This amendment has been moved by Deputy Norton. It proposes to increase the allowance to be made in respect of board and lodgings to a domestic worker during the holiday period. This is a matter of very considerable difficulty, and I should like Deputies to approach consideration of it with due regard to all the circumstances that may arise. It is proposed in the Bill that a domestic worker—that is, a worker who gets, in addition to wages, either board and lodging or lodging only from an employer——
Committee on Finance. - Holidays (Employees) Bill, 1938—Committee Stage (resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 46.
On a point of order, Sir, I am obliged to direct your attention to the fact that the amendment has not been moved.
I think it was actually moved before the Committee adjourned.
Yes, the amendment was moved.
As I was saying, it is proposed in the Bill to allow to workers who are entitled to get as a reward for their labour board and lodging free from their employer, certain payments in addition to the wage agreements during the holiday period. It is almost impossible, I think, to apply general principles in a case of this kind for the purpose of determining the amount which should be allowed, because the circumstances of these workers vary considerably as between male and female workers, as between classes of workers, and even in respect of some classes of workers, according as to whether they are employed in urban or rural areas. At the same time, I think it is much preferable to fix some definite sum in the Bill and leave it at that rather than try to vary the allowance between classes of workers or areas of the country. The allowance fixed in the Bill is 1/- per day in the urban areas or 7d. in the rural areas. I recognise that that is not a very generous allowance, but I recognise also that many employers of these domestic workers will find it very difficult to pay more.
We have had the question of domestic servants in agricultural households raised here before. If we are going to give these domestic servants in agricultural households the right to annual leave and provide that they must get some payment from their employers in lieu of board and lodging, then I think we must have regard to the circumstances of the agricultural householders themselves and consider the amount which could be paid in cash by such people to their domestic servants during the holiday period. As most Deputies are aware, it is a much more difficult matter for certain types of agriculturists to make any payment in cash than to make payment in kind. They would find it a harder matter to provide 5/- or 6/- a week in cash than to provide board and lodging. That factor must, I think, influence Deputies in their decision as to the amount of the allowance.
I decided to propose the amount set out in the Bill recognising that in some cases it may be regarded as inadequate but feeling that it is the most that could reasonably be imposed. I had thought of alternative systems, of setting up tribunals, of allowing the district courts to be brought in, of having some form of external authority to determine the amount to be allowed in individual cases, but I think that would be a cumbersome and undesirable arrangement. We had an arrangement of that nature in relation to the Shops Act, but I am not sure that we were wise in that. I am certain that it would be unwise in the case of domestic servants. Therefore, the principle of fixing the amount in the Bill should be accepted by the Dáil. What the amount is to be has to be determined by our joint wisdom. I think the amounts in the Bill are reasonable, though by no means generous. They probably do not represent the actual cost of purchasing board and lodging which domestic servants receive in the average case, but at the same time we must have due regard to the circumstances of all the cases that must be covered by this part of the Bill. I am, therefore, disposed to resist Deputy Norton's amendment to increase these amounts.
Even though domestic servants only get 6/- or 7/- and board and lodging, I maintain that 7/- is not such a decent contribution to give these girls.
It is 7/- in addition to the wages that they would receive.
That is worth 13/- when going on a week's holidays.
That is so. After all, it is something over and above what they are getting now even when they get holidays.
The fact is that their board and lodging is often looked upon by certain employers as being worth more than the week's wages and still you are satisfied that 7/- is sufficient.
I am not satisfied, but I ask the Deputy to consider the case of the small agricultural householder who has to provide a holiday for his domestic servant. In the case of that householder, I think most Deputies will recognise that to provide a sum in excess of that would be a substantial hardship on the farmer, something that he would object to far more than the mere provision of the holiday in accordance with the general provisions.
Has the Minister seen the cost of maintaining people by the county boards of health?
I am not saying that this will maintain them.
Where does the Minister suggest they are to go for their holidays?
I recognise that it would not be possible for these people to provide themselves with a holiday for which they had to pay unless they were to save during the year for that purpose.
Let us take the other side of the question, where in connection with the wages fixed by the committee set up by the Minister for Agriculture, a farmer is permitted to stop at the rate of 1/9 per day from the worker for the food he gives him. Surely any farm labourer is in a worse position than a person who is able to keep a domestic servant. I suggest that what is asked for in this amendment is not unreasonable if we take into consideration what a farmer is permitted to deduct for the food which he gives to the labourer who is working for him, namely at the rate of 1/9 per day.
I am making no suggestion as to this being a generous allowance. There is nothing to prevent an employer giving more if he wants to.
Amendment declared lost.
Section put and agreed to.
Section 15 put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
With regard to Amendment No. 47 in the name of Deputy Dockrell, I would prefer to accept that amendment in principle and if he will let it stand over we will introduce an official amendment on the next day.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Is it proposed under this section to impose upon householders an obligation to hang up records and maintain anything like the same kind of records as are required under the Conditions of Employment Act?
It is difficult to answer that question straight away. The section as it stands merely gives the Minister power to prescribed the keeping of records. I would, naturally, try to utilise that power as little as possible and only where the circumstances proved it to be necessary to avoid evasions of the Act. In the case of householders it may prove to be necessary to have some positive step taken to make domestic servants aware of their rights. Apart from that, I do not think it would be necessary to prescribe records, but it may be that something like that will have to be done. However, my inclination would be against doing it unless the necessity for it were clear.
The evil inherent in such a proposal is that, if the Minister required certain notices or schedules to be exposed in a place in the domestic circle where they will be readily available to domestic servants, there will flow from that regulation an obligation on the Minister to enforce it, which means that inspectors will have to be rambling into persons' kitchens to see whether the notice is displayed or not. There is a provision that no inspector will have the right to enter your house unless the Minister certifies that there is good reason for it, but how is the Minister going to satisfy himself that these regulations are exposed, as he may ordain they shall be exposed under this section, unless he sends in to see? I think the Minister himself has recognised the danger of treating the domestic servant as you would treat the factory worker.
