting of an annual holiday to domestic servants. They are really domestic drudges and it is only right that their little salaries should be paid to them while on holidays. That surely will not bankrupt any of the people who are employing them. On behalf of the Labour Party and my colleagues, I welcome this measure. I would ask that sufficient time be given before the Committee Stage to enable necessary amendments to be drafted.

Mr. Brennan

There is a line of thought which Deputy Keyes has not followed but which I think many people in this House followed with regard to this Bill. That is the line of thought which will justify complete opposition to the Bill. There is no person in this House who wants to stand up as an opponent of holidays to any worker much less to domestic servants. But we have this situation: that the trend of all concessions in this country has been to non-agricultural workers. I am not blaming the Government for that. In a country like this where you have peasant proprietorship, where small farmers are hard workers as well as employers and are considered by some people as capitalists, you have the position that you cannot apply social legislation to them. When you do apply it there is the natural tendency to leave the land. Why not? At the present time we have a terrible outcry about the falling rural population. There is no doubt we have a falling rural population.

I do not want to be taken as opposing this particular Bill or as being an opponent of holidays to domestic servants. But I am putting this view to the Minister: that this method of granting concessions in a country like this has its own particular difficulties. Every concession you grant to people outside the land is an inducement to people to leave the land. There are fixed hours, fixed wages, fixed holidays with compulsory payment for people outside the land. Is it any wonder then the people are leaving the land? I think Deputy Fagan was perfectly right when he said there are in this country farmers' wives who have been drudging and slaving, carrying on their poultry business, their dairy business and minding families of six or seven children who need someone to help them in this work. Some of these farmers' wives have never had a holiday since their honeymoon, if they had one then, and that is doubtful. When the domestic servants get holidays is it any wonder that the neighbouring girls or the daughters of farmers feel that there is nothing in farming and that they must leave it? Is it not obvious that that would happen? It was obvious all the time that it would happen.

This Bill is going to be applied willy nilly to everyone, but there does not appear to be any consideration for the means of the people who will have to grant the holidays and pay for them. None at all. My experience of domestic servants is that they always get holidays wherever they have sought them. Their mistresses were only too glad to give them holidays, but once you had it laid down that there are certain concessions accruing to people who leave the land, then that is an inducement to them to do so. I am not going to go into the Lobby against this Bill, but I am warning the Minister and this House that legislation of this type which is designed for people who are off the land is going to have an ill-effect on work on the land and upon people who live by the land. Deputies can imagine—but some of them perhaps cannot—the dull slavery there is in the lives of people working on the land and working the soil, and they can imagine perhaps the glamour and the advantage there is in fixed hours of work, fixed wages and fixed holidays. If they can imagine these things they will realise the danger the country is up against. That is my view, and I hold it very strongly. I think domestic servants should get their holidays. I think they have always got them, but we ought to be very careful in dealing with peasant proprietorship where you cannot offer them the same facilities that other people have. We ought to be very careful of what we do in awarding concessions to people who are not workers on the land.

Mr. McGovern

There is one section in this Bill to which I would like to call the Minister's attention. That section defines holidays for non-domestic workers who are not industrial workers. These holidays are defined as Christmas Day, St. Stephen's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and the First Monday in August. Church holidays may be substituted for those public holidays. I do not see why Church holidays could not have been substituted right away for these holidays. Why not give Church holidays a preference? I think that would be a very right thing, and I would recommend the Minister to make that change in the Bill now. There is another section in the Bill, Section 11, which provides penalties for anyone on holidays doing work for pay. Such people are liable to very heavy penalties if they work. I notice that in recent legislation going through this House it has been made a very heavy offence to work. But the Minister and everyone else should bear in mind that this country is consuming £20,000,000 worth more than it is producing and that it is more work and not less work that is needed. It should not be an offence to work in any case. In this country it should not be made an offence to work whether on holidays or not. The liberty should be there to every citizen to work if he likes during his holidays. A man should be free to use his holidays as he wishes. The Minister should consider these points, especially the point with regard to Church holidays rather than public holidays.

Mr. Cogan

In connection with this question of holidays, I think there is general agreement that as far as possible the principle of public holidays for workers should be accepted. But there are exceptions to every rule, and the Minister in this Bill has been forced to make exceptions. He has been forced to exclude agricultural workers from the provisions of this Bill. I can well believe that he has been forced to make this exception because the agricultural worker is living in an atmosphere in which there are no holidays for those working with them.

