Certain amendments were inserted in this Bill by the Seanad. I do not know if they have been circulated.
Holidays (Employees) Bill, 1938—From the Seanad.
Yes, on pink paper.
I propose to ask the Dáil to agree to all the amendments.
When did we get them?
I do not know if they have been circulated yet. However, it is merely a matter now of announcing the Government's attitude on the amendments. I take it the discussion will not take place until to-morrow.
The Minister has merely announced that he proposes to accept the amendments. They will be discussed to-morrow.
I would ask the Minister to consider a point that may arise in the discussion to-morrow, or at least I suggest that the discussion to-morrow may present him with an opportunity to consider the point. A great difficulty has arisen in distinguishing between one type of employee and another, notably in retail establishments in rural Ireland. Does a yardman, commonly known as a "sacker", come under the Shop Assistants Bill or under this Bill? If that matter has been examined the Minister may be able to remove the doubts that have arisen on the question.
As far as this Bill is concerned it does not matter.
Why?
Because the same provisions are contained in this Bill.
No. He gets a week's holidays under this Bill and a fortnight under the other.
The only matter before the House at the moment is the Minister's announcement that he proposes to accept the amendments. The discussion will take place to-morrow.
I am merely referring to the point so that the Minister might consider it before to-morrow.
When the Minister was discussing amendment No. 2 in the Seanad yesterday, he is reported in the Press as having referred to the drift from the land and the nonsense that, in his opinion, is being talked about it. This is the report as contained in the Press:—
"Mr. Lemass, replying, said there was no subject on which more nonsense was talked than that of the drift from the rural areas. In a population such as ours there must be such a drift, and it would be unnatural and unhealthy to stop it. The number of persons employed in agriculture was no indication of the prosperity of agriculture."
I did not say that on the amendment.
The Irish Press says the Minister did.
A slight technical error. I said it in the debate on the final stage of the Bill.
I should like if the Minister would take the opportunity on this matter to clear any misconception that arises in the report or in connection with the fact——
The Minister will not be allowed to do so, unless it is relevant to some amendment. Neither may the Deputy discuss it now. Until to-morrow the amendments may not be discussed either by the Deputy or by the Minister.
The question was discussed by the Minister in the Seanad, bearing on amendment No. 2.
I made that statement in reply to a debate which I thought was rather irrelevant, on the final stage of the Bill.
When will the Minister take the opportunity of correcting the misconception?
I do not think there is any misconception there.
In view of the fact that 42,800 people have gone off the land——
The Deputy cannot get away with a speech on that subject now.
The Deputy will have other opportunities during the session of dealing with the drift from the land, and I shall demolish his fallacies as consistently as ever.
There is no fallacy in these figures.