This section does not deal with domestic servants only. It deals with all classes of workers.
Quite. I am urging that we should except domestic service for the simple reason that you cannot make regulations without taking steps to see that these regulations are enforced. How you are going to make regulations concerning what is being done in my kitchen or the Minister's kitchen, without giving access to the inspectors to see that these regulations are going to be carried into force, I do not know. I think the Minister was wise when he indicated his unwillingness to trespass on the domestic circle under this Act. I think he should be reluctant to take power here to require householders, as he is requiring factory owners, to expose notices, because representations will be made to him that these regulations are not being enforced, that they are not being carried out by the householder and he will either have to say to the person making these representations: "It is impossible to enforce the regulation," or else take steps to enforce it. I do not think he will be able to say: "I cannot enforce my own regulation." If he takes steps to enforce it, he must authorise inspectors to enter a householder's premises and I think that is a very undesirable arrangement.
Clearly the Minister is vested with power to authorise an inspector to enter on private premises but an inspector would only have power to enter a private dwelling-house on a certificate from the Minister in each individual case that he has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. National Health Insurance inspectors have to deal with domestic servants. They have a much more onerous task, I imagine, than the inspectors under this Bill would have, and I do not know that the public have suffered much inconvenience in consequence of the activities of the inspectors of the Department of Local Government and Public Health in that connection.
Whether it is administratively necessary to have this power or not I am not in a position to say, but I do take this occasion to remind the Minister that it might lead to very grave abuse. If he does prescribe that certain notices must be displayed on the premises, a discontented domestic may complain on her being dismissed that the notice was never displayed, whereupon the duty devolves on the Minister to enforce the regulation. A complaint has been made and he is practically coerced into sending an inspector into the house.
That is a strong argument against making any regulation in respect of private houses, but this section deals also with every factory in the country. It deals with railway workers, and with every commercial and industrial undertaking as well as domestic servants.
That is why I say you should exclude domestic servants.
You have domestic workers other than workers employed in individual houses. Take big hotels and institutions of that kind. The workers there are domestic workers, and there need be no difficulty in having notices displayed in such places.
None whatever; but the Minister should divest himself of the power in respect to private premises, the domestic circle, or the ordinary household. I do not wish to press him, but I put it to him that he should not have power, and should not seek power, to require the display of statutory notices in a private citizen's own kitchen.
I should be rather inclined to put it, that he should not use the power unless some grave abuse had arisen.
That he should not take the power until an abuse arises which makes it necessary for him to come to the Dáil and ask for this power. If an abuse occurs the Dáil will give him the power.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(4) Every inspector shall be furnished with a certificate of his appointment, and on applying for admission to any premises or place for the purposes of the Act, shall if so required produce the said certificate to the occupier and to any person being examined by him.
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 48:
"In sub-section 4, page 18, line 45, to delete the word "the" where it occurs the second time and substitute the word "this."
This appears to be only a drafting amendment. I am not quite sure whether Deputy Norton had any other idea in mind. I am prepared to accept it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Minister in sub-section (2) provides that no inspector will do any of the things set out in sub-section (1) unless fortified with the Minister's certificate. Might I suggest that in addition to the issuing of this certificate by the Minister, a copy of the certificate should be furnished to the householder?
It must be produced by the inspector.
It must not be produced. It need only be produced if its production is required by the occupier of the house. I should like a provision to be inserted, either requiring the inspector to produce the certificate before the interview, or else requiring the Minister to issue one copy thereof to be furnished to the householder.
I shall have to consider that. If you have reason to believe that an offence has been committed, it is not always a wise thing to notify the offender that you are going, in due course, to find out whether he has committed an offence or not. I can see the possibility of that notice being served on an employer of a domestic servant and the employer dismissing the servant forthwith from the house, so that she would not be available when the inspector called. I should want time to consider the possibility of an abuse of that kind. I think if we provide that the inspector shall produce the certificate, whether required or not, it would be a sufficient safeguard.
That is all I want.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 18 to 21 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 22.
All expenses incurred in carrying this Act to execution shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
I move amendment No. 49:
To delete line 51 and substitute the words: "The expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Act."
That is merely a matter of drafting to bring the section into line with the standard form of words now used in similar sections in other Bills.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 24.
This Act may be cited as the Employees (Holidays) Act, 1938.
I move amendment No. 50:
In sub-section (1), page 19, line 28, to delete the words "Employees (Holidays)" and substitute the words "Holidays (Employees)."
That corrects a misprint.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule and Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
On this day fortnight.
When will the Minister give us his amendments?
I will try to get them circulated as early as possible. There is no desire on my part to rush the Bill at all. As I explained before, the Bill cannot conveniently be brought into operation, even if the administratative arrangements were completed, earlier than April or May of next year. Consequently, there is no desire to proceed more rapidly than the Dáil desires.
The point is that we would want an interval of at least a week after the Minister's amendments have been circulated.
I am quite agreeable to that if the business of the Dáil permits of such an arrangement.
Is it understood that on the next stage the Bill will be recommitted?
Yes.
Will that be a recommittal of the whole Bill, or of the amendments only?
I think that a recommittal of the amendments will be sufficient unless there is evidence of a desire on the part of Deputies to reopen general principles again. Assuming that there is just the volume of amendments which I expect from the discussion that we have had to-day, then I think a recommittal of the amendments will be sufficient. But if the desire for a recommittal of the whole Bill is pressed, I shall not oppose it.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 23rd November.