Since the Minister has been forced to exempt the agricultural worker from the right to holidays under this Bill, I would suggest that all workers on agricultural holdings, male and female, should be exempt. Everybody must realise at the present time that the people who are carrying on work on the land, and who are making it possible to carry on production, are mainly people who get no holidays or who get no wages. They are the farmers' wives, the farmers' sons and daughters, and the farmers' relatives working on the farm. I do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose or that it would serve the interests of domestic workers in rural areas to grant them compulsory holidays. I believe that any interference with employment in rural areas would only tend to create more unemployment. At the present time, farmers are finding it very difficult to employ anyone outside their own families and relatives. I think if the Minister would exempt from this Act domestic servants who are employed on agricultural holdings or, at any rate, such servants who are employed on agricultural holdings where there is no other servant employed, he would make the Bill more acceptable to the people generally.

Mr. Fagan

Are groomsmen entitled to holidays under this Bill?

Mr. Lemass

It is proposed to give them that right under this Bill.

Mr. Fagan

Is the Minister not aware that there are many farmers in the country who employ only one man and who have to insure that man as a groomsman, as he may have to train horses or to attend to a sire? He is a man who works on the farm generally. I think these people should be excluded from the Bill, because they are semi-agricultural labourers. It would be a great hardship to farmers if they were compelled to give such men holidays.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to say that here are our proposals, but there is none of them to which we are so closely wedded that we are not prepared to consider any amendment that may be brought forward on Committee. If the Deputy wishes to have that point raised he can bring forward an amendment. I can then give my reasons as to why I think they should be excluded from the definition of agricultural worker, and the Deputy can give his reasons as to why they should be included. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to be guided by the general volume of opinion here. The principle of the Bill is that holidays with pay should be secured for the classes of workers not already covered by existing legislation. I recognise that there must be exceptions in the application of that, but the question is: where are we going to draw the line? Whom are we going to exclude? These are matters upon which there can be as many opinions as there are individuals in the House.

In framing the Bill I had often very grave doubts as to whether the particular proposals that were ultimately embodied in it were the best. In these circumstances, it is quite clear that any reasonable proposition made by any member of the Dáil will have to be fairly considered. A suggestion has been made that there should be a protracted period between Second Reading and the Committee Stage. I am not so sure that that is the wiser course. Deputies who were members of the last Dáil will remember that previous Bills of this character could not be disposed of in one Committee Stage. Ultimately we agreed that it was best to have an ordinary Committee consideration and, arising out of it, many ideas were ventilated and many suggestions were made which had to be examined. Then we had a recommittal of the Bill and further consideration of it in Committee. I think it would be necessary to adopt the same procedure in relation to this Bill. I would suggest that we fix the Committee Stage, say, for this day fortnight. I would not press to have it taken then if there is other business available for the Dáil, but if it should prove that the Committee Stage could be begun on that day, we could proceed with the examination of the Bill. If the volume of amendments subsequently appearing should be so great, I shall move to recommit the Bill on Report, so that there will be ample opportunity for putting forward any proposals for alteration in the text of the Bill.

Two special types of cases have been referred to—the domestic servant case and the five-day-a-week worker. So far as domestic servants are concerned, I confess that I had very grave doubts as to whether it was wise to include them in the Bill. I certainly considered the matter for a long time. I did so, not so much because of the objections to which Deputies opposite have referred, but to the feeling I had that it would be a matter of great difficulty to enforce the provisions of the Bill in relation to that type of worker. I had also in mind, not so much the domestic servant employed in lodging houses in Dublin, about whom personally I have no doubt, but the case to which rural Deputies have been referring—domestic servants employed upon an agricultural holding. In respect to them, I can see at once that many considerations can be advanced in favour of their exclusion from the Bill. In the end I decided against it, but I will admit that it was not a very firm decision on my part and, if Deputies care to move amendments to exclude that particular type of servant, I shall be prepared to consider them, though I think Deputies are looking at the matter from a one-sided point of view at the moment.

It is quite true that the actual amount of work done by a housewife is probably greater than the amount done by a servant in such houses but Deputies should remember that it is much more pleasant to work as mistress in your own house than as a servant under a mistress, even though you may receive no wages. There is a very substantial difference between the conditions under which the servant and the mistress work. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that the State should intervene for the purpose of fixing certain minimum conditions for such workers or for the purpose of protecting that type of worker. If employers are not prepared to conform to these conditions then they cannot have the benefit of employing persons of that class at all. In the early history of social legislation in this country, the case always arose where you had to ask yourself whether the benefits that were being conferred on one class outweighed the disadvantages that were being inflicted on others. I mentioned here before the case of a British Minister who introduced legislation to prohibit the employment of women underground in mines. He thought that he had achieved some great social reform but when next he visited a coal-mining district the women who had lost their employment in the mines were so incensed that they nearly lynched him. Yet nowadays nobody would suggest the repeal of that legislation in order to permit the employment of women as coal-miners. In this regard you have got to make sure that you are moving in the right direction and if you are sure of that, there is no reason why you should not go forward. In the great majority of cases, domestic servants do get holidays at the moment and there is no objection to giving them this statutory right. I have no doubt whatever that it is desirable that they should be given that privilege. I am prepared to argue in favour of domestic servants getting the privilege, even though, as you go down the scale, you come to the point where it is very hard to distinguish between the domestic servant and the employer so-called. You have to draw the line somewhere, and we will all differ as to where it should be.

The case of the five-day workers, which has been referred to, is a complicated matter, it is true. The 1936 Act gave to these five-day workers a rate of payment in respect of public holidays even though they would not have worked on that public holiday at all because of the fact that their employment was limited to a five-day week. They have got that, and because of that I admit at once that it is not going to be easily taken away. Quite clearly we did not intend to make it apply that way. What we intended to provide in a week on which a public holiday occurred was that the worker should get the same wages as he would have got if no public holiday occurred. In other words, that the occurrence of the public holiday was not to be a serious loss to the worker. We provided that in the case of the six-day worker but in the case of the five-day worker, when a holiday fell upon a non-working day we did more than we intended. We provided that even though he got a full week's wages, the wages that he would get in a normal week, he got more than that—he got an additional day's pay for the public holiday even though he would not have to work on that holiday at all.

The proposal in the Bill is to put that right: to provide that these five-day workers get what the six-day workers get, a normal week's wages in a week in which a public holiday occurs. I know I am in a weak position. Even though the five-day worker got that because of a mistake, the proposal is to take it back from him, and that is not an easy thing to do in any circumstances. However, we can discuss that more fully when the case arises on the Committee Stage.

I was rather surprised to hear Deputy Brennan say that all our social legislation conferred benefits on urban workers and not upon agricultural workers. I do not think the Deputy could possibly have given a moment's thought to the history of social legislation in this country before making that remark. Surely, the whole history of our social legislation proves the very reverse. Would the Deputy name any of our social services which do not extend to the rural areas and to the agricultural workers? They were all extended to them at great difficulty and at considerable expense from public funds when the easier course would have been to apply them to urban workers only who can more easily organise. With great difficulty and always at great expense, all our social services have been extended to cover agricultural workers and the rural areas. You have old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, housing subsidies, national health insurance, unemployment assistance, and all the other social services. Everyone of these applies to the agricultural workers. In fact, their application to agricultural workers is frequently the main item in the cost of them. Deputy Brennan made a statement which he may think may sound very well in the ears of farmers, but it does not happen to be true. In this particular case we are not extending the provisions of this measure to agricultural workers. Acts for the regulation of the conditions of employment for agricultural workers are a different matter to Acts for the regulation of conditions of employment for non-agricultural workers. A measure has been passed by the House for the fixing of wages and conditions of employment for agricultural workers. The Minister for Agriculture took responsibility for it. If a measure of this kind is to be applied to agricultural workers, then I think that should be done through legislation promoted by the Minister for Agriculture after consultation with those who are more familiar with agricultural conditions than I am, or the officers of my Department. We are more familiar with the conditions of urban and non-agricultural workers. An extension of this legislation to agricultural workers could best be done by an extension of the Agricultural Wages Act. That is something that would have to be very carefully considered, because, as rural Deputies know much better than I do, the work of an agricultural labourer depends upon factors other than the desire of his employer to have regular hours. It depends upon the seasons of the year, the state of the weather, and quite a number of other factors, factors which do not enter into the regular output which a cigarette-producing machine is capable of and which permits of the regulation of the conditions of employment of those who attend that machine.

The exclusion of the agricultural worker from this Bill was not intended to enforce a distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural workers or to intimate to the agricultural worker that he is regarded as being of less importance in the eyes of the State than the other. Quite the reverse. Practical difficulties were involved which also necessitated, for example, the exclusion of sailors and the other classes mentioned in Section 2. On the general question of the applicability of social services to rural areas, I say then that they all apply to the rural areas, and I hope that it will always be the policy of the Government in office to see that they continue to apply.

Mr. Brennan

I did not mean what the Minister has said at all. When I referred to social legislation I was referring to that type of social legislation which means fixed hours, wages and holidays. I did not say agricultural workers, at least, I did not mean agricultural workers. I meant, if you like, agricultural proprietors, small farmers and people like them to whom these things do not apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 9th November.